Monday, May 30, 2016
Thursday, May 26, 2016
Tuesday, May 24, 2016
OKC
Playing a beautiful muscular game at both ends of the court and embarrassing the mighty Warriors. It would be nice to see the Dubs give them just a little competition.
Thursday, May 19, 2016
Tuesday, May 17, 2016
Fungible
One important implication of the standard consumer choice model in economics is that in-kind transfers should have the same effect on spending as giving cash, at least if the transfer is small enough relative to the overall budget.
The logic is simple: If I give you $200 per month in food stamps, and you were already spending at least $200 in cash on food, you can use the food stamps to free up the $200 in cash that you were spending on food, and spend it on what-you-will. I may as well have given you the cash. In particular, there is no guarantee that your spending on food will increase by a single penny, although most likely it will go up by at least the portion of an additional $200 in cash that you would have devoted to buying more food.*
This logic applies to targeted grants from the federal government to local jurisdictions as well, and the case of federal funding for schools is an interesting and rather sad example. Best of luck, Secretary King, getting those federal tax dollars to the poor schools and deserving students that really need the help. Shame on the lobbyists, and shame on the school districts for diverting the grants to the rich kids. Still, as an economist, what else could I expect?
* I don't deny here the finding of behavioral economics that people don't always treat cash and in-kind transfers as completely fungible. The basic principle is still important.
The logic is simple: If I give you $200 per month in food stamps, and you were already spending at least $200 in cash on food, you can use the food stamps to free up the $200 in cash that you were spending on food, and spend it on what-you-will. I may as well have given you the cash. In particular, there is no guarantee that your spending on food will increase by a single penny, although most likely it will go up by at least the portion of an additional $200 in cash that you would have devoted to buying more food.*
This logic applies to targeted grants from the federal government to local jurisdictions as well, and the case of federal funding for schools is an interesting and rather sad example. Best of luck, Secretary King, getting those federal tax dollars to the poor schools and deserving students that really need the help. Shame on the lobbyists, and shame on the school districts for diverting the grants to the rich kids. Still, as an economist, what else could I expect?
* I don't deny here the finding of behavioral economics that people don't always treat cash and in-kind transfers as completely fungible. The basic principle is still important.
Sunday, May 15, 2016
Running for Faculty Senate President
That would be me. It seems natural, and almost obligatory, that I would, after many years of involvement in University and faculty politics and affairs, and after many years of declining past nominations. Time to step up. I think I can do a good job.
I last ran for president in 1974, when I was defeated for high school student council president by Pete Fitzsimmons. Pete was a track star and a really smart kid (went to Harvard), and a good guy. As I recall I received about 40% of the vote. Did I have a platform? An ideology? What were the pressing issues at E.O. Smith High? All I really remember is that I had been a born-and-raised "liberal Republican" in the Lowell Weicker mold, but by the end of high school I was drifting leftward, soon to be promising raw material for the Marxist economists and Frankfurt School philosophers I would gravitate toward at UMass.
Is my current run merely a search for redemption, affirmation? Are you reading this, Fitz? And what do I stand for now? I can answer that. The teaching-scholar model. The university as open institution, run transparently and democratically. Fairness and participation. Mom and apple pie, I suppose. Welcome to Washington, Mr. Smith.
I last ran for president in 1974, when I was defeated for high school student council president by Pete Fitzsimmons. Pete was a track star and a really smart kid (went to Harvard), and a good guy. As I recall I received about 40% of the vote. Did I have a platform? An ideology? What were the pressing issues at E.O. Smith High? All I really remember is that I had been a born-and-raised "liberal Republican" in the Lowell Weicker mold, but by the end of high school I was drifting leftward, soon to be promising raw material for the Marxist economists and Frankfurt School philosophers I would gravitate toward at UMass.
Is my current run merely a search for redemption, affirmation? Are you reading this, Fitz? And what do I stand for now? I can answer that. The teaching-scholar model. The university as open institution, run transparently and democratically. Fairness and participation. Mom and apple pie, I suppose. Welcome to Washington, Mr. Smith.
Friday, May 13, 2016
The gardener
It's hardly surprising to learn that Emily Dickinson was a master gardener. And oh, to take a stroll through her garden! But I have to believe that ED would have created revolutionary poetry in teeming Manhattan or ashy London or bohemian San Francisco or even on a remote lonely outpost on Mars. All she required was her brilliant mind, her discerning eye, her musical ear, and the glorious medium of the English language.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)