tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110014885778996459.post2206430418554333255..comments2024-03-29T04:50:03.060-07:00Comments on Idiosyncratic Whisk: The path to shared prosperity is lavender, pt. IIKevin Erdmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07431566729667544886noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110014885778996459.post-91863688073927396722016-08-05T14:00:36.608-07:002016-08-05T14:00:36.608-07:00I agree, the intellectual homogeneity is stifling,...I agree, the intellectual homogeneity is stifling, as well as self-perpetuating. I think an honest scholar, even if he is completely convinced of his intellectual opponents' wrongness, should still want or even demand that they have a presence in the academy so as to keep him and his colleagues honest and at the top of their game. A mind that isn't challenged regularly atrophies, as does a worldview I think. Just like a market devoid of competition. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05304562429125649037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110014885778996459.post-22385902332669739042016-08-05T13:22:46.857-07:002016-08-05T13:22:46.857-07:00Yep. Probably best not to think too much about it...Yep. Probably best not to think too much about it. The op-ed is an exercise in straw-manning. The saddest part is that the academy outside of economics and some applied sciences has become so homogenous, I suspect the authors don't know they are straw-manning.Kevin Erdmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07431566729667544886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110014885778996459.post-63744883770538683882016-08-05T11:37:47.774-07:002016-08-05T11:37:47.774-07:00"We should remember that the key drivers of g..."We should remember that the key drivers of growth are science, education and innovation, not low taxes, lax regulations or greater exploitation of natural resources."<br />This snippet from the NYT authors is pretty troubling to me. It suggests they don't know what economic growth is. We're talking about how much stuff is being produced and consumed, not how much could be be produced given current technology. If we outlaw or restrict the production of a good that we are perfectly capable of producing with current technology, we are most definitely causing economic decline, without doing any damage to technological capabilities. And vice versa, removing impediments to production and trade of goods we already know how to produce is every bit as valuable as improving the technological capacity to produce.<br /><br />I only skimmed the article, but did the authors try to argue that the 'red state' regulatory regime is conducive to more resource-intensive economies? Or the other way around? Because either seems dubious to me. Hong Kong is more 'red state' than 'blue state' and it's a commercial center with very little focus on resources, while its more 'blue state' neighbor, the mainland, has a very resource intensive economy. The same can be said for Singapore and Malaysia.<br /><br />It seems like beneath the political tropes, the kernel of the op-ed's point is this: public investment is more productive than private investment. Referring to scientific research and education, particularly. In terms of education, I would dispute that the amount of money invested in education in a given city correlates strongly with productivity of that city's labor force in this country. Also, though people often point out that only a small fraction of private investment goes to research, the same is true for public investment (especially when we exclude publicly funded research in fields with little to no economic value). And of course we can't just compare dollars spent, that's not a measure of actual value. A billion dollars spent on a particle accelerator may well be less economically productive than 10 million spend on private pharmaceutical research.<br /><br />Sorry for ranting. Good post. I agree with Chuck, can't wait for the book. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05304562429125649037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110014885778996459.post-20753750808065394532016-08-05T08:22:43.700-07:002016-08-05T08:22:43.700-07:00I agree. It may have been an error to write it th...I agree. It may have been an error to write it that way. I was using the same language that the op-ed had used, in part to highlight the bias in their language.Kevin Erdmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07431566729667544886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110014885778996459.post-79822027741089688582016-08-05T01:16:59.026-07:002016-08-05T01:16:59.026-07:00"There is one, and only one, way to get there..."There is one, and only one, way to get there - lax regulation on residential housing where those valuable little cubes reside."<br /><br />Love the post...disagree with language. Not "lax regulation." Some regs are necessary, such as on releasing carcinogens into the environment or trading nuclear weapons with an enemy.<br /><br />Property zoning is about depriving property owners of their rights and restricting free market development, uusually to the advantage of property owners already ensconced. It is not "lax regulation" to put free markets to work.Benjamin Colehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14001038338873263877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110014885778996459.post-61960805010927199142016-08-04T12:46:19.098-07:002016-08-04T12:46:19.098-07:00Working on it!
Thanks, Chuck.Working on it!<br /><br />Thanks, Chuck.Kevin Erdmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07431566729667544886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110014885778996459.post-37096451397441796252016-08-04T11:42:13.659-07:002016-08-04T11:42:13.659-07:00Man, if I could find a way to put this before the ...Man, if I could find a way to put this before the eyes of so many people. Write that book, damnit!Chuck Ericksonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04313247742305688489noreply@blogger.com