Feed on
Posts
Comments

Did you ever wonder why we say congratulations to everyone who graduates. That’s a bit odd. In any event, a hearty congratulations to the students who took themselves and their education seriously for four years, and who used this time to think hard, to make great friends, to begin a lifelong journey of learning, and who do have a higher purpose in their lives than pleasing themselves. You know who you are, or at least you folks are too humble to admit it. I would like to leave my students with the following thought upon graduation. I hope they don’t come away from learning with me thinking that I know much of anything, or have answers to many things, or even that the world I would prefer to live in would in any way resemble some kind of utopia.

No. 

My hope is to have (help? develop?) students who don’t take words at face value; who are not ruled solely by emotion; who understand how to make an argument (or at least know that they should try to); who think hard about why they believe what they believe and do not believe; who are good to others; and so much more. I leave you with one of my thoughts from Hayek that have impacted me in my journey through life. And please don’t mistake this for an idolizing of Hayek. I certainly admire and respect him, but that’s where it has to end.

Godpseed to you.

Freedom granted only when it is known beforehand that its effects will be beneficial is not freedom. 

If we are to be generous to the ideas of those who are concerned about obesity in America, you would argue that there are two reasons for the worry. First, people might reasonably be concerned about the impacts of your obesity on them. In other words, there are external costs of obesity that the obese themselves are not taking into account when making health choices for themselves. You might be tempted to argue that these costs include psychological ones – that the larger the share of the population is obese, the more acceptable obesity is, which increases the chances that I myself may fall into the obesity trap. Your mileage may vary with that story, but there it is.

A second approach would be more standard economics fare – that being obese imposes true costs on people that they do not account for when they make health decisions for themselves. So, when a potentially obese person is thinking about downing an extra bucket of fried chicken, they do not consider the fact that when they walk down the sidewalk in the future there will be less room for everybody else. Some folks may even be forced near the curb and their chances of getting hit by a car or falling down a sewer grate are much larger. Since these folks never had a say in their displacement on the sidewalk, you might justify an intervention in obesity on those grounds. That conclusion does not follow despite what some intermediate microeconomics textbooks may preach to you.

However, these are rarely the two reasons people use to justify a “concern” for the obese or better stated, a concern for the issue of obesity. And as such, if we want to have an adult discussion of what to do about obesity, we need to be honest about the fact that we are largely making value judgments or that our concern is a consequence of other interventions that we’ve chosen to make. On the latter, it’s pretty clear that some people are concerned about obesity because, to paraphrase something I hear time and again, “we all pay for it.” Well, that can only mean that when someone is obese, they get sicker more often than a non-obese person, but it also means that when they get sicker the costs of treating them are larger, and that the overall medical costs of obese people are larger than non-obese people. Now, as we’ve explored before, this is NOT at all obvious. Despite the fact that my wife works on an ICU floor where nearly all of her patients have problems related to obesity, that tells us little about the right probabilities to look at – not all sick people are obese. It may very well be the case that being obese makes you die sooner than otherwise. It may very well be the case that the chronic diseases that afflict the obese are less costly to treat than the chronic diseases most of us are going to end up getting. So, just saying “obesity is costly” is merely a starting point at best. And remember, this is ONLY an issue if for some reason we are all forced to pay for the medical expenses of each other.

You might say that this point is not just germane to things like ObamaCare, Medicaid, Medicare and the VA. But you’d be wrong. Private insurers are not stupid. They have actuaries. If the obese are more costly to treat over their lifetimes, premiums would raise to reflect that. But of course, we’ve managed to regulate insurance in such a way as to make that impossible. So we’ve really converted “private” insurance into a de facto public “insurance” program that resembles prepaid medical care more than it does insurance.

A second reason people nominally claim to care about obesity is the idea that “we are just trying to prevent people from hurting themselves.” In other words, this is the traditional paternalistic justification for involvement in anything. I’d note that there is little economics here, and in fact little analysis done to justify the claims. To see why, let’s ask a few questions about obesity. Do you think folks that are obese or overweight are unaware of it? Is it plausible that they continue in their daily lives as their clothes get more tightly fit, as their cars get less comfortable, as they get more out of breath from walking, etc. and not notice it? Not at all plausible. Or how about this? Do you think folks that are overweight are unaware of the potential health risks from being overweight? Is it the case that “society” is silent on the risks of diabetes and heart disease? Do Cheerios not advertise that they are heart healthy? Do health food stores not exist? And what, exactly, is being taught in schools for 13 years about health? That being obese is great? Sorry folks, totally implausible.  How about this? Do you think that folks who are obese delude themselves into thinking that their wages and job advancement are improved by their condition? That when being compared to a fit person, someone who is obese thinks they have a better chance of securing a job as a delivery person, or a lawyer, or any number of jobs? Finally, do you think that the obese are somehow led to believe that they are deemed attractive by the majority of society? Do you think they believe they are the envy of society? I’ve got an ice cube to sell you if you believe any of this. Of course not. The obese are the object of jokes, scorn, ridicule, magazine covers, and much more. They are the subject of this very article. This is not revolutionary.

So, what, I ask, could possibly be the reasons folks concern themselves with obesity? I’ll suggest three. First is that it is simply something to talk about. I use to pooh-pooh those kinds of insights until I started working professionally on a college campus. Or visiting McDonalds for early morning coffee. But people need something to Bullshit about. They really do. And this seems something that is interesting to bullshit about. Like the weather.

Of course, I don’t think that is the primary reason folks are whooped up about obesity. The second reason is that we are all “getting revenge” for getting stuffed in lockers in high school. What do I mean by this? Well, about the only thing I can see in common in the obesity literature is the “holier than thou” attitude of many of the authors. They simply have a need to feel superior. They have a need to tell people what is good for them. They have a need to impose their view of the world on others. Please do try to convince me otherwise. And this is not unique to the obesity crusade, but many other crusades as well.

Finally, from reading student paper after student paper, and from reading magazine article after magazine article, it’s pretty clear to me that there is a huge anti-corporate “bias” at play here. The narrative is delicious. “McDonalds is making us fat!” Big Agriculture is pushing modified corn sugar. Big food companies are pushing unhealthy processed foods on all of us. And so on. Leave aside the issues of individual autonomy and sovereignty for the moment. But these sorts of arguments do seem to cause a tin ear like sound to me. After all, almost everything I read these days starts with the same claims. Except just replace the “unhealthy foods” with some other axe to grind like “treats workers poorly” or “discriminates” or “wrecks the planet” or “drains money and the life from local communities.” Our concern about obesity is simply another charge in the pre-ordained case against markets, capitalism or their ugly children the corporations. No analysis needed.  Don’t remind folks that if people wanted to eat lettuce, “big corporations” would make record profits trying to sell us lettuce. Don’t remind folks that “corporations” are actually made up of people just like you and me. Your neighbor works for a corporation. Your dad and mom. Your friends. Is it some nameless faceless rich white guy in a castle emanating a social arrangement from his perch that is doing all of this nefarious stuff?

Like I said, I went to McDonalds the other morning. They made some profits selling me a salad. How absolutely evil.

 

Bizarro World

(1) Hedge fund manager supports minting of the trillion dollar coin (I think he’s advocating two of them or more).

(2) The IRS should be abolished.

(3) Homeland Security clamping down on Bitcoin. This, like the Health Care Law, is yet another Trojan Horse for the government to intervene or ban anything that can be deemed a “threat” to National Security. Pretty soon they’ll be closing down sites like mine too.

 

(4) Is Congo growing?

Did you know that the NET price of attending a public community college is lower today than it was in 1991? Well, it is (see Figure 9). You are probably better off sending your kids to the local community college for two years to get their core courses out of the way, and then send them off to be indoctrinated to the tune of $60k per year for only two years.

 

This interesting piece describes how progressives and conservatives seem to be aligning against the Common Core state standards.

Without commenting on the Common Core itself this little marriage helps me really understand the challenge I have as an economist and someone who appreciates voluntary association and private property rights. People have no clue what “capitalism” is. It appears from this piece that piles of foundation money and corporate money coupled with government imposing one-size-fits all testing standards on all schools (my supposedly “Catholic school” abides by the standards) is what infuriates opponents of the Common Core. And that, it appears, is what they call capitalism.

I am a Lord Jeff of course:

Yet Burgard is not alone in his concerns. Last month, when Amherst College turned down an invitation to join edX, it was by a faculty vote of more than sixty per cent. A lot of teachers, some of whom had been browsing Harvard moocs, worried that they threatened to centralize higher education to an uncomfortable degree, and that their giant scale clashed with Amherst’s small-class style. A single mooc could exceed the number of alumni, dead and living, that Amherst has seen in two centuries.

“I was surprised at the outcome,” David W. Wills, a professor of religious history at Amherst, told me. “It seemed to come down the road as something that was going to happen.” Wills started out being open to moocs, he said. But the more he heard the more his concerns grew, and none of edX’s representatives seemed able to address them. “One of the edX people said, ‘This is being sponsored by Harvard and M.I.T. They wouldn’t do anything to harm higher education!’ What came to my mind was some cautious financial analysts saying, about some of the financial instruments that were being rolled out in the late nineties or early two-thousands, ‘This is risky stuff, isn’t it?’ And being told, ‘Goldman Sachs is doing it; Lehman Brothers is doing it.’ ” The language he heard from edX, he said, was the rhetoric of tech innovation—seemingly to the exclusion of anything else—and he worried about academia falling under hierarchical thrall to a few star professors. “It’s like higher education has discovered the megachurch,” he told me.

He and others worried about what this might do to smaller preachers. “I have to say, it turned my stomach to think that we were going to be making decisions about other people’s jobs in a discussion to which they were not party,” Adam Sitze, a member of the department of law, jurisprudence, and social thought at Amherst, told me. “Some very brilliant people are at institutions that are not wealthy.” In a meeting, one of Sitze’s colleagues, the political theorist Thomas L. Dumm, described the conveyance of moocs to weaker universities as “eating our seed corn.”

It’s entirely hilarious that a fantastically enamored group of central planning navel gazers are defending themselves against the march of online education by appealing to the problems of centralization. By the way, the workers in the typewriter factors did not have a say when Bill Gates was tinkering in his garage.

We hate hospitals and medical care because “they” charge prices that are too high, especially for “important stuff.”

We hate Walmart because “they” charge too little.

And no, people do not have theories of positive and negative external costs to justify holding both positions. 

  • In other news, I just received a notice from New York State that I owe back taxes … from 2009. Why? The Feds screwed up my federal taxes that year by a few dollars (and I mean a few dollars). So I ended up with a slightly larger refund. I forgot, presumably, to refile my NYS taxes that year and owe them something on the order of $30. They are seeking that $30 now (which is fine) … AND making us pay a penalty of close to $200 for being late. Remember that ignorance is no defense. I’m sure glad they didn’t realize I was one of those classical liberal nutties, else I might have been singled for some special auditing. By the way, given what you know about government pay, how much do you think New York State spent doing that audit and how much do you think they will ultimately spend before collecting the $200 from me? That number is surely north of $200.
  • In other news.
  • And in other news. Something similar happened to one of my students right here in Rochester.

Yet I’m called a cranky reactionary.

 

 

 

Whooping It Down

I was reading a short piece this morning wherein the author was making an observation that it is really hard to get a government official to tell him what their estimates for the whooping crane population. There are less than 300 of them in California as I understand it. The government used to do an actual field count to determine the population but now they seem to be relying on “hierarchical distance sampling.” There is apparently massive uncertainty in the number.

Anyhow, the author is a very worried that wind turbines are having an adverse impact on these (and other) bird populations. I’m not much into conspiracy theories, but it would seem to me to be downright awful press for a government and “E”nvironmental movement to find out that wind turbines are harming critical species. The IRS attacks on conservative groups don’t inspire much confidence that such things are beyond the pale.

My prediction is this, however. Regardless of how this turns out, the non-”E”nvironmentalists will be to blame. If it indeed is true that wind kills precious bird species, then there is no doubt in my mind that the story will be, “We needed to put up wind because the planet was placed in catastrophic peril by non-”E”nvironmentalists. The wind turbines are preventing climate devastation and it is only because of our addiction to fossil fuels that we wiped out the California Condor, the Indiana brown bat, the Whooping Crane and other birds.”

Good luck finding the answers you seek Mr. Shaw. For those interested in avian health and conservation and enjoyment, I recommend following the Cornell Lab of Ornithology.

  • In other news,the decline of the academy continues. Given that dustup, I wonder what the fallout would be if I published a paper that argued that women were smarter than men, or that women in some subsample had higher natural IQs than men? If one examines this data, you might be tempted to at least want to ask if there is anything to that observation. Finally, I can take ANY subsample and basically conclude just about anything I want about them. But it requires kids to actually learn math from grades K-12 to be able to comprehend this. 
  • In other news, it looks like another study finds that microfinance does not do much to reduce poverty. Let me ask somewhat rhetorically (this coming from someone who once in his career wrote a fairly laudatory piece on Grameen), does it sound plausible that advancing credit on very small scales collateralized by trust is a way to get countries out of a poverty trap that has existed for centuries? I’d suggest the way to think about microfinance is as short-term aid – helpful, but not world changing. (It does sound “cool” though and I think that is some of the reason for its popularity among Westerners)
  • Albany is not New York City. Harrisburg is neither Philly nor Pittsburgh.

I was in high school when they came around our neighborhood casting for A Bronx Tale. At the time my favorite scene in the movie was this one:

Door Test

 

I tend to view my students like these characters think about “the great ones.” There are indeed only a few. And precious few they are. We will say more about them in due time. But for today’s reflection, think about the test that is proferred in the above scene. I’ve been doing that test in the classroom for years. And even to my amazement, it has never been passed. By my count we’ve assigned and graded well over 50,000 questions since I started teaching about a decade ago. And not once among all of those 50,000 questions, nearly every single one of them an essay question, has a student approached us to tell us that they were too generously graded. Not once. 

And not a single time among the thousands of exams administered has a student ever come forward to show us that we added up the point totals too high. Not once. I can surely tell you that the number of times that students have expressed concern over an addition problem is over 100, and the number of times students have come forward to express concern over “tight” grading is nearing the 5 digit range. Do you know what the statistical probability of that being random is? Zero. Absolutely zero. There is no statistical chance that every honest mistake we have ever made was on the side of “too tough” and there is no chance that we have a reason to systematically grade exams “too tight” … after all, the more rigorous we grade the more likely we are to field complaints.

Without spilling the beans too much, we’ve also managed to run some informal experiments to see how honest people are. I won’t divulge more – but rest assured these had no impact on the ultimate grades anyone has ever achieved. And rest assured that in a sample of now over 300 cases, not a single student has come forward in response to a “bank error in their favor.” Not … one. 

If I had to boil down what matters to me most in thinking about the quality of person I strive to be, and the quality of person I hope to see in this world, it is this. “What do you do when no one is watching?” It’s a murky question, I know. And by no means am I proud of everything I’ve done when no one is watching. But I try to live even my privatest of private moments in my life as if someone were on my shoulder, someone whom I respected, evaluating my thoughts and actions (yes, we may invoke god or God here or something else that is more politically correct). I’ve disappointed this spectator too many times for me to die a happy person about how I’ve lived my life (we don’t get second chances on some things, alas), but I’m afraid that I know very few people who can pass even crude versions of the Door Test from a Bronx Tale. This brings me both sadness and optimism for I hope obvious reasons. 

As for political and economic implications of such an observation, I too, hope that they are fairly obvious to our readers here. I hope they would be obvious to others too. 

  • Half of the $60 million that Governor Cuomo has pledged to support tourism to New York is coming from the Federal government’s Hurricane Sandy relief fund. These funds, not ironically, were never earmarked for relief, but actually just for this purpose. Another pet peeve – in a YNN interview with a director of the State’s Economic Development office (please tell me why that office exists in the first place), the news anchor’s first question was something like, “Mr. so and so, tell us about the new generous support the state is providing to the upstate NY region for tourism development?” I would politely suggest that the word “generous” does not apply to ANY use of taxpayer funds for ANY purpose. Use a new word. 
  • And from Chris M. we now learn that our dear leaders in NYS have been blessed with being on the cover of a … Wheaties box. Indeed you cannot make this stuff up. How generous!

 

Older Posts »