Assorted thoughts

- Beer prices are going up; market forces pushing prices upwards shouldn't upset you as much as taxes doing the same thing. (Here's looking at you, Alaska.)

- Here is an interesting article on craigslist and it's founder, Craig Newmark. The article focuses too much on the zero-price aspect to explain their success instead of the network effects, but I was surprised to learn that he's given away large portions of the ownership of the company (though it's privately held and thus unverifiable).

- Here's a survey on democracy in Ethiopia; many of the answers seemed double-peaked to me, and the accusations of ethnic bias shouldn't be taken lightly-- though perhaps the former helps disprove the latter. Like the World Values Survey, is anyone else surprised that those giving the survey can find a healthy number of people willing to spend hours filling these out?

Could Taxing Water Treatment in Bolivia Result in Cleaner Water?

Katja reports (Hat Tip: Robin Hanson):

SODIS is a cheap method of disinfecting water by putting it in the sun. Like many things, it works better in physics than society, where its effects were not significant, according to a study in PLoS medicine recently…. [In] Rural Bolivia, where the study was done … the children studied usually get diarrhoea four times a year, which causes about fifteen percent of deaths of children under five. For the poorest quintile in Bolivia the under five death rate is about one in ten of those born alive. … The leader of the study, Daniel Mausezahl, suspects a big reason for this is that lining up water bottles on your roof shows your neighbors that you aren’t rich enough to have more expensive methods of disinfecting water.

Assume that the story is true, that putting water in the sun to disinfect it signals your poverty because it demonstrates that you cannot afford the more expensive methods. Depending on how the utilitarian calculus works out, one of the solutions may be to heavily tax (perhaps even ban) expensive water treatments so that more people must resort to setting their water out in the sun.

The calculus would depend critically on how many people already have the more expensive systems. If only a few people have the more expensive systems, the calculus is more likely to favor the tax. If a relatively small portion of the population that cannot afford the water treatment, then the calculus probably favors a subsidy.

Markets In Everything: Prisoner Consulting

Reportedly, Plaxico Burress has hired someone to prepare him for life in prison. TIME has the story, but here is a nugget:

How many people have you counseled?
Right now we counsel four to six people a month. These can range from a 100-hour course for $20,000 to $100-an-hour phone consultations or $150-an-hour webinars.

How many prison consultants are there?
New guys pop up all the time. But I'd say there are three to five who do it right and have been in the ballgame for years.

So what's the first thing you do with clients?
First I want to find out what their life is like. I want to know about their personality, whether they have any addictions to gambling, sex, drugs, cigarettes. The goal is to get someone to go in addiction-free, where they don't need anything from anybody. You don't want to put yourself in debt.

The other thing is basic prison etiquette. A lot of people don't know how to be respectful — period. They're cocky and they walk around with a chip on their shoulder. Now they don't even have a name; they have a number. They have to follow rules. And they have to make sure they don't do stupid things.

Juicing The Mitchell: Pluto Edition

From CNN:

Earlier this year, the Illinois Senate adopted a resolution declaring that Pluto was "unfairly downgraded" and restoring "full planetary status" to the celestial body as it "passes overhead through Illinois' night skies."

It also designated March 13, 2009, as "Pluto Day" in honor of the date that its discovery was announced in 1930. (In case you are wondering why the state is so passionate about Pluto: Clyde Tombaugh, who discovered the planet-now-dwarf-planet, was born in Illinois.)

A Lesson in Comparative Advantage from Ochocinco

Someone in the Bengals organization might understand Ricardo. Peter King provides the set-up:

Near the end of the second quarter, the man judged the best kicker in the NFL last year, Stephen Gostkowski, the Patriots All-Pro kicker, kicked the ball off from the Patriots' 30 to the Cincinnati 9, a 61-yard boot. To start the third quarter, Ochocinco, a right-footed, soccer-style kicker, rainbowed one 61 yards to the Pats' nine. Same kick. Same weather conditions. Same result. "He's a terrific player,'' Bill Belichick said a day later. "I love his competitiveness. I love his enthusiasm for the game.''

[...]

Anyway, regarding his 61-yard kickoff, he said he wasn't surprised. "I've kicked field goals at [Paul Brown Stadium], just fooling around, from 53 yards. Imagine if I devoted practice time to it. There is no doubt in my mind I could kick in this league. Really, I want to kick so bad.''

The dream ended Sunday -- not because the Bengals don't think Johnson could be an adequate emergency kicker, but because they don't want him to risk getting hurt kicking. With incumbent Shayne Graham out for the rest of the preseason, Cincinnati signed free agent Sam Swank from Wake Forest on Sunday.

Bold emphasis mine. Ochocinco might be the best wide-receiver AND kicker. However, he ends up playing wide-receiver only.

The question for students: Suppose Ochocinco is the Bengal's best receiver and kicker. Explain why Ochocinco is best employed only at receiver, even though he might also be the team's best kicker. (Be sure to treat the injury claim as a red-herring. After all, the Bengals could just as easily made Ocho the kicker and not let him play receiver, out of fear of injury.)

Reputation vs. Laws in Credit Markets

Here's an interesting paper on the interaction between reputation and legal enforcement in credit markets, emphasis is mine:

"The evidence suggests that relational contracting and legal rules play an important role in credit markets but on the basis of the prevailing field data it is difficult to pin down their causal impact. Here we show experimentally that relational incentives are a powerful causal determinant for the existence and performance of credit markets. In fact, in the absence of legal enforcement and reputation formation opportunities the credit market breaks down almost completely while if reputation formation is possible a stable credit market emerges even in the absence of legal enforcement of debt repayment. Introducing legal enforcement of repayments causes a further significant increase in credit market trading but has only a surprisingly small impact on overall efficiency. The reason is that legal enforcement of debt repayments weakens relational incentives and exacerbates another moral hazard problem in credit markets – the choice of inefficient high-risk projects."

At face value, this is an important factor to keep in mind when implementing microfinance activity in underdeveloped areas.

Mixing Words

Libertarians frequently say that governments have a monopoly on coercive force. Is this such a bad thing? Monopolies restrict supply. Does this imply that competitive markets would result in a greater amount of force (at a lower price, of course, if that is of any consolation)?

I cannot wait to hear the comments.

Boondoggles

Here's a bit in the New York Times that outlines two fun points:

- As a fun side note, it gives the etymology of "boondoggle":

Before it became a bad word, “boondoggle” was an innocent, humble craft. It was the Boy Scouts of America who claimed credit for coining the word, to refer to the plaited leather lanyards that they made and wore around their necks.

That all changed on April 3, 1935, at a hearing in New York City on how New Deal relief money was being spent. A Brooklyn crafts teacher reluctantly testified that he was paid to show the jobless how to make “boon doggles.” The outcry was swift. “$3,187,000 Relief is Spent to Teach Jobless to Play,” trumpeted a front-page headline the next day in The New York Times. “ ‘Boon Doggles’ Made.”

A new, more sinister meaning was born, and the word came to signify government make-work, later referring to wasteful government projects in general. Critics used it to criticize scores of projects, but President Franklin D. Roosevelt took a longer view. “If we can boondoggle ourselves out of this Depression,” Roosevelt said, “that word is going to be enshrined in the hearts of the American people for years to come.”

(That is a fantastic FDR quote, by the way.)

- On a more important line, it shows that every public project does have people that benefit. It might be obvious to state it as such, and it's easy to get lost in the "look at the turtle crossing, that's a ridiculous public project, that's just spending for spending's sake." But even the most foolish programs have someone, somewhere, that benefits. In no means does that justify the spending-- but a lot of times that's points you down the path of explaining the inexcusable.

Prediction Markets in Demand For Hospital Services

Interesting new study in the Journal of Prediction Markets:

Prediction Markets as a Medical Forecasting Tool: Demand for Hospital Services
By Rajakovich, David; Vladimirov, Vladimir
Volume 3, Number 2, August 2009 , pp. 78-106(29)

Background
This paper presents the outcome of a study conducted at the Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital in which a prediction market was established in order to forecast demand for services. To the researcher's knowledge, it does not appear that prediction markets have been previously utilized in a healthcare environment.

Purposes
The purpose of this study is to provide evidence for the effective use of prediction markets in a healthcare environment.

Methodology and Approach
The study was conducted over a period of one week, and involved sixty-five participants. Each was asked to provide an estimate for demand for services at the Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital. Characteristics gathered for each participant included level of education, occupation, directorate, number of years worked for the hospital, and number of years worked for the National Health Service.

Findings
The study confirms the effectiveness of prediction markets to forecast future events as overall hospital demand was forecasted with an error of only 0.3%. The prediction market was less successful in predicting demand for services for each department, which the researcher attributes to the small sample size and lack of diversity of participants. Additionally, only a very small percentage of the characteristics captured registered a statistically significant correlation with the accuracy of the estimate. Further studies should focus on different characteristics and/or use a larger sample size to either confirm or refute the existence of such characteristics.

Practical Implications
The findings of this work could potentially be used as an innovative way to augment the forecasting function for a wide range of healthcare facilities. With the preliminary success of this study to forecast demand, further research in the field is warranted.

Census Politics

How can the political process possibly get entangled with the decennial head count?

"Officials [in Utah] are in a dither because the bureau won’t count all those Mormon missionaries sent overseas.

...

In the most recent Census, taken in 2000, Utah fell just 857 people short of receiving the last available U.S. House seat and this discrepancy in how Americans are counted overseas made all the difference."

Whether more representatives in the House mean more funding is not clearly established. More representatives mean more people, and that directly means more federal money, but the applicable question is whether more representatives means more money per capita. There's actually a line of research that says that smaller states get more funding, known as the small state bias, since these states are, in population terms, over-represented in the U.S. Senate.

Nonetheless, the perception is that more representatives get more money, and that's got Utah none too pleased.

Got Communism?

North Korea does. And here's what it's like.

Counter-cyclical fast food

I always get a kick out of articles that describe companies that perform well when the overall economy doesn't-- if only for the reason that it provides a quick rebuttal to the layperson. This article from Slate sums up the fast food success over the last year that was McDonald's. Some nice bits for your arsenal:

"McDonald's sales growth in 2008 was greater than in 2006 and 2007."

"While many restaurants scaled back, it opened nearly 600 stores in 2008."

"...the chain has notched same-store-sales growth in each of 2009's first seven months."

"Over the last three years, its stock has handily outperformed the S&P 500..."

"In Europe, where stressed consumers are still pulling back, McDonald's notched 6.9 percent same-store-sales growth in 2009's second quarter."

Many people like to demonize McDonald's for its indifference towards the health of its foods--which is increasingly difficult to do-- but can you argue with nearly 70 years of creating popular eating spots and over 31,000 locations? The training program for its franchisees is legendary, and Burger King even reportedly amended their expansion strategy to locating near existing McDonald's restaurants. The historical stock information is here; putting your money in McDonalds 30 years ago would make you a very rich TPS reader, to the tune of 50x growth...and even only 6 1/2 years ago would yield over 5x on your investment.

In article-related news, here is an piece on Peru's growth-- reportedly 9.2% in 2008.

Advice to Economic Educators

Dave at TAE has an interesting perspective on being an economic educator:

Job market applicants are often asked to write up something about their teaching philosophy. If I were to ever do so, I'd sum up mine in one sentence: I have no teaching philosophy, or at least none that I'm aware of. (I also have no clear method, no bag of tricks, nothing special to offer.) I do, however, have a single purpose -- to encourage my students to think like an economist.

Tax or Fee?

The Tax Foundation has a short but interesting post on the murky distinction between taxes and fees:

The Tax Foundation holds that any assessment that raises money in excess of what is needed to defray costs is a tax, not a fee.

The issue arises here because the U.S. Embassy in London is exempt from taxes, but not fees. The city claims congestion pricing is a fee, but the embassy sees it as a tax.

The TF general definition above is not a bad rule of thumb, but is easily criticized. Which costs? Over what period? Costs for whom? The intention in the City-Embassy case is to relieve congestion (and its associated externalities), so prices are presumptively to temper (subjective) quantity demanded rather than cover accounting costs. The lottery raises revenue above cost, but it is hard to think of it as a tax.

My crude definition of "fees" is to use them as a synonym for benefit taxes, where the concept of deadweight loss becomes a bit murky. Benefit taxes most typically arise when the "tax" is tied to a particular service. Garbage collection, particularly if it is marginal cost pricing, is a simple example. For instance, the benefit-view of property taxation ultimately views the property tax serving this role when combined with zoning (the consequence of which is the absence of deadweight loss). This crude definition is also easily criticized. What constitutes a "service?" The services must also be "voluntary," and what does that mean? If gas taxes are solely for the purpose of road maintenance (and perhaps mitigating air pollution costs) then they are fees, not taxes. That would be a bitter pill to swallow.

Update: The Tax Foundation has another great post on this, this time in San Diego. In it, they describe fees as being tied to a particular service.

Jeopardy! Archives

Since I've talked about Jeopardy! before, I thought I'd send along this site, which houses the complete Jeopardy! archives. (Every time you load that page you get a new random Final Jeopardy question.) The list of all seasons is here. And if that's not enough, the real fun of the site is the wagering calculator.

Enjoy!

More Cash For Clunkers Unintended Consequences: Indian Country

Cash for Clunkers seems destined to own an unfavorable paragraph or two in future economic principles textbooks. This aspect is brought to my attention by frequent TPS commentator Jason Oberle. Here is his writing on the subject and here is an article he points us to from the Navajo Times.

Jason emphasizes the important role of salvage parts in "Indian Cars." Apparently, reservation life is particularly harsh on cars, so these vehicles are supplemented continuously with major parts from salvaged vehicles. C4C requires that the clunker being traded in is required to be destroyed. Jason suspects that, on the margin, this will increase transportation costs in Indian Country.

Tax Credits and Convicts

There was an interesting line in an otherwise embarrassing bit about the Philadelphia Eagles' signing of Michael Vick:

"If [the Eagles will] pay $1 mil+ to give Michael Vick a 2nd chance, how about leading the charge to help ex-offenders citywide? Philly is home to 200,000 people with criminal records. Those with drug convictions are legally barred from ... jobs at airports, nursing homes or in security, but they can do most other tasks. And yet, few if any companies took the city up on $10,000 tax credits to hire ex-cons."

(Emphasis is mine, and the quote above is from a Facebook entry by Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Monica Yant, not the author of the above link.)

But...Philadelphia offers tax credits for hiring ex-cons? Really?

Sure enough, Michael Nutter, mayor of Philadelphia headed up the program:

"So on his 100th day in office last month, Mayor Michael Nutter announced a program, being headed by an ex-offender, that gives $10,000 a year in municipal tax credits to companies that hire former prisoners and provide them tuition support or vocational training."

Not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, the uneven tax code creates a clear distortion into the labor market. On the other, considering the recent policy proposals at the national level, at least Philadelphia isn't further taxing companies that aren't hiring ex-cons.

People often complain that convicts have a difficult time incorporating themselves back into society (whatever that phrase is supposed to mean, I view it as having a hard time finding a job). Well, convicts put forth the signal that they are riskier employees, and insofar that those going to prison are riskier employees (probably true as a whole, though I'm sure there are plenty of exceptions), the signaling process here likely isn't too far off.

The idea that this program could prevent future recidivism is an interesting one; that's something the data will have to bear. From the initial quote above, it doesn't sound like many companies are taking the mayor's offer.

What else could possibly help deter crime? I've always thought that dropping the minimum wage would allow the labor market to price riskier employees accordingly, allow them entry into employment, then build up a reputation as a reliable employee and move down the path of higher wages. It's non-distortionary and liberty enhancing. Seems like it's worth a shot to me.

Blockquoting X

X = Mayor Frank Melton, Jackson, Mississippi:

I certainly respect the Constitution, but we have some issues that are much bigger than the Constitution.

Melton is defending an executive order banning saggy pants.

Growth Theory and Taxation

As I'm always a fan of consolidating ideas/facts/available data into one place (maybe that's why I like rankings so much?), here's a new paper by Gareth Myles that does just that with economic growth theory and taxation. From the abstract:

"Economic growth is the basis of increased prosperity. This makes the attainment of growth a key objective for governments across the world. The rate of growth can be affected by policy choices through the effect that taxation has upon economic decisions and through productive public expenditures. This paper provides a self-contained introduction to the economic modelling of growth and reviews the theoretical evidence on the extent of the link between taxation and growth."

If the name sounds familiar, it's because Gareth Myles is the author of popular public economics textbook.

What Policy Implications Can Be Learned From Speed Dating?

In speed dating, it turns out that the party that sits is more selective while the party that rotates is more aggressive. From the Scientific Fundamentalist:

What they discovered was truly astonishing. In the traditional “men rotate, women sit” arrangement, men were significantly less selective in their mate choice; they checked “yes” for a larger number of women than women did for men, and they experienced greater sexual attraction and romantic chemistry with the women than women did with men. This is not at all surprising, as it is what evolutionary psychology would predict and it is what we normally observe in real life (less selective, more aggressive men, and choosier and more coy women). In sharp contrast, in the novel “women rotate, men sit” arrangement, women were just as aggressive and, as a result, less selective, as men were in their mate choice; they checked as many “yeses” for men as men did for women, and they experienced as much sexual attraction and romantic chemistry for the men as men did for women.

Finkel and Eastwick explain the reversal of the pattern with their embodied cognition hypothesis. Research on embodied cognition has uncovered some pretty interesting (if wholly mysterious) findings. For example, seated experimental subjects who place their palms on the bottom of a table and press up (a gesture associated with approach) rate neutral Chinese ideographs as more appealing than those who place their palms on the top of the table and press down (a gesture associated with avoidance). In other words, because they view the ideographs while they are engaged in the approaching gesture, they come to view them more positively.

In lobbying, I think it would be most appropriate to think of politicians as being those who remain seated in a speed dating game. At least part of a congressman's face time is spent with lobbyists that actively seek them out. If this speed dating study carries external validity, then politicians are more selective with extra-aggressive special interest groups than they would be otherwise.

For Fun: Suppose we could reverse the setting, and congressmen were required to attend something resembling a job fair, with prospective lobbyists instead of prospective employers. As a result politicians become more aggressive and special interests become more selective.

What are the consequences of this kind of institutional change? How do politicians manifest this "aggressiveness"? Better policy? More exploitative policy? Do the matches between politicians and lobbyists become more efficient (think Chicago School of Public Choice)? Is it just a transfer of surplus from politicians to lobbyists?

Quote of the Day

From Matt Kahn:

I was talking to a smart reporter today and he was telling me that he supports the Cash for Clunkers program saying that it not only benefits Detroit but also helps a variety of new car dealers who are more broadly scattered across the country. He got a pinch upset with me when I told him that if our sole goal is to stimulate new car sales then a more cost effective policy would be to release auto thieves from prison and let them get back to work.

Daily Show Interview with Austan Goolsbee

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Austan Goolsbee
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Spinal Tap Performance

Public good provision and crowding out of market provision

Here's a new paper from Andrew Reeson and John Tisdell, I am unfamiliar with them but I like the idea, emphasis is mine:

"There are many factors which can motivate people to contribute to public goods. These range from intrinsic motivations such as altruism, through social motivations such as concerns for fairness and approval, to extrinsic incentives which include sanctions and payments. Institutions help determine how these motivations are applied and expressed. Psychological studies indicate that extrinsic incentives can crowd out the intrinsic motivations which prompt voluntary contributions to public goods. We applied experimental economics techniques to examine how people in a public good dilemma respond to changing institutions. Our results showed that the introduction of formal institutions (a regulation and competitive tender) crowded out voluntary contributions, with the supply of public good increasing less than anticipated, and in some circumstances actually decreasing. In particular, the introduction of the competitive tender triggered a ‘market instinct’, with participants who previously had been expressing social preferences now seeking to maximise profits. The effects of crowding out persisted even after an institution was removed, suggesting that it may be difficult to reverse. We conclude that policy makers should tread carefully when considering formal institutions to promote public good provision, particularly where desired actions are already occurring voluntarily to some extent."

The story goes that markets fail to provide public goods, so governments step in and provide it. Public choice seems concerned with how that level is determined, why it's likely wrong, why it's likely to persist and why it's popular at the polls. But there should be more attention paid to the market-destroying aspect of public activity-- in this case, of providing public goods.

Probably the worst example to illustrate a point that I could find

Just a reminder that inequitable ends do not necessitate inequitable processes. Not to justify human trafficking-- it is a truly horrible act-- but consider this article on CNN this morning.

"Males come with a premium price tag in China. During a videotaped confession, a woman caught trafficking children two years ago told police that boys can sell for up to $1,200, girls for just more than $200."

Presumably, there's no additional hurdle or advantage to targeting males instead of females. Families protect their children equally, and due to cultural norms, males are more highly sought after. As mentioned above, the price for male children is six times that of female children. This does not mandate inequity in the market for male children as relative to female children. (Again, not justifying human trafficking, but comparing one act of human trafficking to another does get past a significant moral hurdle when analyzing with such appalling behavior.) Neither do differences in male and female salaries, nor male and female athletic participation rates. Inequitable processes produce inequitable ends; the reverse does not necessarily hold.

This comes to mind after talking with TPS friend and colleague Pavel Yakovlev over the last few days about Title IX; he has a fantastic paper in the works that I look forward to sharing here in the (hopefully) near future.

Clunk It!

ReasonTV weighs in on the Cash for Clunkers program.

We've moved!

No, not from the web address you're used to coming to, but the authors have had a high degree of mobility in the last few months. From the list at right, we are no longer directly connected to West Virginia University (Justin graduated last year, and I did the same this spring) or Appalachian State University (Claudia was an Assistant Professor there last year).

In their place, we've picked up New York University (Claudia begins this fall as a Post-Doctoral Fellow at the Development Research Institute) and Duquesne University (I begin this fall as an Assistant Professor). Also, when the blog started in December 2005, David was an undergrad at San Jose State University-- where I met him and TPS started. He finished at San Jose State in the spring of 2006 and headed east to George Mason. Well, we've now come full circle back to our roots-- Emily begins this fall as an Assistant Professor at...San Jose State!

(The unmoved over the summer are Justin at Indiana University, and both David and Will at George Mason University.)

The appropriate links are at right. I've decided to order the links by accrued tenure here at TPS. David is beginning his fourth year at George Mason, and both Will and Emily have added years to the running tally-- this tops the list. From there, Justin's year at Indiana University places it second. David's one semester at San Jose State puts it third, and Duquesne University and New York University are new to TPS.

Union Intergenerational Preferences

Megan McArdle writes:

In theory, labor organizers shouldn't demand so much that their industries become uncompetitive. In practice, however, as we've seen with Chrysler and GM, they can and do.

I am not very familiar with the details of collective bargaining theory, but I would be surprised if this was really true. McArdle is usually right with her references to theory, so I'm asking what assumptions about industry survival preferences by unions are commonplace?

I would assume that the objective of a labor union would be to maximize the wealth of its current members. The union members of Generation t would probably want their firm during Generation t+1 to remain competitive enough to pay its pensions and liabilities, but why would they care about Generation t+2 and forward?

Book Review: Evil Genes

If you watch Dexter and enjoy his inner monologue, then you would probably enjoy Evil Genes: Why Rome Fell, Hitler Rose, Enron Failed, and My Sister Stole My Mother's Boyfriend by Dr. Barbara Oakley. If Amazon rating terms, I would give it 4/5 stars.

The focus of EG is a very particular type of sociopath that Oakley terms "Machiavellian," after the famous author of The Prince. Despite representing a fantastically small portion of the population, these high functioning psychopaths are supremely successful at making their way to the most prestigious positions of society: Stalin, Mao, Milosevic, and Hitler. Machiavellians simply seem to derive pleasure from the success of manipulating others, and while they do not feel compassion or empathy for the emotions of others, they are supremely gifted at recognizing emotional ques. There is no ideological guide for them, the purpose is only to manipulate.

Oakley's book covers the genetic and environmental mechanisms that seem to be necessary for both the development and success of Machiavellians. For instance, neurologically the area of the brain that allows us to recognize the emotional ques of others is considerably larger than in a normal person. This allows them to recognize and quickly decipher ways to appeal to and manipulate our emotional responses. This allows them to move successfully through society, and likely is a contributing factor to just how successful they appear to be in politics.

The most brilliant aspect of this book from a story-telling standpoint is the way Oakley wraps the narrative in with her late sister, whom she identifies as being one of these individuals. At the beginning, she introduces her sister with a heart-wrenching story of how her sister stole her mother's (much older) boyfriend so that she could take her mother's place on a trip to France. Throughout the book, Oakley tries to unravel her sister's identity and make sense of her outlandish behavior, and it makes for an extremely interesting narrative.

Some other reviews I have read found the story of Oakley's sister to be the most troubling, since she is dead she can't defend herself, and I can see where that comes from after trolling through her diaries. However, I actually became more sympathetic to her sister as the book progressed, to see how truly miserable these people are, and while people have differing predispositions to Machiavellianism, the story of her sister seems to have a strong environmental component in her polio treatment as a child. By the end, I felt sorry for her sister, as most of us might once we learn the personal histories of individuals with psychopathy.

What Progressives will like about this book: Machiavellians have been particularly adept in communist systems. Classical liberals frequently argue that socialism fails not because they didn't get good leaders, but because socialist institutions have poor incentives and constraints. The historical popularity of communist Machiavellians provide a rejoinder, in part it was that there were really bad people running the system.

What Conservatives will like about this book: You get a sense of hopelessness about the possibility of reforming these people. Tough on crime conservatives that prefer the death penalty would probably find supporting material to justify their punishments in this book.

What Libertarians will like about this book: The fascinating inspection of the way Machiavellians move through politics, particularly in communist societies. It is all ready recognized that politics has a tendency to self select people with Machiavellian traits, but the review of the damage these people are capable of doing in a centrally planned system is incredible.

What can be skipped: Chapters 3 & 4, while interesting, are mostly a primer in neuroscience and reading brain scans. While the book discusses neurotransmitters and examines brain scans in every chapter, I suspect that the underlying motivation for these chapters is to nail home the point that this book does not serve as an argument for genetic screening or eugenics.

Random Fact I Learned: The language(s) you learn reorganizes your neurphsiology. Native speakers of Chinese literally see the world differently from native English speakers. Visually, an English speaker initially focuses on individual objects and the background fills in to support it. Chinese speakers see the big picture first, and eventually grasp sight of the individual objects.

Somewhat Related: Search the archives of the DOL blog for Ed Lopez's series of posts discussing The Prince. They were very interesting dives into select passages of Machiavelli's work.

Seeing the Corporate Tax Tree from the Forest of Taxes

A couple of days ago I linked to a study by the Tax Foundation about corporate taxes and their downward effect on wages. Today, they offer an international comparison of corporate tax rates.

I've always heard that, bitch as we may, the United States still does pretty well with regards to the whole picture of taxes as compared to other countries. Capital account surpluses certainly speak to this idea. But the Tax Foundation gives a different story. Then again, it could be the case that the U.S. could have a comparatively poor corporate tax system but a very favorable everything-else system. This would hold true if, for example, the U.S. imposed only corporate taxes. I know that isn't the case, but that would be an explanation that would fit both sides.

Time to consult the Economic Freedom of the World Index!

How does the U.S. do in Area 1? (Area 1 is the Size of Government: Expenditures, Taxes and Enterprises.) Out of the 130 countries that get a score, the U.S. ranks 40th. However, the crux of the Tax Foundation report is that the U.S. has the second worst corporate tax rate in the OECD, trailing only Japan. How does the U.S. do in the freedom rankings concerning government expenditure and taxation compared to these countries? Considerably better; only three of the OECD countries mentioned in the Tax Foundation report-- Mexico, Switzerland, and Turkey-- score better than the United States. The other twenty-six have more onerous governments to deal with.

Granted, we're comparing 2009 tax rates with the most recent Freedom of the World Report, which outlines 2006-- but could things have changed that drastically in three years? I'd say probably not. I think this is a case of picking one tree from the forest. Those in West Virginia that like to say things aren't so bad do the same thing-- find one tax rate (personal income tax is a good example, if I remember correctly) that's comparable to the rest of the country, then say, "See? Taxes can't be the problem."

Don't get me wrong-- lower corporate taxes would be better. Absolutely. Cut them. Keep cutting them-- because they do matter. And I love the story the Tax Foundation provides that shows just that:

"Great Britain has found out [that companies will relocate in the face of high taxes] the hard way. Last year, Google moved its European operation from London to Switzerland to lower its tax bill and McDonald's recently announced that it was doing the same. Great Britain's relatively high corporate tax rate combined with its world-wide tax system has caused an exodus of domestic firms to lower-taxed countries such as Ireland and Switzerland."

But sometimes-- and especially when it comes to tax systems-- it's useful to see the entire forest from the trees.

Measuring Growth from Outer Space

There are some very cool images in a recent NBER working paper measuring economic growth with satellite images of brightness at night by Henderson, Storvegard, and Weil. I'll put a teaser here and the rest below the fold (click to enlarge).



+/-

Compare the change in Romania and Hungary with that of Modolva:

Scatter Plots:

Corporate Taxes and Wages

The Tax Foundation has a new report out today looking at corporate income tax rates and their impact on wages. The pdf of the study is here. Here's the gist:

"Specifically, a one percent drop in the average tax rate leads to a 0.014 percent rise in real wages five years later. In dollar terms, that means wages rise $2.50 for every one dollar reduction in state-local corporate income taxes.

[...]

Altogether, this body of work draws into question the conventional wisdom that corporate taxes add to the progressivity of the tax system. If instead of burdening capital, the corporate tax primarily burdens labor, as this study finds, then the corporate income tax does not add to the progressivity of the tax system."

I added the emphasis. The Tax Foundation is a great place to find tax research on the impact of taxes at the state level.

Beautiful Capitalism

By Scott Amron. $7 for a set of two.

Bad bets

TPS Clevelander Rob Holub sends along this link, asking conservative anti-global warming folk to put their money where their mouth is. The way I see it is as follows: Anti-global warming supports like to bring up sporadic examples of unexpectedly cool weather and then put forth the conclusion that all of this global warming nonsense is hogwash. The author of the blog post linked above says that those folks are remembering what they want to remember-- thus the bet. If you look at the whole picture, things may not support your position.

For what it's worth, I don't think the question is as much about whether the Earth's temperature is rising as much as whether it's humans that are causing that rise, or any further warming on top of the nature cycle of the Earth. As such, the bet shouldn't be a comparison of current temperatures to historical levels, but a comparison to a trendline estimate of where the Earth is naturally heading anyway. I guess it's not too surprising that no one has taken the bet.

It brings up the larger question: Should one be willing to put up money to lend credence to their positions? MR dealt with the issue a little while back, though I don't know how long ago and can't find the link. I could be convinced either way, though I suppose a staunch conviction in your theory could be offset by an even more staunch adherence to risk aversion.

Good News, Everybody! Poverty Edition

From the August 2009, NBER Digest: Poverty rates have been declining faster than suggested by income data.

Back in the blogging game!

Alright, I'm back home for a while, so I'll self-impose a more rigorous blogging output upon myself for the foreseeable future. A few thoughts I've had recently:

- I flew a couple of short Southwest flights over the past few days. For the uninitiated, Southwest does not assign specific seats on their flights. Instead, over the years, I've seen their boarding process evolve as follows:

1) My first recollection-- arrive at airport, check in, and receive a plastic, airline re-usable state-shaped card that allows you entrance onto the plane. These states are numbered, but only matter in groups of thirty. The first group of 30 boards the plane, irrespective of the individual numbers within the first group. The next 30 board, then the next 30, and so on, until the plane is full.

2) At some point, boarding passes fall in line with the rest of the airline industry-- disposable paper ones printed prior to the flight and worthless after you are on board. Also, groups expand to 45 and check-in can occur online up to 24 hours before scheduled departure.

Note that last change shifts competition from "who can show up earliest at the airport" to "who is most vigilant in remembering where they are exactly 24 hours before they leave."

3) Southwest now numbers every single boarding pass and you board strictly by your number; whereas before your 30 was equal to their 10, now you are getting on 20 spots later.

(As an aside, I noticed that handicapped/disabled/those that need extra time folks went first, then the first sixty passengers via the boarding pass number system, then those with babies, then the rest of the folks. Still not incentive compatible in my book, but my thoughts priority boarding privileges are here. And as an aside to the families-with-babies-board-in-the-middle realization, is Southwest inching towards becoming the first children-free airline? This bears watching.)

What is driving this change in boarding procedure-- that is, do you think it's more driven to suit customer demands or to reduce airline costs (i.e. board faster, turn the plane faster, etc.)?

While prices on plane flights vary over time, I am slightly surprised that prices for different seats within a plane at the same time do not vary (beyond first class, anyway). I'd pay more to sit in the front and away from the center seat. Has any airline ever done this? I've got to believe this has happened somewhere at some time.

- I had a dream recently where I was taking a class offered by Rachael Ray-- normal classroom offering and subject, only she was the instructor. I evidently attended the class very infrequently, and upon her confronting me, I then asked if she thought it was costly that I was missing class. She replied in extensive fashion that it was, to which I replied that her opportunity cost analysis was misguided. I'm really proud of myself for coming up with that! (I sleep with the TV on; I'm guessing that's where she came from.)

- Here's a bit on ESPN about pitch counts for starting pitchers in major league baseball, and here's a bit about a pair of studies that looked at the impact of youngsters throwing fastballs vs. curveballs. In short, I think certain pitchers can throw a lot and certain pitchers can't. In the past, at lower levels, if pitch counts were never an issue, then the low-volume throwers would get weeded from the game while the high volume pitchers would survive. You then make it to the professional level, and there aren't pitch count issues. However, with a range of theories and practices on the effects of throwing a high number of pitches, the weeding process is disturbed, and the uncertainty in drafting pitchers is a lot higher. Mix that with wanting to maximize the Type II error-- underutilize the pitcher when he could handle a heavier load rather than overusing someone who can't handle it-- and we've got dwindling pitch counts.

I can believe the curveball study in the sense that throwing any pitch is stressful on the elbow, and a curveball is generally thrown with less velocity than a fastball. It is also worth noting that if curveballs are so damaging, why do we never attibute arm injuries in professional pitchers to throwing curveballs? If the answer is that pros know how to throw them properly, then presumably amateurs are throwing pitches incorrectly, which leads up back to the first sentence-- throwing a fastball incorrectly will stress the arm more due to increased extertion.

I also vow to utilize the +/- feature-- I've timidly avoided it thus far.

Slandering the Supply Curve: Why Taxes on the Rich Matter

I know of no economist that believes we are on the downward sloping portion of the Laffer curve at the current rates, but Daniel Gross at Slate commits what can only be considered a willful disregard of careful thought on the subject:

Such logic makes sense to the Journal's op-ed page staffers, who inhabit an alternative universe in which people wake up in the morning and decide whether to go to work, innovate, or buy a bagel based on marginal tax rates. But if people were motivated to choose residences based solely on high state income taxes, then California and New York wouldn't have any wealthy entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, or investment bankers—and the several states that have no state income tax, which include South Dakota, Alaska, and Wyoming, would be really crowded with rich people.

The shortcomings, let me count them:

1. Gross discusses decisions in absolutes, rather than margins. Choices are not "never work again" or based "solely on taxes." On the margin, you consider the next additional project, and on the margin taxes matter. Did you ever turn something down you that you would have taken on if it just paid more? Me too.
   
   
2. For those nearing retirement (*cough*, baby boomers, *cough*), the decision actually can be whether or not to work or not.
   
   
3. The most important mistake is that he conflates taxable income with all forms of compensation. If you raise the rates on taxable income, one of the consequences is you incentivize firms and employees to change the form of your compensation so that you pay less taxes.
   
   
4. Gross acts as if there is no reason to think New York and California are different from other places. Perhaps if he read Paul Krugman's academic work, rather than just his op-eds, this would not have gotten lost on him. State income taxes are not terrible barometers of their monopoly power. Could South Dakota or Wyoming really impose high income taxes? California and New York have enough going for them that they can raise taxes and retain those residents, and even that has its limits.
   
   
5. The rich often have second homes, and they get to claim their permanent residence for tax purposes.* If a state wants to claim them as their own, the burden of proof is on them.
   

*Unless you are a professional athlete, and then you are required to claim your team's home city as your tax residence, regardless of where you live. And yes, MLB teams in higher tax states pay higher signing salaries to free agents.

The Business of Somali Piracy

A feature story in Wired.

File this under: You can bet on anything

I'll be back home next week, but quickly from CNN...

"Tennis superstar Roger Federer is the 'proud father' of twin girls after his wife Mirka gave birth overnight to Charlene Riva and Myla Rose.

[...]

Ladbrokes is offering 100 to one for either girl winning Wimbledon one day and 25-1 against a grand slam triumph in any of the four majors."

:-( Despair, Inc.

I just stumbled across this site. They have very funny tees and posters. Enjoy.

Inexpensive High Speed Hits Africa

A new undersea cable brings East Africa high speed internet. CNN reports:

"This is going to reduce the cost of doing business in Africa, within Africa and with international parties" said Suveer Ramdhani, SEACOM spokesman in South Africa.

"The cable is as thin as a hair strand and in one second it can download the same amount of data that 160 people use in a month."

SEACOM, privately funded and 75 percent African owned, will provide retail carriers with open source access to inexpensive bandwidth.

It has taken less than three years to complete the mammoth project, providing landing stations at South Africa, Kenya, Madagascar and other points along the east coast of Africa.

In other words, expect more spam in the inbox.

I stayed in South Africa for 4.5 months in 2007 and found the internet connection superior to my hometown.

RetroTech

I have always had an interest in RetroTech. I am always surprised when I step back and take a look at how quickly technology has progressed. Does anyone remember the original dancing baby? It was an internet phenomenon in 1996. Take a look.



A few years later, Pixar upgraded the clip.



Now, in 2009, Evian has upped the bar.

Just look how far we've come in a little over a decade.

Microcredit Woes

The Goldin Institue produced this report on microcredit in Bangladesh, and I found this paragraph particularly interesting (p. 4):

While many microcredit agencies express a desire to subvert the often exploitative traditional moneylending systems, evidence from our research shows that in many cases microcredit has achieved exactly the opposite. Numerous respondents reported being forced to take loans from traditional moneylenders in order to make their microcredit loan payments on time. Indeed, some respondents even suggest that these loans are preferable to microcredit loans because they are more flexible. As one observed, " I think taking loans from local money lenders is better than from NGOs because there is no obligation to pay a weekly installment. It is an easy system. They excuse us in times of crisis. They don't insult us. But NGOs never excuse us in any situation. We are tortured both physically and mentally. We remain bound to pay installments in time at any cost." In this way, the traditional moneylending systems have actually been bolstered by the development of microcredit in the village due to a growing dependence on credit from all sources. (emphasis from original author.)

This supports my concern that NGOs tend to have a strange collective group think against the competitive market process. The traditional private moneylenders are seen as inherently exploitive, and even after observing evidence to the contrary they remain disappointed that they exist. I suspose in their defense this may not be specific to NGOs, as payday lenders in the U.S. seem to suffer the same image problems.

Anti-Monopoly, The Book and Game

Over the weekend I was in a local game shop, and I came across "Anti-Monopoly", which of course is an idea we at TPS are very open to. On the box of the game itself, it was promising because it said something to the effect of "in the real world, prices are set by supply and demand." Here is the game's description:

Three different games have been produced over the years:

The First one was the original Anti-Monopoly I game, launched In 1974. It was a reverse-direction Monopoly game, that the players start where Monopoly ends. The board is monopolized in the beginning of the game and players compete with each other to return this virtual economy back to a competitive, free enterprise system. About a half a million units of this game were sold world-wide. Unfortunately, many players did not understand the game since the players were lawyers working for the Antitrust Department of the United States government, the same kind of lawyers who have worked to convict Microsoft of abusive monopoly power. But most players are not lawyers. To reach a wider audience, this game was phased out to be replaced by a new invention by Anspach,

Anti-Monoply II.

Second, was an upgrade of Monopoly, one which plays like Monopoly but which has an Anti-Monopoly theme in which some players act like monopolists and others like competitors. This game was also called Anti-Monopoly II.

Third, we are reviving the anti-monopolistic message of the real inventors of Monopoly in our new game: "the Original monopoly game" .

Its game equipment included two games:
(1) an Oil Cloth Atlantic City folk game which was stolen from its inventors and then commercialized with some new art work as Monopoly, and
(2) a Create-Your-Own-Monopoly game which revived the customization of an earlier monopoly folk game.

The website for the game also carries a book on the "true history of monopoly," and the legal battle with Parker Brothers over the marketing of their game.

I haven't played it, but if I get the chance I will report back with a review. In the mean time, I recommend Cities and Knights of Catan.

Save this Image For Your Lectures

For my fellow econ educators, by way of the CGD (Hat Tip: Art Carden), Zimbabwe (2000):

Blockquoting X

X = Milton Friedman:

There is wide agreement about the major goals of economic policy: high employment, stable prices, and rapid growth. There is less agreement that these goals are mutually compatible or, among those who regard them as incompatible, about the terms at which they can and should be substituted for one another. There is least agreement about the role that various instruments of policy can and should play in achieving the several goals.

These words were penned in 1968. Is there any more agreement among economists today?

What I've been reading

- Panicology is a statistician's (two, actually) take on the alarmist issues of today.  I like statistics, and I also dislike the alarmist take by the media, so I had high hopes, but the book seems weak in some areas and only stronger in others by relative comparison.  I did enjoy a few of the transportation sections, however-- one on the inherent safety of transportation, and another on cell phone usage while driving.  It is a decent jumping off point for a range off issues-- if I'm close by, borrow it from me when you need it or fire me an email about one of their topics, don't go buy your own.

- I'm just getting into Violence; if this is categorized as a sociology book, it's the best I've read in quite some time, if not ever.  It reads as a micro-foundations approach to all-things violent interaction, and the author explains it as such.  Making generalized statements about violence often mischaracterizes violent confrontations from the get go; as such, just about anything you've read making wide-ranging claims about violence (say, ethnic violence or racial violence) is probably wrong, and not by a little bit.  Here's the best one-liner I can give to sum it up (thus far, anyway):

"Most existing explanations of violence fall into the category of background explanations: factors outside the situation that lead up to and cause the observed violence...My objection across the board is that such explanations assume violence is easy once the motivation exists.  Micro-situational evidence, to the contrary, shows that violence is hard."

Frequency of violence tends to be a function not of the individuals but the overarching resolution framework to the situation; kids fight a lot because adults can provide resolution, prisoners fight frequently because guards can provide resolution, adults in society fight infrequently due to the lack of such a framework per the previous two examples.  That's a vast oversimplification (on my part); there's just a lot to go after in this book.  I highly recommend.

The Economics of Joab's Cancer

I'd like to point students and educators of economics alike to this paper by TPS friend Joab Corey, who will be at Florida State in the Fall:

The Economic Principles of my Cancer Treatment: How to Use Medical Experiences to Teach Economics

Abstract:
This paper uses specific examples from my cancer treatment to illuminate multiple concepts that are typically covered in economic principles classes. Economics is a method of thinking that reveals itself in all aspects of life and a good economics instructor should be able to recognize and adapt these economic concepts in even his or her most severe life experiences. The real events of my treatment serve to illustrate and further clarify basic economic concepts such as inelasticity, cost-benefit analysis, bundling, the concept of a second best world, and marginal decision making. This paper illustrates how an economics instructor can use personal medical examples to make the course material salient to students while bolstering their confidence in the economic way of thinking.

Joab tells these stories with the greatest elements of comedy, which hopefully will come across to you in the paper.

Here is Joab on Rational Ghost Game Theory.

Economists Doing it with Models: A Facebook Three-Way

If you have ever wondered how nerdy economists become when conversing over Facebook, I provide you with the following exchange with TPS friend Pavel Yakovlev, Jodi Beggs of EDIWM, and myself. The subject was from Jodi's post on a potential market for organs:



If you haven't added Jodi's blog/website to your regular reading list, do so now. As a PhD student, she may already be one of the best educators of economics in the country.

Reference Point Counterfactuals vs Observations

From SciAm:

The researchers show that people prompted to write about how a positive event may not have happened experience a greater uptick in mood than those prompted to describe the positive event. In their most persuasive study, individuals in committed relationships wrote for 15 to 20 minutes about how they might never have met and connected with their partners. Others wrote instead about the reverse – that is, how they did meet, start dating, and end up with their partners. Several control conditions, which involved writing about one’s typical day or about one’s friendships, were included as well. The biggest increase in satisfaction with the relationship occurred not in the group that pondered the sunny beginnings of their union but in the “mental subtraction” (or “How I might never have met Peter”) group.

I suspect this works in reverse as well ("...if only I hadn't bought that car..." or "...if only we had just stayed friends instead of dating...").

I am conjuring up ways to make this advice more useful than simply just substituting away from counting your blessings. I'll get back to you when I think I have something useful.

Why I Don't Read More Psychology

These were side-by-side teasers on this morning's Psychology Today homepage:

Here is the link for the first and second article, if you are so inclined.

Markets in Everything: Homeless Line-Holders Contracted by Lobbyists

From CNN, we learn what happens when quantity supplied is less than quantity demanded:

For big hearings with limited availability, line-standers may wait 20 to 30 hours. They're paid anywhere from $11 to $35 an hour.

Gomes was living in a shelter when he started line-standing. He said working in the halls of Congress gave him the motivation and money he needed to get off the streets. He now makes extra money by recruiting men for the line-standing services from the homeless shelters where he used to stay.

[...]

Many of the contracted line-standers are homeless or formerly homeless like Gomes.

Gasp! You mean there is no free lunch!?! Surely someone can stop this! Who will be our hero?

Critics see the practice as just another way lobbyists are buying influence on Capitol Hill. In 2007, Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri introduced legislation to ban the practice of line-standing.

"I have no problem with lobbyists being in hearings, but they shouldn't be able to buy a seat," McCaskill said. "It seems to me that if we are going to make sure lobbyists aren't buying meals for senators, and we are going to make sure lobbyists aren't buying elected officials gifts, then we ought to make sure they aren't buying seating at a public hearing."

They are going to ban standing in line? I'm not sure how people will get in the building. I would prefer we simply make it less valuable for lobbyists to get in the building in the first place.

This is where we must cue the sentiments from an activist who will reveal they care far less about outcomes, and instead demonstrate a bunch of self-serving moral indignation under the ruse of saving the homeless from being "used" or "exploited."

Maria Foscarinis, an advocate for the homeless, thinks it's ironic that some of the most powerful people in the country are using some of the most vulnerable to hold a place in line for them.

Hat Tip: TC @ MR for the Markets in Everything Theme

Juicing The Mitchell

Reason Magazine asks "Do we really need federal laws governing carry-on luggage, college football, and switchblades?"

Yes we do, now more than ever.

Indian Taco Inflation

TPS friend Jason Oberle has a funny post at the American Indian Policy Blog on the rising price of Indian Tacos, and gives TPS a shout out in the process.

I love price riddles (see here and here for others), and I hope JO gets to the bottom of Indian Tacos. Inflation? Coordination Game? Price Follower-Leader Model? Higher Costs? The world may never know.

Failed States Index

Foreign Policy and The Fund for Peace have put out the 2009 Failed States Index. Here's the top (bottom?) 10.

1. Somalia
2. Zimbabwe
3. Sudan
4. Chad
5. Democratic Republic of Congo
6. Iraq
7. Afghanistan
8. Central African Republic
9. Guinea
10. Pakistan

Here's the fancy map. Click a country to see how they rank.

Personally, I think Zimbabwe is worse than Somalia. Peter Leeson suggests Somalia isn't (or at least wasn't) as bad as people say. Ben Powell has a paper with Ryan Ford and Alex Nowrasteh titled “Somalia After State Collapse: Chaos or Improvement?” forthcoming in the Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization.

HT: Astrid Arca

San Pedro Prison

In Bolivia, the San Pedro Prison is governed completely by the inmates; guards simply ensure that no prisoners leave the facility. Despite this lack of government presence, the prison is safer than other Bolivian prisons and other self-governed prisons, like Andersonville prison camp. I argue in my paper on San Pedro, that the relative order is the result of inmates ability to operate businesses and own their own cells, which provide the resources necessary to invest in capital for protection and raise the cost of predatory behavior.

News reports indicate that Bolivian officials have begun cracking down on the prison. Inmate businesses are being shut down (including the inmate-run tours), ownership of cells is forbidden, and entrance to and exit from the prison is now tightly monitored (which will greatly reduce the extent of the market). The result will likely be greater violence and degradation.

Joke of the Day

Columbia Business School's Dean Glenn Hubbard sings about wanting Alan Greenspan's job.

Intentional tennis shirking?

Growing up, I found tennis a bit difficult to watch, and felt it was heading down the path of becoming more and more trying to watch as I got older. Racquets were becoming large and increasingly powerful-- great for the average weekend player, but for the elite it seemed to reduce the length of rallies. (Are there any statistics to confirm/refute this?) Further, those that had the most success seemed to be those that could utilize the technological characteristics of the racquet best. However, in recent years, it seems that technology has yielded to strategy and all-around performance, and those that play a fuller, more fan-friendly game seem to have the most success. The numbers could well bear my assertion out to be wrong; I don't have any statistical proof one way or the other.

Clearly, this comes on the heels of yesterday's epic men's final at Wimbledon. However, I was struck by something else over the weekend. During the women's final, Venus Williams squared off against her sister, Serena Williams, and lost in straight sets. But I noticed a curious thing happening during particularly crucial points on Venus' serves during the match-- she'd throw a poor toss in the air for her serve, and grab the ball on the way down. There's no penalty for this-- she simply throws the ball up again a moment later and serves it.

There are two questions here. First, was it actually happening? That's a numbers issue. Are there any incongruities in her poor tosses? Are they evenly distributed across matches and within matches? I don't have the data; the issue could be put to rest right there...or could be rather interesting...

...because, second, even if the numbers bore it out, was it intentional? Realize that tennis serves, even in the women's game, are in excess of 100 mph and require a significant degree of concentration and timing to return. This means that there's an advantage to be had in disrupting the returner. However, if a spike in faulty tosses increased during more pressure packed moments, it could also mean that the server simply got nervous and failed in the heat of the moment. So that's the pair of situations, if the numbers bear it out-- and given the repetitious nature of serving in tennis, I'd find it a more difficult argument to make that the pressure played an uninteded role on the server.

(A third question, of course, is if the failed tosses do actually have an adverse effect on the opponent.)

I have no idea who to even ask if mis-tosses on serves are tracked...but for a professional tennis player, there sure seemed to be a lot of poor tosses. And at pretty opportune times as well.

Things you hope your students don't mention to you...

Let's start off the week with some nonsense-- more happiness rankings! Here is the CNN rundown of the new rankings, which puts Costa Rica at the pole, followed by the Dominican Republic and Jamaica. And, pray tell, what are the criteria?

In a report released Saturday, the group ranks nations using the "Happy Planet Index," which seeks countries with the most content people.

In addition to happiness, the index by the New Economics Foundation considers the ecological footprint and life expectancy of countries.

Happy Planet Index?! Prison rodeo!?

The New Economics Foundation is here. The intro page for the Happy Planet Index is here, and the pdf report itself is here. The final rankings are on page 63 of the pdf. Components of the Happy Planet Index are: Life expectancy, life satisfaction, and ecological footprint. The goal with the final metric is to achieve "one-planet living." I'm guessing they're against colonizing Mars.

I liked this one: "The planet’s overall HPI score of 49 out of 100 reflects the fact that humanity as a whole has much to change..." Remember those nonsense days of yesteryear when a HPI of 49 used to be considered good? Now look how far we've come! Also of note-- by their index, China's doing nearly twice as much towards the end of a "happy planet" than North America. Just consider that sentence for a little bit.

Figure 6 in the report is a scatterplot of happy life years vs. GDP per capita, by country.

Yet Another Set Up, I Am Sure.

DC Council Member and poster child for detestable politicians Marion Barry was arrested. Again. The Washington Post reports:

At about 8:45 p.m., a woman traveling near the intersection Good Hope Road and Anacostia Drive flagged down a U.S. Park Police officer to report that a man in a vehicle nearby was stalking her, said Sgt. David Schlosser, a Park Police spokesman. That man, Schlosser said, was Barry.

Schlosser declined to repeat what Barry told the officer with respect to the incident. My guess: "B!^*# set me up."

Nash Equilibrium

From XKCD: