Why are accents sexy? Why is "exotic" sexy?
It may simply be novelty, but I'll make up a just so evolutionary story:
Gains in trade are extremely valuable - and are a great positive. However, the asymmetry of "hard come, easy go" [i.e. it is very hard to build things up, and very easy to smash them down] makes fear of outsiders and violence a prudent behaviour, a behaviour that is detrimental to trade.
However, if your tribal group becomes linked via family and marriage to another group the risks go down and the benefits of trade and exchange can be more easily achieved.
Thus, any group that found outsiders sexcellent would marry into other groups and gain the tools, ideas, and products of others in peaceful and mutually advantageous exchange. These advantages would lead to better survival odds and thus select for the trait of finding difference and other cultures sexy.
The legacy of this is our love of foreign accents and other "exotic" features.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
The blog song
Sung to the tune of the classic Ren & Stimpy "Log song"
"What goes down with a snurl alone or in plural
Goes over your neighbor's noggin?
What's great for a shake and fits in your break?
It's Blog, Blog, Blogging!
It's Blog, Blog, it's words, it's thoughts, it's bytes.
It's Blog, Blog, it's better than bad, it's alright!
Everyone wants a blog! You're gonna love 'em, Blog!
Come on and get your Blog! Everyone needs a Blog!"
"What goes down with a snurl alone or in plural
Goes over your neighbor's noggin?
What's great for a shake and fits in your break?
It's Blog, Blog, Blogging!
It's Blog, Blog, it's words, it's thoughts, it's bytes.
It's Blog, Blog, it's better than bad, it's alright!
Everyone wants a blog! You're gonna love 'em, Blog!
Come on and get your Blog! Everyone needs a Blog!"
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Abortion & the Bible
The debate around abortion is highly polarized and has degenerated into unhelpful mottos. One side chants "pro-choice" while the other chants "pro-life", and the discussion doesn't move far from there. Who isn't for choice and life? Emotions run high, as the perceived stakes are huge: either we are removing the free agency of women by not allowing something that is essentially equivalent to using a condom, or we are removing the free agency of a fetus in the strongest possible way by killing a full fledged human. In this polarized view we are either supporting slavery or holocaust. What a choice.
The same act viewed from completely opposite interpretations. But what are these interpretations based on? They are based on wants and beliefs. If a woman finds she is pregnant and is not ready for a child she definitely wants out of the situation. If this situation happens to someone else you definitely want them to do "the right thing". What choices are available? What is the right thing? The question of what is right comes down to how we define human. The idea of human rights now seems common sense to us and we intuitively "know" that one should not coerce and infringe on person-hood. Of course we must set limits on rights - clearly someone does not have the right to rape or kill others and we remove these options from the menu of choices. But we also should not remove something from the menu without reasonable justification. Most of us think slavery was a clearly immoral idea, especially if justified on the amount of a chemical present in the skin. In hindsight the preposition that slavery is okay, or even moral, is ridiculous and we wonder how anyone, let alone a whole collection of societies, could buy into this. Removing the choice available to others from the menu for a subgroup is clearly wrong, removing a choice from the menu for everyone can be equally wrong. So the question is this - should abortion be on the menu?
It comes down to who we include in the camp of human, a shorthand for worthwhile life from societies perspective. Pro-choice? A fetus is a blob of tissue. Pro-life? A fetus is human. This fundamental difference makes discussion difficult, especially when each side tends to discount the other and even begins to see them as evil. What can one do when our basic definitions and assumptions are in such conflict and collide in a realm where the actions take on weighty emotional and moral dimensions? One thing we can do is try to honestly look at the evidence in existence and consider it and be willing to change what we want and believe to better reflect what is.
As abortion is, for many, a religous driven view, let us look towards the Bible.
The Bible actually does not say anything (directly) about abortion, but there are a few passages that are banded about and interpreted as being against abortion. Perhaps the most familiar is from Jeremiah, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew (or, chose) you, before you were born I set you apart...." (Jeremiah 1:5, New International Version). The implication is pretty clear - person-hood precedes birth. The next step in interpretation is: therefore abortion is murder. But wait. Can we make this next step? Lets pull out the Bible and pull out another quote, one that I haven't heard used in the abortion debate, yet is more directly relevant: "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely (or, she has a miscarriage) but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows." (Exodus 21:22, New International Version). The implication of this is that a fetus has clear value but that this value is not on the same level as an adult life. Here the value seems to be as measured by the family, as moderated by society.
Of course even this is not very clear and one can read this passage in a number of ways and arrive at totally different interruptions - someone could claim that "no serious injury" does not speak to the womans physical health, but instead to the fetuses/babies. This however seems a dishonest reading - would something so irrelevant be placed in the bible? Considering justice at the time is this interpretation consistent at all with Judaic thought? Careful and thoughtful reflection on what we know about the society of the time - even from solely a biblical reading, let alone other pieces of knowledge - strongly indicates that this passage is speaking about the death of a fetus and the fitting punishment for this.
The translation is vague as interpreting the Hebrew is vague, which could mean either a fetus is not that important in the scheme of things, or that it is so important that it is not worth qualifying and making the subject explicit - we don't go around stating the obvious. What can we then say? The Bible seems pretty opaque on this issue and perhaps the only thing we can do is say we have no direct guidance. If one believes God is timeless and the Bible is his word, then this lack of guidance for us should say something deep and subtle to you. In any case, pulling quotes out of context isn't very useful, but further reflection on the Bible doesn't seem to get one much further.
Well, the Bible doesn't seem to get us very far. We can interpret it to mean what we want, and since we all want to think certain things this is dangerous. But considering Judaic courts and justice in the time of Exodus strongly suggests that actions that lead to the killing of an fetus was bad, but not as bad as modern Christians tend to state.
For the true Christian, one who actually challenges their faith and understanding and growths with it, this is food for thought - how much does ones community and their beliefs affect your understanding of God? To you I ask you to reflect on Romans 11:33-36, to carefully reflect on the Bible, and to study the culture at the time to help interpret what is meant.
The same act viewed from completely opposite interpretations. But what are these interpretations based on? They are based on wants and beliefs. If a woman finds she is pregnant and is not ready for a child she definitely wants out of the situation. If this situation happens to someone else you definitely want them to do "the right thing". What choices are available? What is the right thing? The question of what is right comes down to how we define human. The idea of human rights now seems common sense to us and we intuitively "know" that one should not coerce and infringe on person-hood. Of course we must set limits on rights - clearly someone does not have the right to rape or kill others and we remove these options from the menu of choices. But we also should not remove something from the menu without reasonable justification. Most of us think slavery was a clearly immoral idea, especially if justified on the amount of a chemical present in the skin. In hindsight the preposition that slavery is okay, or even moral, is ridiculous and we wonder how anyone, let alone a whole collection of societies, could buy into this. Removing the choice available to others from the menu for a subgroup is clearly wrong, removing a choice from the menu for everyone can be equally wrong. So the question is this - should abortion be on the menu?
It comes down to who we include in the camp of human, a shorthand for worthwhile life from societies perspective. Pro-choice? A fetus is a blob of tissue. Pro-life? A fetus is human. This fundamental difference makes discussion difficult, especially when each side tends to discount the other and even begins to see them as evil. What can one do when our basic definitions and assumptions are in such conflict and collide in a realm where the actions take on weighty emotional and moral dimensions? One thing we can do is try to honestly look at the evidence in existence and consider it and be willing to change what we want and believe to better reflect what is.
As abortion is, for many, a religous driven view, let us look towards the Bible.
The Bible actually does not say anything (directly) about abortion, but there are a few passages that are banded about and interpreted as being against abortion. Perhaps the most familiar is from Jeremiah, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew (or, chose) you, before you were born I set you apart...." (Jeremiah 1:5, New International Version). The implication is pretty clear - person-hood precedes birth. The next step in interpretation is: therefore abortion is murder. But wait. Can we make this next step? Lets pull out the Bible and pull out another quote, one that I haven't heard used in the abortion debate, yet is more directly relevant: "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely (or, she has a miscarriage) but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows." (Exodus 21:22, New International Version). The implication of this is that a fetus has clear value but that this value is not on the same level as an adult life. Here the value seems to be as measured by the family, as moderated by society.
Of course even this is not very clear and one can read this passage in a number of ways and arrive at totally different interruptions - someone could claim that "no serious injury" does not speak to the womans physical health, but instead to the fetuses/babies. This however seems a dishonest reading - would something so irrelevant be placed in the bible? Considering justice at the time is this interpretation consistent at all with Judaic thought? Careful and thoughtful reflection on what we know about the society of the time - even from solely a biblical reading, let alone other pieces of knowledge - strongly indicates that this passage is speaking about the death of a fetus and the fitting punishment for this.
The translation is vague as interpreting the Hebrew is vague, which could mean either a fetus is not that important in the scheme of things, or that it is so important that it is not worth qualifying and making the subject explicit - we don't go around stating the obvious. What can we then say? The Bible seems pretty opaque on this issue and perhaps the only thing we can do is say we have no direct guidance. If one believes God is timeless and the Bible is his word, then this lack of guidance for us should say something deep and subtle to you. In any case, pulling quotes out of context isn't very useful, but further reflection on the Bible doesn't seem to get one much further.
Well, the Bible doesn't seem to get us very far. We can interpret it to mean what we want, and since we all want to think certain things this is dangerous. But considering Judaic courts and justice in the time of Exodus strongly suggests that actions that lead to the killing of an fetus was bad, but not as bad as modern Christians tend to state.
For the true Christian, one who actually challenges their faith and understanding and growths with it, this is food for thought - how much does ones community and their beliefs affect your understanding of God? To you I ask you to reflect on Romans 11:33-36, to carefully reflect on the Bible, and to study the culture at the time to help interpret what is meant.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Boettke Austrians
From my reading/discussion a “Boettke Austrian” is simply an honest, engaged, curious economist who takes inspiration from Hayek/Mises (& is thus interested in 3 “black boxes” of economics namely: processes of change & adjustment, development & progress, and institutional adaptation & evolution). An inclusive definition focusing on productivity and fruits.
Hard to take issue with this, as it is a positive & “light” definition that does not worry about details and irrelevant arguments (and makes room for different strains - like bakers yeast it is functional, and full of various types of yeast). A good operational definition. However, to me, the distinction between “Austrian” and “Good” economics seems to be near nonexistent, in terms of "products", and is one of chosen community and identification (specifics that lie behind production of a given work). i.e. a paper one would judge to be "good" could be written either by an Austrian or someone else, and while you could perhaps guess correctly much of the time (Mises reference - yes or no? Hayek? Other Austrian signatures?) the distinction could only be truly made by asking the author.
I can see the value, and in particular the motivational and functional value of taking on the Austrian label, so defined. After all, we must all connect with a community in order to challenge and support each others growth, find mentors, inspiration, have a reference group, etc.
I guess the only problem with the label is that it can signal either "Boettke" or "Crackpot" Austrian - but to the extend that a positive, productive, and inspiring message (i.e. Boettke Austrian) is promoted and propagated by Boettke & his academic offspring/friends the crackpot version will become increasingly weakened and Austrian will take on a positive light.
From an outsiders perspective, Boettke & other "positive Austrians" still has work to do on this end, but judging from his work and many of his students (After Arg!) the label may be salvaged. Since community is important, while I see little value in the Austrian label in terms of "products" (good economics is good economics) I see potentially great value in the "label" on a personal level, or rather the community behind the label.
Hard to take issue with this, as it is a positive & “light” definition that does not worry about details and irrelevant arguments (and makes room for different strains - like bakers yeast it is functional, and full of various types of yeast). A good operational definition. However, to me, the distinction between “Austrian” and “Good” economics seems to be near nonexistent, in terms of "products", and is one of chosen community and identification (specifics that lie behind production of a given work). i.e. a paper one would judge to be "good" could be written either by an Austrian or someone else, and while you could perhaps guess correctly much of the time (Mises reference - yes or no? Hayek? Other Austrian signatures?) the distinction could only be truly made by asking the author.
I can see the value, and in particular the motivational and functional value of taking on the Austrian label, so defined. After all, we must all connect with a community in order to challenge and support each others growth, find mentors, inspiration, have a reference group, etc.
I guess the only problem with the label is that it can signal either "Boettke" or "Crackpot" Austrian - but to the extend that a positive, productive, and inspiring message (i.e. Boettke Austrian) is promoted and propagated by Boettke & his academic offspring/friends the crackpot version will become increasingly weakened and Austrian will take on a positive light.
From an outsiders perspective, Boettke & other "positive Austrians" still has work to do on this end, but judging from his work and many of his students (After Arg!) the label may be salvaged. Since community is important, while I see little value in the Austrian label in terms of "products" (good economics is good economics) I see potentially great value in the "label" on a personal level, or rather the community behind the label.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
tax heaven
Freudian slip - I mean tax haven. It seems that the G20, as part as their plan to save the world from total financial meltdown, is cracking down on tax havens, as the tax revenues are needed in this time of hardships and some claim that "culture of banking secrecy had worsened problems in the global economy". Is this a slippery slope which will reduce freedom? Unlikely, for to paraphrase the UK stance "tax avoidance may comply with the letter of the law but not with its spirit." No wait, never mind.
Is the stationary bandit learning to walk?
But I must agree with this crackdown, for several reasons I will list below. Before reading further: take a minute or so to consider - is this crackdown good or bad? Why?
An informal poll taken on this blog indicates good idea (1 vote) is overwhelmed by bad (3) and evil (2), with nobody saying "who cares?" (0). Small sample size, and not a random sample either, but interesting. My first reaction was between "evil" and "bad", but I further considered and arrived at "good" - here is why.
If someone is a citizen of nation X they are bound by the rules of nation X. Most free countries (all of OECD nations?) allow you to give up your citizenship - if you don't want to pay for the benefits of citizenship, and you are ultrarich, then perhaps you should give up your passport and rights and get citizenship in whatever country you are parking your cash in. They will likely be happy to take you in. Most nations like people with money, and people with lots of cash are the only ones who really do have the freedom to walk away. They also have some power to change things - if they are forced to feel the pain that others feel they may take more of an interest in changing their nations for good. This "walk" argument is somewhat weak and overused, but here both the consequences (positive change in laws) and the current situation (often active law breaking) suggests it is legitimate to make.
Also on the pro side, we will perhaps see hypocrites like Bono and many other "left wing" proponents get their just deserts and have to pay taxes for the programs they petition governments for - instead of their current situation of tax avoidance and simultaneous pleading for people and governments to help the needy. Shake some of your pocket change out Bono. This is a small, but entertaining, benefit.
In the narrow sense this, the tax haven crackdown, will reduce freedom - but of (mostly) the most free people in the world. In addition, the "loss of freedom" comes from a process of anarchy (international relationships is one of anarchy) and one of voluntary behaviour that does not use force (tax havens are "merely" excluded from benificial trade if they do not conform - standard free market stuff), and, to repeat, if the ultrarich people and companies are forced (by their nations) to pay outrageous taxes in their countries they will either (1) start pushing to change them, or (2) walk, both of which will tend to improve tax structures and freedom.
I do not (sadly) know any strong libertarians, but I suspect they will find it hard to argue against this crackdown - they may think that taxes are a moral evil, but anarchy and noncoericive methods are behind the crackdown, and if they are consequentualists they will have to consider the force for positive reform that will occur - unintentionally this move could reduce tax rates.
So start cracking away G20!
Is the stationary bandit learning to walk?
But I must agree with this crackdown, for several reasons I will list below. Before reading further: take a minute or so to consider - is this crackdown good or bad? Why?
An informal poll taken on this blog indicates good idea (1 vote) is overwhelmed by bad (3) and evil (2), with nobody saying "who cares?" (0). Small sample size, and not a random sample either, but interesting. My first reaction was between "evil" and "bad", but I further considered and arrived at "good" - here is why.
If someone is a citizen of nation X they are bound by the rules of nation X. Most free countries (all of OECD nations?) allow you to give up your citizenship - if you don't want to pay for the benefits of citizenship, and you are ultrarich, then perhaps you should give up your passport and rights and get citizenship in whatever country you are parking your cash in. They will likely be happy to take you in. Most nations like people with money, and people with lots of cash are the only ones who really do have the freedom to walk away. They also have some power to change things - if they are forced to feel the pain that others feel they may take more of an interest in changing their nations for good. This "walk" argument is somewhat weak and overused, but here both the consequences (positive change in laws) and the current situation (often active law breaking) suggests it is legitimate to make.
Also on the pro side, we will perhaps see hypocrites like Bono and many other "left wing" proponents get their just deserts and have to pay taxes for the programs they petition governments for - instead of their current situation of tax avoidance and simultaneous pleading for people and governments to help the needy. Shake some of your pocket change out Bono. This is a small, but entertaining, benefit.
In the narrow sense this, the tax haven crackdown, will reduce freedom - but of (mostly) the most free people in the world. In addition, the "loss of freedom" comes from a process of anarchy (international relationships is one of anarchy) and one of voluntary behaviour that does not use force (tax havens are "merely" excluded from benificial trade if they do not conform - standard free market stuff), and, to repeat, if the ultrarich people and companies are forced (by their nations) to pay outrageous taxes in their countries they will either (1) start pushing to change them, or (2) walk, both of which will tend to improve tax structures and freedom.
I do not (sadly) know any strong libertarians, but I suspect they will find it hard to argue against this crackdown - they may think that taxes are a moral evil, but anarchy and noncoericive methods are behind the crackdown, and if they are consequentualists they will have to consider the force for positive reform that will occur - unintentionally this move could reduce tax rates.
So start cracking away G20!
Efficiency? Is it meaningful?
Robin Hanson, arguing for efficiency versus liberty in economic policy: "Each person's dollar value of a deal is (minus) the compensation he or she would need to become indifferent to (i.e, not care to choose) this deal plus compensation package, relative to the status quo. This says how much he wants the outcomes produced by this deal (and may or may not agree with what he says he wants). The sum of such dollar values says how efficient, or good, is the deal; if it is positive, the deal is good; else it is bad. "
Does this not make a key implicit assumption, that is most likely not true?
That is, doesn't this simply assumes that each person will have valuations that are comparible - such as ones that are close together? If 10000 people have a dollar value pro, and one person $9999 anti this summation would say do this. But a buck is almost nothing, money is not a linear scalable - for example, a penny is nothing, most people do not even bother to pick them up, but $100 is something. A buck versus $9999 valuation is a huge difference, one that is lost in this summation process. One can say, yeah but we can set things up so that there is a cash transfer so the guy valuing at $9999 will get paid. Then one asks in retort: how about hold outs? Those who are indifferent can simple misvalue, also - as it is difficult to place value - a "multidimensional measure" - on a single index (money), so isn't the whole process somewhat ineffective for complex issues (where one would want to use this)? And how about close to unbound valuations (i.e. very personally felt issues)? Especially when they are opposite?
Valuations will be highly personal and difficult to accuratly price and extreamly nonlinear - so comparisions will only be meaningful if values are close together, were we can assume (more correctly) that, say your $80 valuation and my $95 valuation can be contrasted. A linear summing process on one metric seems a downright silly thing to do on something that is highly nonlinear, multifaceted, and different for each participant (and potential participant) involved.
The basic liberty vs. efficiency argument comes down to this: distributed free choice, or aggragated bound choice. Not having aggragated bound choice may limit what is possible - but given that some minority will most likely always be bound by an "efficient" outcome (otherwise what are we arguing? If not bound, then this is simply a way to pick among different "liberty" choices, and Hanson is simply saying - "here is one metric to help us compare": who doesn't agree with this? After all, we can ignore the metric, or take it into account - if cheap to do, why not? Information is good.) that they don't like picking the efficiency approach is picking to hurt a few for the many.
I look forward to more postings (and possible release of the taped version) regarding the debate: the questions of choice & exchange & interactions is what makes me interested in economics. Without further information I can't say too much on this, but as it sits I can't tell how serious Robin Hanson takes efficiency.
To me the question is a deep & difficult one - how do we make aggragate decisions? A simple linear summing of a single index seems useless for any important issue. Efficiency arguments are useful at the margin, for selecting choices that are similiar and where participants have similar tastes - here they can be effective in finding better solutions, added up this can offer a lot of wealth and value. Beyond that, i.e. for anything we actually care deeply about in life, they are not so useful.
Liberty as a policy is also limited, but in trying to pick "just one" it would be the more valuable as a starting point. If Hanson disagrees with this, would he not think that debate and discussion - which assumes honest actors whos choice and understanding can be influenced- is not as meaningful as simply polling people? After all, debate and discussion is based on, for me at least, a liberty perspective - we are looking for understanding and treat our "opponents" as intelligent free agents who can change our minds (or the audiences). We do not force the issue by taking a poll and saying "yes, efficient outcome says that 52% agree that liberty is the winner so that is... wait a minute, what does this mean?!!".
By entering the debate format, didn't Robin automatically lose? Didn't his action suggest he actually does believe in liberty? ...of course this assumes that debate is related to liberty, which perhaps Robin does not agree with?
Does this not make a key implicit assumption, that is most likely not true?
That is, doesn't this simply assumes that each person will have valuations that are comparible - such as ones that are close together? If 10000 people have a dollar value pro, and one person $9999 anti this summation would say do this. But a buck is almost nothing, money is not a linear scalable - for example, a penny is nothing, most people do not even bother to pick them up, but $100 is something. A buck versus $9999 valuation is a huge difference, one that is lost in this summation process. One can say, yeah but we can set things up so that there is a cash transfer so the guy valuing at $9999 will get paid. Then one asks in retort: how about hold outs? Those who are indifferent can simple misvalue, also - as it is difficult to place value - a "multidimensional measure" - on a single index (money), so isn't the whole process somewhat ineffective for complex issues (where one would want to use this)? And how about close to unbound valuations (i.e. very personally felt issues)? Especially when they are opposite?
Valuations will be highly personal and difficult to accuratly price and extreamly nonlinear - so comparisions will only be meaningful if values are close together, were we can assume (more correctly) that, say your $80 valuation and my $95 valuation can be contrasted. A linear summing process on one metric seems a downright silly thing to do on something that is highly nonlinear, multifaceted, and different for each participant (and potential participant) involved.
The basic liberty vs. efficiency argument comes down to this: distributed free choice, or aggragated bound choice. Not having aggragated bound choice may limit what is possible - but given that some minority will most likely always be bound by an "efficient" outcome (otherwise what are we arguing? If not bound, then this is simply a way to pick among different "liberty" choices, and Hanson is simply saying - "here is one metric to help us compare": who doesn't agree with this? After all, we can ignore the metric, or take it into account - if cheap to do, why not? Information is good.) that they don't like picking the efficiency approach is picking to hurt a few for the many.
I look forward to more postings (and possible release of the taped version) regarding the debate: the questions of choice & exchange & interactions is what makes me interested in economics. Without further information I can't say too much on this, but as it sits I can't tell how serious Robin Hanson takes efficiency.
To me the question is a deep & difficult one - how do we make aggragate decisions? A simple linear summing of a single index seems useless for any important issue. Efficiency arguments are useful at the margin, for selecting choices that are similiar and where participants have similar tastes - here they can be effective in finding better solutions, added up this can offer a lot of wealth and value. Beyond that, i.e. for anything we actually care deeply about in life, they are not so useful.
Liberty as a policy is also limited, but in trying to pick "just one" it would be the more valuable as a starting point. If Hanson disagrees with this, would he not think that debate and discussion - which assumes honest actors whos choice and understanding can be influenced- is not as meaningful as simply polling people? After all, debate and discussion is based on, for me at least, a liberty perspective - we are looking for understanding and treat our "opponents" as intelligent free agents who can change our minds (or the audiences). We do not force the issue by taking a poll and saying "yes, efficient outcome says that 52% agree that liberty is the winner so that is... wait a minute, what does this mean?!!".
By entering the debate format, didn't Robin automatically lose? Didn't his action suggest he actually does believe in liberty? ...of course this assumes that debate is related to liberty, which perhaps Robin does not agree with?
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Economics & Math
"People who go into economics, in modern times, tend to be people who are good at math but didn't want to be engineers or physicists, and if you have that talent, what do you do? You go into economics. You can't get a Ph.D. without going through an intensively mathematical program. That's the hurdle you have to pass. It's kind of like a hazing to get into the profession."
-- Robert Shiller
-- Robert Shiller
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)