Monday, May 31, 2010
New pictures up.
Some of my pictures from Salzburg and Vienna are now up on my Picasa site. you can click on the link in the blog sidebar (the picture), or here.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
European Rail Service
As pretty much everybody knows, European rail systems are very efficient, comfortable, and well-designed. I'm jealous, even though train tickets are way more expensive than I thought they would be. Of course, everything here is more expensive than I thought it would be.
I used to think that European rail service was so much better than rail service (and bus service, and every other kind of US public transport) because US rail carriers (Amtrak) had been subsidized. I learned recently, though, that European and other mass transit systems throughout the developed world are heavily subsidized, which is the only thing that keeps them running. Maybe we need more, not fewer rail subsidies in the US.
Not sure why I didn't assume that European rail was subsidized; only makes sense. Europe = government intervention in economies, right?
The apparent efficiency of these systems seems like proof that subsidized or public systems can provide a quality of service that can be unmatched by the market.
Government intervention in rail markets may help providers coordinate and benefit from economies of scale which are necessary in order for transport systems to work efficiently. If you don't subsidize, using rail transport will cost more, so many fewer people will use rail, so it will be more costly, an so on… Subsidies probably also make it possible for transport providers to provide services to places that wouldn't be economical destinations otherwise; keeping rural communities alive, despite economic inefficiencies, may be an outcome we value intrinsically.
Also, it seems hard to argue that the car-centric US culture is more efficient, even in a purely economic sense, than the fast, clean, convenient, and energy-efficient public transport here, even if it's subsidized.
Of course, private transport is also heavily subsidized in the US (most roads are public, for one thing, and there are many direct and indirect subsidies to auto manufacturing and gasoline production). So our system may well be the result of heavy subsidies to the automotive industry and smaller subsidies to rail. Perhaps we would get something like the European system in a purely market-driven economy where nothing was subsidized at all.
I used to think that European rail service was so much better than rail service (and bus service, and every other kind of US public transport) because US rail carriers (Amtrak) had been subsidized. I learned recently, though, that European and other mass transit systems throughout the developed world are heavily subsidized, which is the only thing that keeps them running. Maybe we need more, not fewer rail subsidies in the US.
Not sure why I didn't assume that European rail was subsidized; only makes sense. Europe = government intervention in economies, right?
The apparent efficiency of these systems seems like proof that subsidized or public systems can provide a quality of service that can be unmatched by the market.
Government intervention in rail markets may help providers coordinate and benefit from economies of scale which are necessary in order for transport systems to work efficiently. If you don't subsidize, using rail transport will cost more, so many fewer people will use rail, so it will be more costly, an so on… Subsidies probably also make it possible for transport providers to provide services to places that wouldn't be economical destinations otherwise; keeping rural communities alive, despite economic inefficiencies, may be an outcome we value intrinsically.
Also, it seems hard to argue that the car-centric US culture is more efficient, even in a purely economic sense, than the fast, clean, convenient, and energy-efficient public transport here, even if it's subsidized.
Of course, private transport is also heavily subsidized in the US (most roads are public, for one thing, and there are many direct and indirect subsidies to auto manufacturing and gasoline production). So our system may well be the result of heavy subsidies to the automotive industry and smaller subsidies to rail. Perhaps we would get something like the European system in a purely market-driven economy where nothing was subsidized at all.
Friday, May 21, 2010
Financial Sanctions on Iran, and missing flights in Europe.
The NY Times discusses the possibility of financial sanctions against Iran's central bank here.
What I know about this approach is relatively optimistic--sounds like the approach we tried against Sudan during the Clinton administration, after the first World Trade Center bombings--these were the financial sanctions that drove Bin Laden and his cronies from Sudan to Afghanistan. Though it also sounds like there's a lot to be decided here.
Anything I'm missing?
In other news, after nearly missing our connecting flight in Houston, Emily and I made our flight to Frankfurt, then, once in Frankfurt, missed our flight to Vienna. So, we should be in Vienna on a later flight at about 9:30 tonight, unless we can hitch a ride, standby, on a flight that's leaving in about an hour.
I'm no stranger to long flights, but I haven't crossed this many time zones in a single trip ever in my life before, except for once. It's weird. It's 2:15PM here, and I'm just starting to get hungry for breakfast. Feel like I should be a lot more tired than I am.
In other news, Frankfurt is my new least favorite airport. As byzantine and poorly signed as O'Hare or the airport in Mexico City, without the charming modernist architecture of O'Hare or the shininess of D.F.
What I know about this approach is relatively optimistic--sounds like the approach we tried against Sudan during the Clinton administration, after the first World Trade Center bombings--these were the financial sanctions that drove Bin Laden and his cronies from Sudan to Afghanistan. Though it also sounds like there's a lot to be decided here.
Anything I'm missing?
In other news, after nearly missing our connecting flight in Houston, Emily and I made our flight to Frankfurt, then, once in Frankfurt, missed our flight to Vienna. So, we should be in Vienna on a later flight at about 9:30 tonight, unless we can hitch a ride, standby, on a flight that's leaving in about an hour.
I'm no stranger to long flights, but I haven't crossed this many time zones in a single trip ever in my life before, except for once. It's weird. It's 2:15PM here, and I'm just starting to get hungry for breakfast. Feel like I should be a lot more tired than I am.
In other news, Frankfurt is my new least favorite airport. As byzantine and poorly signed as O'Hare or the airport in Mexico City, without the charming modernist architecture of O'Hare or the shininess of D.F.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Will Sanctions Work?
The New York Times reports a deal on international sanctions on Iran here.
Although the jury is still out on whether or not sanctions "work," (some say yea, some say nay, and for a range of different reasons), one thing that we know is that, if sanctions work, they are most likely to work before they're imposed. That is, sanctions work primarily as a threat, ahead of time. If a target of sanctions--Iran, in this case--is going to cave, they'll do so after threatened with sanctions, but before sanctions are imposed, to avoid the potential costs.
One problem is that countries (like Iran) might be threatened with sanctions in private, ahead of time. So it's often to know if private threats of sanctions work in changing the behavior of targeted countries.
However, if there's one thing that democracies are good at, it's clearly signaling their intentions; in this case, to punish Iran for pursuing nuclear power. Unfortunately, the United States probably isn't the critical player in this case of sanctions, and the most important players--Russia and China--aren't democratic. So we'll see what happens.
For what it's worth, I do think that sanctions work sometimes, and are worth trying before stepping up to something else (like, say, cruise missile strikes or something like that). I would also argue that an important normative consideration is for us to reduce our own nuclear stockpile, which is something we're already doing under the Obama administration. That's probably helpful, if you believe in soft power, the power of persuasion, and the teaching of appropriate norms to "deviant" states.
Although the jury is still out on whether or not sanctions "work," (some say yea, some say nay, and for a range of different reasons), one thing that we know is that, if sanctions work, they are most likely to work before they're imposed. That is, sanctions work primarily as a threat, ahead of time. If a target of sanctions--Iran, in this case--is going to cave, they'll do so after threatened with sanctions, but before sanctions are imposed, to avoid the potential costs.
One problem is that countries (like Iran) might be threatened with sanctions in private, ahead of time. So it's often to know if private threats of sanctions work in changing the behavior of targeted countries.
However, if there's one thing that democracies are good at, it's clearly signaling their intentions; in this case, to punish Iran for pursuing nuclear power. Unfortunately, the United States probably isn't the critical player in this case of sanctions, and the most important players--Russia and China--aren't democratic. So we'll see what happens.
For what it's worth, I do think that sanctions work sometimes, and are worth trying before stepping up to something else (like, say, cruise missile strikes or something like that). I would also argue that an important normative consideration is for us to reduce our own nuclear stockpile, which is something we're already doing under the Obama administration. That's probably helpful, if you believe in soft power, the power of persuasion, and the teaching of appropriate norms to "deviant" states.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Academic exploitation?
Via Chris Blattman, a discussion, here, of how "exploitative" academic job markets exist.
I find this whole discussion laughable. As an academic, even as an adjunct in most places, you still get paid more, and work far less, than even the laziest of public school teachers. Academia is a great deal. End of story.
If I wind up in academia (and I may not--I have this Boren fellowship government service commitment), and if I end up in a low-end job in (say) Leadville, Colorado, it won't be because I've been "socialized" into believing that academia is better than everywhere else. Sure, there are people who believe that. There are also people that believe that the pipeline welding industry is better than everywhere else. It will be because I'm willing to trade off some salary for the benefits of being a full-time college instructor.
It blows my mind that there are so many people out there who are willing to sing the sad song of labor exploitation, even when it's ridiculous, on its face. Emily had a law professor who loved to talk about how exploitative the partnership track law firm jobs were.
Those are the same jobs that start at $125K/year.
Steel yourself to face the revolutionary vanguard of overworked personal injury attorneys.
I find this whole discussion laughable. As an academic, even as an adjunct in most places, you still get paid more, and work far less, than even the laziest of public school teachers. Academia is a great deal. End of story.
If I wind up in academia (and I may not--I have this Boren fellowship government service commitment), and if I end up in a low-end job in (say) Leadville, Colorado, it won't be because I've been "socialized" into believing that academia is better than everywhere else. Sure, there are people who believe that. There are also people that believe that the pipeline welding industry is better than everywhere else. It will be because I'm willing to trade off some salary for the benefits of being a full-time college instructor.
It blows my mind that there are so many people out there who are willing to sing the sad song of labor exploitation, even when it's ridiculous, on its face. Emily had a law professor who loved to talk about how exploitative the partnership track law firm jobs were.
Those are the same jobs that start at $125K/year.
Steel yourself to face the revolutionary vanguard of overworked personal injury attorneys.
Elinor Ostrom make it to Jeopardy!
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Realists catching up.
Is Stephen Walt just now discovering that the United States' relative power is in decline? Seriously? This brilliant insight, coming in 2010, could only come from the same people who believe in the stopping power of water.
Friday, May 14, 2010
The X-men and economic development
It's been a while since I've blogged about anything; I've been leaving it up to my students to do the heavy lifting for a long time. Maybe I'll get back into it a bit now.
The other night, Emily and I watched "X-men: Origins." A copy that I picked up in Peru when I was there. I have a pretty low bar for movies, so although I've heard that it wasn't that good, I really enjoyed it. Movies are escapism for me, so the comic book films really work for me pretty well.
After we finished up the DVD, though, I was thinking about what the world would look like if there really were mutants wandering around with indestructible skeletons and superhuman strength and the ability to self-heal and stop bullets with their hands and stuff like that. Seems unlikely to play out the way the Marvel comic books suggest it would. So, in the style of Dan Drezner (but with more of a comparative twist), I decided to blog about it.
The universe of the X-men resembles our world in most ways, right down to the fact that there is a US presidency with control over the armed forces, etc. If indeed there were mutants with superpowers that were able to prey on humanity, however, it's much more likely that the world would be a lot poorer, there would be a lot less capital-intensive industry, and non-mutant government would play much less of a role than it does in our world.
One thing that political economists know from the work of Barry Weingast, Douglass North, Avner Greif and other institutionalists is that trade, capital accumulation, lending, contracting, and therefore, industrialization and much other economic activity (the activity that makes the wealth of the developed world possible) is due to the presence of institutions--rules--that keep people from taking wealth away from other people. If I'm stronger than you, and you can't trust that I won't take your wealth away if you save it because there are no rules or mechanisms for rule enforcement (such as laws, police forces, and judicial systems to protect my wealth), you simply won't accumulate much wealth for me to take away. Better to spend it as soon as you get it (and probably better to spend it on things that are quickly consumable, like beer, chips, and bottle rockets) than to save it or invest it in some business-building scheme such as new equipment or a new store or other facility.
Likewise, if judicial systems don't work very well because there are people who can use force or corruption to manipulate others (like diamond-hard adamantium talons or rapid healing abilities or the ability to corrupt others through threats or the ability to bend their minds) you get a country that is very poor, crime-ridden, and relatively unstable. One good modern day example is Guatemala, which has an extremely high crime rate, high birth rate, fragmented economy, and high rate of retributive justice.
A high crime rate, because the criminal justice system isn't any good at catching and punishing lawbreakers. A high rate of retributive justice, like lynchings, that are an imperfect substitute for a functioning justice system. A high birth rate, because the absence of unbiased government which might otherwise provide a social safety net leaves the poor with little choice but to have many children who can support them in their old age. And a fragmented economy, because firms are afraid to get too big, lest they become a target for racketeering and other criminal rent-seeking activities.
Finally, we also know that where one group has power or control that another group lacks, like disproportionately large political influence, more arms (weapons) or more arms (grasping rubber tentacles), or the ability to teleport or move metal objects with their minds, they will likely be able to manipulate existing government institutions to their material benefit (like wealthy European elites in resource-extractive economies like Bolivia, Brazil, or Mexico) or become the government, themselves (like early European states).
Further we know that if there are two groups of elites with a great deal of force fighting one another, the weak don't tend to get left out, and they don't tend to get to carry on their lives like usual. Just ask Peruvian rural peasants caught between the shining path and the government, the Sudanese, or rural Mayan Guatemalans during the '80s.
Basically, if there were mutants, our lives would much more likely resemble the lives of poor rural agriculturalists in the developing world.
The other night, Emily and I watched "X-men: Origins." A copy that I picked up in Peru when I was there. I have a pretty low bar for movies, so although I've heard that it wasn't that good, I really enjoyed it. Movies are escapism for me, so the comic book films really work for me pretty well.
After we finished up the DVD, though, I was thinking about what the world would look like if there really were mutants wandering around with indestructible skeletons and superhuman strength and the ability to self-heal and stop bullets with their hands and stuff like that. Seems unlikely to play out the way the Marvel comic books suggest it would. So, in the style of Dan Drezner (but with more of a comparative twist), I decided to blog about it.
The universe of the X-men resembles our world in most ways, right down to the fact that there is a US presidency with control over the armed forces, etc. If indeed there were mutants with superpowers that were able to prey on humanity, however, it's much more likely that the world would be a lot poorer, there would be a lot less capital-intensive industry, and non-mutant government would play much less of a role than it does in our world.
One thing that political economists know from the work of Barry Weingast, Douglass North, Avner Greif and other institutionalists is that trade, capital accumulation, lending, contracting, and therefore, industrialization and much other economic activity (the activity that makes the wealth of the developed world possible) is due to the presence of institutions--rules--that keep people from taking wealth away from other people. If I'm stronger than you, and you can't trust that I won't take your wealth away if you save it because there are no rules or mechanisms for rule enforcement (such as laws, police forces, and judicial systems to protect my wealth), you simply won't accumulate much wealth for me to take away. Better to spend it as soon as you get it (and probably better to spend it on things that are quickly consumable, like beer, chips, and bottle rockets) than to save it or invest it in some business-building scheme such as new equipment or a new store or other facility.
Likewise, if judicial systems don't work very well because there are people who can use force or corruption to manipulate others (like diamond-hard adamantium talons or rapid healing abilities or the ability to corrupt others through threats or the ability to bend their minds) you get a country that is very poor, crime-ridden, and relatively unstable. One good modern day example is Guatemala, which has an extremely high crime rate, high birth rate, fragmented economy, and high rate of retributive justice.
A high crime rate, because the criminal justice system isn't any good at catching and punishing lawbreakers. A high rate of retributive justice, like lynchings, that are an imperfect substitute for a functioning justice system. A high birth rate, because the absence of unbiased government which might otherwise provide a social safety net leaves the poor with little choice but to have many children who can support them in their old age. And a fragmented economy, because firms are afraid to get too big, lest they become a target for racketeering and other criminal rent-seeking activities.
Finally, we also know that where one group has power or control that another group lacks, like disproportionately large political influence, more arms (weapons) or more arms (grasping rubber tentacles), or the ability to teleport or move metal objects with their minds, they will likely be able to manipulate existing government institutions to their material benefit (like wealthy European elites in resource-extractive economies like Bolivia, Brazil, or Mexico) or become the government, themselves (like early European states).
Further we know that if there are two groups of elites with a great deal of force fighting one another, the weak don't tend to get left out, and they don't tend to get to carry on their lives like usual. Just ask Peruvian rural peasants caught between the shining path and the government, the Sudanese, or rural Mayan Guatemalans during the '80s.
Basically, if there were mutants, our lives would much more likely resemble the lives of poor rural agriculturalists in the developing world.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
US Youngsters are too fat to fight, warn generals
Jose Loera
Every day you probably do not notice the overwhelming number of obese youngsters but our generals have definitely noticed. Two generals in particular have made claims that obesity among our young Americans can undermine the future of the US military. The claim is that more than a quarter of young Americans are now too fat to fight. This claim suggests that military service recruits will have obesity as the overwhelming factor for medical dismissal.
The next step that the generals have taken has been to encourage congress to introduce laws to change the value of nutrition that the students are receiving in school. The generals have also joined a coalition of over 130 generals on this fight to encourage new laws. Two former Joint Chiefs of Staff have been quoted saying, “Obesity rates threaten the overall health of America and the future strength of our military.”
My question to the readers out there is are you one of this kids or is this your brother, sister, or cousin? Do you buy into the claim our future soldiers will not be able to fight because their belly is holding them back? What are your thoughts on the subject considering many school districts have decided to cut out Physical Education (P.E) programs due to budget cuts.
Every day you probably do not notice the overwhelming number of obese youngsters but our generals have definitely noticed. Two generals in particular have made claims that obesity among our young Americans can undermine the future of the US military. The claim is that more than a quarter of young Americans are now too fat to fight. This claim suggests that military service recruits will have obesity as the overwhelming factor for medical dismissal.
The next step that the generals have taken has been to encourage congress to introduce laws to change the value of nutrition that the students are receiving in school. The generals have also joined a coalition of over 130 generals on this fight to encourage new laws. Two former Joint Chiefs of Staff have been quoted saying, “Obesity rates threaten the overall health of America and the future strength of our military.”
My question to the readers out there is are you one of this kids or is this your brother, sister, or cousin? Do you buy into the claim our future soldiers will not be able to fight because their belly is holding them back? What are your thoughts on the subject considering many school districts have decided to cut out Physical Education (P.E) programs due to budget cuts.
Recycling
Hannah Weinberger
We are coming upon an age where we need new innovation, and new attitudes towards the way we do things. Watch this clip and see how Hollywood, Florida is changing incentives for recycling, and how much of an impact it is having on the amount of recycling growth in the city.
Other cities around the country should start to think about programs that give incentives to recycling, besides just saving the planet. For many, that is not a worthwhile reason to begin to change their lifestyle.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/tech/2010/05/04/ac.zarrella.recycle.bank.cnn?hpt=C2
We are coming upon an age where we need new innovation, and new attitudes towards the way we do things. Watch this clip and see how Hollywood, Florida is changing incentives for recycling, and how much of an impact it is having on the amount of recycling growth in the city.
Other cities around the country should start to think about programs that give incentives to recycling, besides just saving the planet. For many, that is not a worthwhile reason to begin to change their lifestyle.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/tech/2010/05/04/ac.zarrella.recycle.bank.cnn?hpt=C2
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)