Hilarious!

http://www.themonkeycage.org/2008/12/post_149.html

Samuel P. Huntington

Zane notes that Samuel P. Huntington, the grand old man of Comparative
Politics, died at age 81 on the 27th of December. I'm a little
behind--spending time with Emily and all while here in the states (also
getting my fill of fast food and skiing, among other things)--so I only
read about it today.

If you're so inclined, Huntington's (terrible) Wikipedia entry is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_P._Huntington

The page really focuses on critiques of Huntington, leaving out almost
entirely his most important ideas (in my opinion), which are really in
his earlier work. Still, it has some useful links.

I'm especially fond of _Political Order in Changing Societies_, which
was something of a rebuttal to the Modernization theory popular in the
United States in the 1950s and 1960s. Huntington essentially argues
that "modernization" doesn't always produce desirable results. Instead,
if it isn't accompanied by an increase in the strength and capacity of
government, the result can be violence.

Broadly (and that's the way to look at Huntington's work), I think he
was right. "Modernization" produces demands on government, and if the
government isn't capable of fulfilling those demands, the result can be
civil war, insurgency, or other un-pretty things.

Huntington's work is what I like to call "macro-historical analysis"--I
didn't come up with that phrase, I picked it up somewhere else along the
way--but essentially, he tries to interpret the major trends of
history. It isn't always pretty, methodologically rigorous, or right,
but this is a guy who started writing before most Political Scientists
alive today were out of elementary school (at least), and the fancy
methodologies we sometimes use today hadn't been developed, or hadn't
been adopted to Political Science when he started publishing.

Coleman v. Franken

Given the internal democracy that exists in both the Republican and
Democratic parties in the US, this might actually be a good solution to
the Minnesota issue:

http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/politics/rock-paper-scissors-senate/

I'm in Lima...

...after nervously waiting for my flight, hoping Cuzco's weather would
hold out. Because of the altitude (something like 13,000 ft.) it's easy
for flights to be canceled, even due to rain.

I celebrated by eating dinner out, getting a burger and fries (but no
fried cheese or Yucca) at Bembo's, everybody's favorite Peruvian burger
chain.

I also had a pancake with ice cream.

Here in Peru, pancakes are always on the dessert menu. In Guatemala,
they're the main meal, but usually for breakfast or dinner (no
difference between those two meals, really).

One beneficial outcome of possible US-Latin American cultural syncretism
will be a situation where you can eat pancakes three times a day, and
either for the main meal or dessert. Possibly the main meal and dessert.

That, truly, would be progress.

Some Good News

According to Bolivia's best newspaper, _La Razon_, the Peruvian economy
grew about 10% this year. This is great, especially because this growth
isn't concentrated in minerals and other commodities.

Certainly, Peru _seems_ to be growing like crazy, although the growth is
very concentrated in the urban areas, especially in Lima. Get out of
Cuzco a couple miles and you're living in the 18th century. Except for
the cell phones. And soccer.

Fiscal Stimulus

Mankiw weighs in again:

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2008/12/let-rent-seeking-begin.html

Mankiw suggests that giving people stimulus checks will be better (note
that he doesn't use the term "more efficient") than giving money to
public works projects like zoos.

But would somebody please tell me why it's less desirable for us to
spend on zoos than it is to spend on electric teakettles and iPods? (I
happen to like the zoo, as do the approximately 31,000 people who visit
the Denver zoo every weekend). And I happen to think their social value
is much greater than the junk people will buy with their stimulus check.

Okay, I kid about the electric teakettles and iPod. But here's my opinion:

Stimulus projets will employ people that otherwise wouldn't have been
employed. So will stimulus checks. There is some debate about the
extent to which each of these types of stimuli will improve the
economy--if I understand correctly, economists disagree on the
multiplier effect of each type of stimulus. Still, they will both put
money in the economy and increase employment.

There are two important differences, however, in my opinion, between
these two forms of stimulus.

The initial effects of these stimuli will be different. The stimulus
checks would go to everyone. New employment through economic stimulus
projects will be more likely to provide work to people who are
unemployed at the moment. I think this is important:

Although I would love to get another stimulus check, the fact of the
matter is that I don't need the money (don't tell Emily I said that).
I'm always happy to have more money, but I don't need it as much as
somebody who just lost their job. I'm covered for a while--at least
until I get out of school.

Ironically, that stimulus check really isn't going to help the guy or
gal who just lost their job. A couple hundred dollars will be nice, but
it won't compensate them for the economic, or the psychological cost of
having lost a job.

Having a job at a public works project, however, will. That will help
them put food on the table and put their kids through school.

Of course, there is always more "waste" and less "efficiency," in an
economic sense, when the government picks winners. But in another
sense, giving $600 to somebody who doesn't derive much utility from that
money (like me) is pretty inefficient. I'd rather my $600 goes to
somebody who needs it.

The second difference is sustainability. Not in an ecological sense--I
mean sustainability in terms of the long-term benefits of public works
projects.

Take zoos, for example. Zoos are beneficial in a lot of ways. They
educate people, they provide entertainment in a desirable way (as
opposed to, say, watching _The Young and the Restless_), and once these
public works projects are completed, they will provide these social
benefits over the long term.

On the other hand, you send me $600, and I'll buy an iPhone. iPhones
are cool. And useful. But they don't provide the same educational,
recreational, or social benefits as zoos. Maybe I'm not as rational or
as efficient as a lot of other people, but I bet that buying toys like
that will be what a lot of other people will do to.

Frankly, that just isn't as good as employing people who lost a job and
need to provide for their families.

I'm dreaming of a green christmas...

Spent the day in the District of Huerta, Anta Province, outside of Cusco
(Cuzco/Qosqo). The family I'm staying with here has been funding a
school out there for the local kids, and they had a Christmas
celebration for them today.

I got a lot of pictures of the incredibly cute local kids. I'll post
them in my Picasa account, and I'll put a link in the sidebar. There
are also a couple of poor-quality videos.

Most of the pictures I took, but the best ones were actually taken by a
couple of the kids who were really interested in playing with my camera.

Among other things, the day included a (creepy) clown, cake and other
snacks, hot chocolate (the real stuff), and a fair share of games and a
lot of getting kissed on the cheek.

One of the things that amazes me about these kids is how poor they are,
and yet how little they seem to act disadvantaged. Kids that don't have
shoes, can't afford school uniforms, and don't get fed regularly. Also,
kids that have never had cake before and have never seen a clown.

Admittedly, that last one is probably a positive thing, if my experience
is any guide...

Another thing that amazes me is the fact that they have no problems
eating marshmallows coated in powdered cheese from chee-to-like snacks.

A third thing that I find amazing is the fact that they just stick the
chee-tos in their pocket for later consumption. Hilarious watching them
pull a handful of mostly-crushed cheese puffs out of a pants pocket.
Also hilarious watching these kids eat the aforementioned cheese puffs.

Weird being in a place that's so green at Christmas time. Beautiful,
though.

Philosophizing on the Size of Government

Mankiw comments on the size of government here:

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2008/12/crises-and-government.html

Again, I love this guy--he's one of my two favorite economists (and it's
no coincidence that the other one also has a blog).

That said, this really seems like beating a dead horse. Yes, the size
of government has grown since the 1920s. Yes, the increase in the size
of government has been permanent.

That's terrible.

But why?

Mankiw seems to imply that this increase in the size of government has
been undesirable, and if the current crisis leads to a permanent
increase in the size of government, that would be undesirable as well.
It's unclear to me why this would be the case. Do we really want to go
back to the _laissez faire_ model of political economy of the 1920s and
before? I think that most people in the US probably can agree that
things like Social Security, affordable housing, a larger military, and
greater spending on infrastructure (like highways) is good. Most people
(Ron Paul being one prominent recent example) probably don't think those
things are a waste, and most people probably wouldn't like the private
sector to take them over.

If the current crisis results in a bigger government, the _specifics_ of
such an increase will probably include things like (again) greater
spending on infrastructure maintenance (which God only knows we need),
greater spending on green technologies (I have a hard time faulting this
policy expenditure) and a national health care system that (most likely)
will be half as expensive as the one we have now.

I have a hard time faulting _that_ increase in the size of government.

"Big Government" means "Bad Government" to many conservatives. There
are things that government doesn't do very well. But the government of
the United States is pretty good at doing an awful lot of things.

Though in closing, I should add that I mostly voted Libertarian in
Colorado's county and municipal races. I would have voted for the
Prohibition Party, except they only had a presidential candidate, and I
wanted to vote for Obama.

I realize that's a complete contradiction. I feel no need to resolve my
cognitive dissonance.

At this very moment...

...I am listening to Tom Keene of Bloomberg's _On the Economy_
interviewing Oscar the Grouch. I'm not making this up. Apparently,
Oscar the Grouch's favorite guest on Sesame Street was Waylon Jennings.

This is an amazing time we're living in.

Apparently, Sesame Street was banned in its first year in Mississippi,
because it showed an integrated community (Hispanic/Anglo/African
American/Muppet) in a positive light.

They also have a Middle Eastern version (the show was produced in Kuwait
and the tapes were stolen by the Iraqi army during the first Gulf war)
and they have a South African show that features, among other things, an
HIV positive Muppet.

It was a project that came out of the Great Society.

And by the way, this may be another example of one of the ways in which
government projects can beat the market. I'll bet for Sesame Street
over the Flinstones any day.

A couple new pictures

Hey all,

A few new pictures of graffiti up under "Awesome Graffiti" in the sidebar. Click on the profane picture to see them.