why on earth do you think this has to do with markets, as opposed to bankers buying politicians ? or arbitrary rules enforced by pinkertons ? btw, the sign in process on your blog is really nonstd and broken; perhaps that is your way of keeping comments down ?

sorry, forgot to add today, it doesn't cost anything (zero) to advertise a vacancy just a few years ago, an ad in the boston globe (i'm in boston) was a fortune; we thought long and hard about even a short ad in the class section (which tells you what an incredible money maker the globe and other papers were, and why we should shed like zero tears for them now) but the point...maybe there are more vacancys cause it is cheap to advertise a job

might the Bev curve thing be explained by the greater competition from foreign firms - as follows Assume that foreign firms have lower wages and lower gross margins (biz gross margin, diff between cost to make an SKU and selling price) Then, there will be increasing pressure on american firms to lower costs so that gross margins, a key indicator of financial strenght, remain high one way to do this is hire only people who have the exact skill set you need; I realize this argument sort of kicks the can down the road (if they need to hire someone, they need to hire) but as someone who works in a company, it makes sense to me. add in a change due to baby boomers getting close to retirement, a % or two staying unemployed due to long term UI, put em together might explain the gap there is also a clueless dunce explanation: maybe hiring managers automatically don't hire people who have been unemployed a long time, and there are a subset of people to dumb to realize this and lie on their application forms

rams is it fantastical pedantic nitpicking, on the order of triliondollarplatinumcoinism, to say that the word "arms" in the 2nd, refers only to the technology with which the founders were familiar ? (apparently, a soldier was expected to fire once very 15 seconds for up to 4 minutes, at which point the barrel needed to be cleaned, although the amount of smoke meant the shooter couldn't see his target) Insurance sounds good,it reminds me of the idea that Civilian Nuclear power wouldn't be possible without the coverage provided by the taxpayers On the other hand, Prohibition and the war on drugs suggest that bans won't be that effective; not to mention, I hear nearly every day on right wing talk radio about illegal immigrants driving without insurance. and, i suspect that most here would agree that penalties don't deter the often damaged people who commit these crimes, just as the death penalty is not a deterrent. And, as many of you know, already, in many states, possession of afirearm during a crime results in automatic increases in penalties. I would also remind people that ammunition limits require regulating the whole home reload industry (ammo is $; you buy powder, primers and bullets, and a couple of reloading presses, you can reuse the brass at home for a lot less ) I think the upshot is that realistic gun control has to follow a civil rights or MADD or tobacco approach: it is a long term project that has to change the way we think about guns. http://sangam.org/taraki/articles/2006/04-30_Rifle.php?uid=1697 http://www.doublegv.com/ggv/battles/tactics.html http://www.11thpa.org/weapons.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act http://www.dillonprecision.com/#/content/p/9/pid/25792/catid/1/BL_550_Basic_Loader

Why isn't their a full page ad in the WaPo or NYT, signed by many prominent economists, demanding that President Obama Lower the Medicare eligibility age to 60 ? It won't cost much, and it will save many Americans from Bankruptcy Now, if Obama were really a democrat, that would be his opening gambit.

Quote Ken Houghton said... All of what AC says there is intuitive to anyone with half a brain. Close Quote Please NO, this is wrong. human brains are not logical thinking machines, they are wet chemistry and electrical waves with all sorts of shortcuts and biases. They are so complex, and full of Rube Goldberg Heuristics, it is amazing they work at all (and given all the crazy people that ain't far from the truth) the latest research in cognitive science and psychology tells us that trying to change someone's mind by showing them facts contrary to their beliefs doesn't work. Instead, you have to offer an alternative story, to supplant the existing story; you need a simple story Medicare is Good Medicare Saves Money Medicare Protects People from Savage Private Insurance That last one is good, cause it supplants the old idea with something that people already believe - that big companies are bad. The idea that "we" are gonna change anyone's mind with complex delongkrugman like arguments is insane. I'm sorry to be rude, but I'm sick and tired of progressives or liberals who keep, year after year, making the same mistake. don't argue that your opponents idea is bad (unless it is really stupid, like, Gov romney, perhpas you don't know that since 1917 we have these things called aircraft carriers) Instead, offer a BETTER ALTERNTIVE http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold-Creationist-View-Human-Origins.aspx 58% of Republicans think that god created man essentially in his present form with in the last 10,000 years.

If you step back, and look at the last ~300 years or so of the Industrial Revolution, and world history, one is struck (I think) by the enormous wealth and security of the US today, and how the working and middle class enjoy things un available to even the wealthiest. But Is there any reason to think this will continue ? Why is this any more "natural" then the horrible poverty of 19th century industrial England ? Why is our current state more likely or natural then a state like China, where huge numbers of people work at near starvation wages..

u r so right cybernetic eyes - I wrote my Governor (D Patrick, MA) that he shouldn't put money into what everyone else was doing(stem cells) but instead electromechanical organs... 3D printing - you would htink that M Whitman would realize that this is like the one thing tht can save HP

is this true ? suppose the gov't does nothing more about housing, directly, but some combination of gov't policys and other circumstances cause the economy to boom housing prices will go up with NO direct effort, all those underwater homes will be overwater (remember, underwater is a ratio with a den and num) secondly, your statement that the fat and stupid caused this mess, is, I think, at most partly true. many of the underwater people are underwater because of someone else - the factory closed, the person down the street got foreclosed, which lowered values on the whole street, etc also, there was a lot of fraud by various institutions; yes a lot of people did stupid things (1) but a lot of banks or bank equivalents did illegal fraudulent things 1) one could argue from a rational utility max point of view, that if you are a working class person, taking out a large loan and going on vacation is actually a good thing, from your lifetime income utility perspective that is, if youare, to make a fancifull example, working min wage in retail, and for some reason the bank says you can have 250K interest free, from your lifetime income perspective, taking the money and having fun might be a good deal.

but, for peace and econ and lit, what is the order of legitimacy ? (as H Kissinger has gotten peace, i put that last) Dr Delong's post on Tyler/Thomas Nagel is, I think, a subtle reminder to his readers that there are under the sun sillier things then economists

the comments here http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/nov/21/antifragile-how-to-live-nassim-nicholas-taleb-review are worth reading one person calls Taleb a "bellend", a word I have never seen before: british slang for the glans penis amazing, the roundabout path to knowledge

sorry, forgot to add reading Hobsbawm (after comments here) I get the impression that the industrial revolution was cotton, and , that to a large extent, it was forced de industrialization of india that allowed lancashire to flourish. So, one would suspect that the theory of comparative advantage in trade is something that was made by Englishmen enjoying (forced) advantage. One has to be suspicious of a theory which so self evidently is to the benefit of its authors

as i understand the arguments that you and PK etc are making, we should run a deficit to spur growth; if we have good growth, that will take care of the deficit, because the deficit will become a much smaller part of GDP Can't one make a similar argument for underwater mortgages, that if we focus on deficit spending stimulus growth, house prices will rise, and this will take care of much of the problem I note that in todays NY Times, there is a short piece in the biz section, based on data from an online firm called Zillow, that due to rising house prices there has been a decline of 1-2% in the number of underwater homes. Question: if one does a histogram, or something similar, what % of underwater homes become dry for each % rise in housing prices ? IT might be that we would need an enormous incr in prices to make this work. (or am i just missing the argument that we coulnd't have growth without mortgage reduction...)

It would be a little more sporting to pick on your own profession Question from the text book: Given two countries, A and B, each of which produces a single Good, Ga and Gb, and 100% of foreign trade is between the two countries, and the cost of producing Ga in A in less then producing Ga in B and vice versa Show That an increase in trade will benefit both countries As they say, the jokes almost write themselves...

Kathleen So this MIT student Hillis starts a computer company, and he and his friends are sitting in their new space, they don't even have furniture, and there is a knock on the door. Somewhat startled that anyone knew they were their, they open the door to find, gasp, Prof Richard Feynman, nobel laureate, etc etc Feynman says: "Private Feynman reporting for duty , Sir!What should I do ?" Hillis said, they were so confused, they sent him to staples for supplies... a little while later a guy sees Feynman hold out a bowl to a Female, who happens to be an MIT grad student in physics (ie, not totally stupid) Feynman barks, soup ! The student complies; the guy who is watching says to her - I'm surprised, I wouldn't have expected you to put up with that from ANYONE she says, he is the only person who has ever been able to make sense of thermodynamics for me moral of the story: you can show up in birkenstocks if you are R Feynman. (the hidden gem here is that almost everyone who has been exsposed to thermo feels the same way...)

I think that in life, you don't win arguments by making fun of people, but maybe i'm wrong, maybe a national program of ridicule will push anti evolution into the closet. I don't know how many of you are parents, but I can't imagine anyone who is not thinking that being a parent is a lot of work, and responsibility, and with that goes the right to raise your children as you see fit, so long as you don't break the law. Surely no one who is a parent can think that having the state inspect you is a good idea. Also, I'm a little surprised that no one has brought up P Goodmanish ideas, that the goal of public school is in fact to indoctrinate you with the shared values of society; iirc, aren't the french at least honest about this ? I'm not sure what the many people who, selfessly, devote nearly full time to fighting the nonsense of antievolutionism say, but I think we should say No one is belittling anyone, and certainly not in school, and no one is saying you shouldn't listen to your parents. we have a limited number of hours in the science classroom; we have to make good use of that time. As adults and scientists, we need to make choices for our children; that is what we do as adults. one of those choices is what to talk about in science class. In the overhwelming judgement of the scientific community, the alternate theorys to evolution have, to date, not produced sufficient data to warrant discussion. . kharris - it was only in 1994 that the Commonwealth of MA removed the "religious exemption" for child care (eg, under the exemption, christian scientists could not be prosecuted if their child died due to lack of medical care) http://www.masskids.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=183&Itemid=185 Law signed by Gov Weld, republican. I couldn't find a good summary, but this http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2011/09/19/prsa0919.htm seems to indicate that in most of the country, parents will face a few weeks probation if they let their kid die (progress, of a sort)

html for vol I, II, democracy in america here http://www.gutenberg.org/files/815/815-h/815-h.htm http://www.gutenberg.org/files/816/816-h/816-h.htm search for the word "endure" does not turn up the quote however, while browsing, I found this,an appendix to vol II: Although the Puritanical strictness which presided over the establishment of the English colonies in America is now much relaxed, remarkable traces of it are still found in their habits and their laws. In 1792, at the very time when the anti-Christian republic of France began its ephemeral existence, the legislative body of Massachusetts promulgated the following law, to compel the citizens to observe the Sabbath. We give the preamble and the principal articles of this law, which is worthy of the reader's attention: "Whereas," says the legislator, "the observation of the Sunday is an affair of public interest; inasmuch as it produces a necessary suspension of labor, leads men to reflect upon the duties of life, and the errors to which human nature is liable, and provides for the public and private worship of God, the creator and governor of the universe, and for the performance of such acts of charity as are the ornament and comfort of Christian societies:—Whereas irreligious or light-minded persons, forgetting the duties which the Sabbath imposes, and the benefits which these duties confer on society, are known to profane its sanctity, by following their pleasures or their affairs; this way of acting being contrary to their own interest as Christians, and calculated to annoy those who do not follow their example; being also of great injury to society at large, by spreading a taste for dissipation and dissolute manners; Be it enacted and ordained by the Governor, Council, and Representatives convened in General Court of Assembly, that all and every person and persons shall on that day carefully apply themselves to the duties of religion and piety, that no tradesman or labourer shall exercise his ordinary calling, and that no game or recreation shall be used on the Lord's Day, upon pain of forfeiting ten shillings.

TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE No Cuts to Soc Security; NOT ONE DIME in cuts is acceptable, or, at an absolute minimum, not one dime in cuts until the following has occurred: Raise tax rates on households >250K to Carter era level Tax all income as ordinary income (no div or cap gain diff) (i take economic arguments about the need for capitial to fuel growth as ryan level silly; as the head of the committee said to Hari Sheldon, I disregard those remarks) end carried int exemption limit all deductions to ??15% gross income remove charitable deduction completly and probably a few others I don't know about once this has been enacted into law, we can talk about cutting soc sec

at the risk of sounding naive The gop narrative seems to be that 3 million fewer *GOP* voters turned out in 2012 then in 2010 Therefore, *urban* is not shorthand for those jew/gay/black whatever, but refers to the lack of turnout by gop voters Also, this narrative allows gop stalwarths to maintain the fiction that the core economic message - cut taxes for the Kochs and Waltons and pay for it with SNAP cuts - is supported by the American people (I don't know how they deal with those pesky exit polls) PS: Q: why is it that there is no standard, accepted website with a list of Koch industry products to not buy ? A: I don't belong to an organized political group, I'm a Democrat

Quote [the gop] have managed to kee the vast majority people ignorant of the fact taht the democrats cut the taxes of the vast majority of working families" and why is this not the fault of the dems ? even if it is true - eg, in Todays NY Times Sunday Review, "The building blocks of Re-election" charts showing how diff groups have voted since 1976. This Year: Fianancial Situtation better: 84% voted for Obama Financial situation the same: 58% for Obama Financial Situation worse: 80% voted for Romney what you can also see, is that Financial Situation shows much, much wider swings, election to election then any other group; eg financial situation better was oscillates wildy (~ 40 points) from cycle to cycle, while party affiliation, locality, religion are much more stable , showing 10% swings at most. Hard to give someone credit for a tax cut, you don't have a job.

Somewhat pompously, I would like to make a comment: You are head of an organization in a contest, don't you HAVE to maintain an air of success ? I mean, if at any point in the last two weeks, if Gov Romney or any of his top aids had said anything indicating doubt, would that not become a self fufilling prophecy ? Please factor that in to your silverian model for evaluating candidate/staff statements.

To Thibaud and RW no no no, he is not a successful biz guy he is a lucky financial con artist he is not a biz guy - he didn't make stuff, he took a cut of large flows of money generated by wall street con games, like securitizing junk bonds as AAA he is not successful; he is lucky -last decent analysis i saw, out of 104 odd deals at bain, three were where all the money came from I don't think that is skill - that is lucky hard working, yes competant - in all the evidence, no; salt lake = fed bailout; not popular as governor, and romney care was a REACTION to events driven by democratic legislature; and we know about ORCA and the presidential campaign money does not mean you are smart

>>What are the CEOs [and others]... doing differently now...that makes them.. worth five times as much as their predecessors of a generation and a half ago?… << because they can; humans are nasty brutish selfish animals; in the absence of law they revert to the rule of the jungle; in 2010 America, this means spending to elect politicians that weaken restraints (try even getting a case heard at the Fed EEOC ) so they can make more to elect more politicians...what is so hard to understand about a pos feedback loop ? I think the interesting question here is why there is even a debate within the economics profession prostituion, which afflicts both the charlatan (K Hassett) and those with great skill and intelligence (M Feldstein, G Mankiw) fear that sullying the math with squishy arguments will lower prestige feat that anything sounding of class will be equated with career killing smear of marxism (yes virginia, there is NO academic freedom in the US) turf war avoidance with poli sci and sociology An older, very distinguished colleague of mine told me that when he was chair, he told the asst profs to publish, because tenure was decided by a committee that included people from all different depts; the history and English profs couldn't evaluate papers on biophysics of DNA, so they would simply weight the stack of paper... One imagines the same thing in Econ depts: the senior people count how many inchs of equations there are; anyone who is pubishing fewer then 500 inchs of equations per year is not productive...

Quote as journalists desperately need to quote someone else in order to bring facts into the buried lead. no,I don't think thats quite right If you read newspapers carefully (I only read the times, part of my upbringing) you will see that there are two sets of facts - those the author states without ref to a source, and those that are sourced. YOu would assume that sourcing is used first for the most controversial and important facts. No so Often, the unsourced facts are not the "obvious" sun rises in the east sort of thing, but rather are facts fit with the authors bias, or are not sourced due toconstraints or source availability to the journalist PS: Brad - the captcha in typepad isn't working for me (!)

(captcha not working ?) >>We can’t do anything about changing technologies that have produced the winner-take-all economy.<< well, we can marginal tax rates of 99% on income over 1,000,000.00$ per year would do the trick Taxing all capital, esp stock, as ordinary income, and no death step up in basis would help Restoring the laws that limit media companies holdings in size and scope would help (surely, those as old as I remember that there used to be a law [the despairing cry of liberals circa 2012] restricting how many newspapers or tv stations or radio stations a company could own (or perhaps, cross ownership across media) Increasing funding, to preserve jewels of public education like the U CA system, or Madison, or Chapel Hill would increase mobility mandating "fair pay" for work done overseas If I may, I find it particularly odious that the US steals medical personnel from poor countries - very poor countries like the phillipines spend huge sums to train nurses and doctors, and we steal these people, and don't even have the decency to re imburse them for the cost of training. It is morally wrong. heck, thats 3 easy things and I'm only on my 1st cup of coffee, and i'm not even thinking seriously about this stuff..