It almost certainly got caught in the spam filter. Ill dig it out when I get to a computer- and look forward to reading your review! Sent from my iPhone

Thanks Al! Sent from my iPhone

Wow -- thanks for posting this. I just covered Flynn v. Holder in class a few weeks ago, and was unaware of this new (and, in my view, mistaken) move by HHS. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this in your next post.

Harford’s piece on Ostrom and Hardin is really interesting. I must be getting old, because it seems like just yesterday she won the Nobel prize – can’t believe it was actually 2009.

Thanks for your comments, Marcia. And I’m glad that our respondents’ statements on this point ring true for you, especially as I can see from your bio that you’re quite familiar with this world. You might also be interested in another paper of ours, “Does Critical Mass Matter?,” which has detailed stories from our respondents about what it’s is like to be the “first and only” female or minority. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1781064 The short answer – most of our respondents, by the time they reach the boardroom, are used to it because they’ve been in that position their whole lives.

Lol -- understood and I made a similar point in conversation with someone just this weekend: "why are we talking about 'diversity' if what we mean is 'discrimination'?" I do think that there are some relevant differences between the corporate board and fed chair contexts on this point, but I realize I'll never get any work done if I don't get off the internet. Thanks for the feedback.

Thanks for your comment, TJ, though I’m not sure that I follow your argument. I did not say that no one is invoking diversity arguments. Of course they are – that is the point of these posts and of the five articles and book chapters I’ve written on this topic. Rather, I said – as you correctly quote -- that no one is arguing that more-qualified men should be passed over for less-qualified female candidates in the name of “diversity.” Thus the argument – from both Yellen’s supporters and most board diversity supporters – is really three-fold: (1) they are just as, if not more, qualified than their male counterparts, (2) they are subtly disadvantaged by their “outsider” status, and (3) in any event, diversity brings additional benefits that should weigh in their favor. (The various tensions in this last point are the subject of the paper that I mention in the post) “You might say that Yellen supporters are really concerned about invidious discrimination against her in the form of "fit" and "comfort,"” Yes, that is exactly what I’m saying. I think we're on the same page here, though perhaps I misunderstand your comment.

Congrats, Al!

Well, see, I've already provided your first slide for your workshop

Ha! Happy to have been useful . . .

I'm in the same boat, Tamara. They have so far been very good, it seems, about accommodating people on other flights, including flights on another airline. But it's still a risk.

Hi Alex -- yes, the reference is to the AA-Reno Air merger, when the court awarded AA more than $45 million dollars in damages due to the pilot union "sick out." Naturally, there could not be a court ruling yet on this week's actions. But the prior case must be very much on the minds of those who were around to experience it.

The Fortune Teller! I had forgotten that one . . .

Interesting post, Peter. Welcome, and glad to have you with us.

Definitely haunted.

Thanks Patrick.

Good to be back, Al. Thanks! Sent from my iPad

Great to hear from you, Bill -- and can't wait to hear more about your summer travel as well.

The collegehumor link is brilliant!

Ill have to leave that one to Taibi -- just because Im an academic doesnt mean I have *endless* amounts of free time. :-)

"I do not believe that calling Dimon down to a congressional hearing and reading him the riot act is useful at all. " On this we are in complete agreement (as any sane person should be). But the pols must have their few moments on tape giving Dimon a tongue-lashing to prove that they're not all soft on the banks. Yada yada.

There's some speculation in the press today, James, that there may be more losses -- they don't know, of course, but it is a reasonable story. I may blog more about that later today if I have time. You may have seen, Adam, that a few folks are calling for more stringent measures, such as breaking up large banks or returning to Glass-Steagall, in the wake of this news. That's probably not the same as what you have in mind with "punishment" (which I take to be a call for individual accountability) but it is more harsh than Dodd Frank. I doubt that any of these proposals will have traction, absent another 2008-like episode.

"when I head for Sicily and the Veneto" Oh, I'm so jealous! Bring photos back, please . . .

Hi Bill -- the IG9 is actually a corporate credit index, not a mortgage index.

Thanks for this, Joan. Sent from my iPad