This is Jedgar Mihelic's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Jedgar Mihelic's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Jedgar Mihelic
Recent Activity
That said, thank you for your continuing commitment to this site and its audience.
Toggle Commented Mar 9, 2018 on Links for 03-09-18 at Economist's View
1 reply
MARK, YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO POST THESE DURING THE WEEK SO THERE'S ....LUNCH TIME READING...
Toggle Commented Mar 9, 2018 on Links for 03-09-18 at Economist's View
1 reply
Now, this is time consuming, but one way to look at it is if you read all the papers through once without a pen in hand, you can see where there is systemic weakness and then construct your rubric from there (or if the class is large enough, just a sample). Then you can reread with your weights and then look on what you might want to focus on as a teacher in terms of setting those professional norms. (Repentant former graduate student in Literature).
1 reply
I think some fellows already had this idea: "Much more promising is this idea: The promotion of global integration can become a bottom-up rather than a top-down project" “Workers of the World, Unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains!" ~Marx/Engels, 1848
1 reply
That means we're going all in on the large denomination Swiss Franc?
1 reply
We have VCs loading up capital to small biotechs in hopes that they will find the right compound and get bought out by one of the big firms. All the while much of the basic research is government funded. Adam Smith would smile at how well the market works.
Toggle Commented Sep 24, 2015 on 'Rational Drug Pricing' at Economist's View
1 reply
Gilead cleared 21 Billion last year on 11 Billion of expenses with a drug they bought for 11 billion. Looks like the system is working just fine. Totally incentivizing R&D, no gouging here.
Toggle Commented Sep 24, 2015 on 'Rational Drug Pricing' at Economist's View
1 reply
I don't know if MT set it up that way, but it was a perfect teaser for the full click-through.
1 reply
....and you lose earning potential. Job loss sucks all around!
1 reply
Someone just needs to call Dean Baker, right? http://deanbaker.net/books/the-end-of-loser-liberalism.htm
Toggle Commented Mar 9, 2015 on 'Publicly Funded Inequality' at Economist's View
1 reply
You are my portal every day. Thanks for all the work. Just remember to keep the AM and PM straight!
Toggle Commented Mar 5, 2015 on Ten Years at Economist's View
1 reply
Now THAT'S an ownership society!
1 reply
On the views of some tax payers on the right, who think the government is just an extractive institution. The problem is that the individual relationship with the state is a symbiotic relationship. It then becomes part of the environment so much that it is forgotten that it is even there. It starts from a state of nature, but in a large industrial society, there needs to be coordination of public goods. These are the things that everyone needs but few are willing to pay the upfront costs. It’s why transport was limited in the first 100 years of the country. The state helps coordinate transportation – somebody ought to help trade the interior, it was said. There was no private company willing to dig a big ditch. So the Governor of New York said, let’s do this. The same was with the railroads and helping utilities lay right-of-ways. So that’s fine. We have public goods. But how do you trade? You need to facilitate trade in some way. In a small community, you have your word and reputation. In a larger environment, you need something else. Somebody ought to arbitrate contracts and set the rules for the market place. So you have a government step in. Now you have travel and commerce taken care of. How do you protect your property that you gained through that trade? Somebody ought to help out and protect private property. It’s too expensive to hire one guy for your own property. Maybe you get together with some other local property to hire a guy to patrol everyone’s property. But who sets the limits on what that guy can do? You need a code of rules and regulations to say what he can or cannot do. But why does that property need protection? Because for whatever reason there are people who covet what you own, much of these are losers on the transportation or the trade that was set up. What if instead of protecting your property, you made it so that you could help these people so that you did not be afraid for your property. What if you could do this at a lesser cost than it takes to protect your property and punish the trespassers? Congratulations, you just built a functioning state. Now the real questions are about priorities and allocations of the funds you gained because the state set up the conditions for your prosperity. It is not that the state is being extractive, but about how much you are willing to share with the society that is only possible because of state coordination. Cross Posted from http://econautodidactic.blogspot.com/2015/02/somebody-ought-to.html
1 reply
Sorry, only at UMKC. Go Roos!
Toggle Commented Nov 26, 2014 on 'Keynes Is Slowly Winning' at Economist's View
1 reply
There was a nontrad student in my into economics class who didn't believe about the surveys because his own household had never been called about the employment status of the members. I remember this because it came up at least three times, and he was incredulous, convinced the numbers were made up. So there may be something here, where there is a lack of knowledge of the methodology, making the whole thing seem a little fake.
1 reply
Whelp. I guess Grover's right. We need to cut taxes.
1 reply
I don't know about anyone else, but for economics, the JEP is great. I for one can't wait to read the symposia on manufacturing and agriculture in my newly arrived issue.
1 reply
I did not know that. Thank you.
1 reply
The question is who sat down and read the whole of WoN? I'll admit I abandoned it somewhere in book II with intentions to pick it back up. I do like going to the index an pointing out that there's only one reference in my version to the "Invisible hand" though.
1 reply
Does Niall count as an economist because he talks about the economy?
1 reply
^ What RJS Said. Did you account for that? It should have been worded with the caveat for statistics: eg beyond sampling error. Or something.
1 reply
Sad Face. :(
1 reply
Two thoughts: Do people who make arguments like "[W]orkers in safe jobs, all other things being equal, will make less than workers in dangerous ones" have a work history of dangerous jobs? Also, I may have missed it, but wouldn't increased worker's comp be part of the wage package, and effectively lower the take home of the workers. Shouldn't dangerous jobs pay less then?
1 reply
With regards to Stiglitz's book, I finished it this week and was surprised to find no reference to the "Spirit Level", which kept popping up in my mind as I read it -- the book was calling out for reference, but missed for some reason. But if you really ask me, the need for synthesis lies between "The Price of Inequality" and Robert Putnam's "Bowling Alone" there's a huge social-science lever that's waiting to be pushed.
Toggle Commented Jun 24, 2012 on How Much Inequality? at Economist's View
1 reply
Thanks, Professor, you're awesome. I don't care what anyone else says.
Toggle Commented May 26, 2012 on On Moving to Forbes, or Not at Economist's View
1 reply