Tyler Cowen's Blog, page 47

Assorted links

1. “What is college? To Madison Comer, a confident 6-year-old, it is a very big place. “It’s tall,” she explained, outlining the head of Tuffy, the North Carolina State mascot, with a gray crayon. “It’s like high school but it’s higher.””

2. Hubbard and DeLong debate income inequality.

3. “comprised of”  and more here.

4. Unbundled markets in everything: McDonald’s special sauce without the burger.  Expensive, don’t buy it.

5. Software that helps businesses rid their supply chains of (human) slave labor.

6. “Straightening a cactus typically costs about $700…”  And has Twitter found a viable financial model?

7. Who prefers online anonymity?

8. Greece in the penalty box.

Tullock’s Questions?

Gordon Tullock was famous for asking a lot of questions. Some odd, some uncomfortable, some on the spot and some in his work. For example, Gordon would often ask, Why don’t we invade Brazil? Meaning why did countries stop invading other countries and setting up colonies? It’s a good question. I am interested in collecting more of Tullock’s questions. Please respond with any questions Gordon asked you or questions that you find him asking in his work. Thanks!

The Decline of Science in Corporate R&D

That is the subtitle, the title of the paper is Killing the Golden Goose, and the authors are Ashish Arora, Sharon Belenzon, and Andrea Patacconi.  The abstract shows what an important paper this is:

Scientific knowledge is believed to be the wellspring of innovation. Historically, firms have also invested in research to fuel innovation and growth. In this paper, we document a shift away from scientific research by large corporations between 1980 and 2007. We find that publications by company scientists have declined over time in a range of industries. We also find that the value attributable to scientific research has dropped, whereas the value attributable to technical knowledge (as measured by patents) has remained stable. These effects appear to be associated with globalization and narrower firm scope, rather than changes in publication practices or a decline in the usefulness of science as an input into innovation. Large firms appear to value the golden eggs of science (as reflected in patents) but not the golden goose itself (the scientific capabilities). These findings have important implications for both public policy and management.

There is an ungated version here (pdf).  Of course, for better or worse, this means there is more of a burden on universities.

Mood affiliation tweets to ponder

The Greek People Have Punctured the Smugness of the “Moneymen” – hope is replacing despair

That is from a Dr. Adnan Al-Daini.  He links to this piece of his on the same theme.  It is noted that the Dr. used to teach at a British university.  Behind the first link, there are several comments on the tweet.

Yet, in reality, the ECB and the EU seem to be holding all of the cards.  I do not expect that to change.  Here is “Emergency Liquidity Assistance for Greek Banks: An Explainer.”

Monopoly markets in everything, French edition

Monopoly games filled with real money, in this case euros, from France:

In honor of the game’s 80th anniversary this year, its French manufacturers have replaced its traditional fake bills with real money in 80 boxes now on sale.

As if Monopoly needed higher stakes.

Agence France-Presse reported that 69 of the prize sets will include five 10-euro notes and five 20-euro notes, while another 10 will include five real 20-euro notes, two 50-euro notes and one 100-euro note.

For the final box, the entire “bank” has been replaced with real bills, making the game — which costs about 26 euros before shipping and handling — worth 20,580 euros, or about $23,000.

The notes were replaced during a covert operation last month in the small forest town of Creutzwald in northeastern France.

The monopoly boxes are selling for the normal price, although of course without notice as to which boxes have the real money inside.  Hasbro’s U.S. wing, by the way, is planning a ““vintage style board” to complement the 27 other variations currently available.”

The article is here, hat tip goes to NinjaEconomics.

Birmingham bleg

Alabama, that is.  C’mon people, spill the beans, I await your wisdom as always.  Food, but not just.  I’ve never been there, I am sorry to say, and so have much to learn.

Assorted links

1. Revisiting Chinese consumption.

2. As parents get more choice, San Francisco schools resegregate.

3. Is it good signaling if your finance minister looks like a normal person?  And is there a better way to negotiate with terrorists?

4. Will new FCC rules kick 4.7 million households off-line?  And who complains? (not me, actually)

5. Daniel Davies on Greek bargaining strategy.  And claims about economics majors.

6. Overview of Haitian food, including spaghetti shakes.

7. Walter Russell Mead on how Putin really sees things.

8. Sunk costs in a basketball economy.

Optimal life cycle unemployment insurance

It seems we should index unemployment benefits to a person’s age.  For the liquidity-constrained, human capital-investing young, we don’t want to rush them into unsuitable jobs.  The older workers — that’s another matter.   Michelacci and Ruffo report:

We argue that US welfare would rise if unemployment insurance were increased for younger and decreased for older workers. This is because the young tend to lack the means to smooth consumption during unemployment and want jobs to accumulate high-return human capital. So unemployment insurance is most valuable to them, while moral hazard is mild. By calibrating a life cycle model with unemployment risk and endogenous search effort, we find that allowing unemployment replacement rates to decline with age yields sizeable welfare gains to US workers.

The AER version is here.  Ungated versions are here.  Elsewhere Ben Casselman considers some ways that unemployment has changed, and what that may mean for benefits.

You’d better not judge this book by its cover

At least not too visibly:

Thijs Biersteker of digital entrepreneurs Moore has created a book jacket that will open only when a reader shows no judgment. An integrated camera and facial recognition system scans the reader’s face, only unlocking the book – in the prototype, filled with creative work for the Art Directors Club Netherlands annual – when their expression is neutral.

“My aim was to create a book cover that is human and approachable hi-tech. If you approach the book, if you’re overexcited or your face shows a sceptical expression, the book will stay locked,” explains Biersteker on his website. “But if your expression is neutral (no judgment) the system will send an audio pulse and the book will unlock itself. I often worry about my scepticism and judgement getting in the way of my amazement. Judgment should never hinder the relentless enthusiasm of seeing things for the first time.”

The full story, which includes photos, is here.  The Twitter pointer is from Ted Gioia.

Current research about vaccines and vaccination

From Harvard’s Kennedy Center:

…see the related article “Addressing Vaccine Hesitancy,” by report co-chairs Barry R. Bloom of the Harvard School of Public Health, Edgar Marcuse of the University of Washington and Seth Mnookin of MIT.

The beginning of this misinformation problem, researchers say, dates back to 1998, when a now-discredited scientific paper was published in Britain linking vaccines to autism, a link that was proven entirely false and even labeled “fraudulent.” A number of activists and some celebrities have adopted prominent anti-vaccine positions, and media and entertainment outlets have provided a platform for some of their views.

Despite the importance of this issue, little research has been done on how newer forms of technology and communication, including social media or video-sharing sites, influence health decision-making. And there are basic questions about the effectiveness of traditional public health campaigns. One of the most important studies to date is a 2014 paper in the journal Pediatrics, “Effective Messages in Vaccine Promotion: A Randomized Trial.” The researchers — Brendan Nyhan of Dartmouth College, Jason Reifler of the University of Exeter, Sean Richey of Georgia State University and Gary L. Freed of the University of Michigan — analyzed the results of a Web-based national survey of nearly 1,800 parents. After asking respondents about their own family health situations and beliefs, researchers then tested common public health communications strategies to promote vaccination: “(1) correcting misinformation, (2) presenting information on disease risks, (3) using dramatic narratives, or (4) displaying visuals to make those risks more salient or accessible.”

The study’s findings include:

The data indicate that “pro-vaccine messages do not always work as intended and that the effectiveness of those messages may vary depending on parental attitudes toward vaccines.” In fact, there was “little evidence that messages emphasizing the risks of vaccine-preventable diseases were effective in promoting vaccination intent.”
Further, the data show that a “dramatic narrative about measles and images of sick children” actually ended up increasing misperceptions about MMR.
The study’s conclusion was unequivocal regarding traditional messaging: “None of the pro-vaccine messages created by public health authorities increased intent to vaccinate with MMR among a nationally representative sample of parents who have children age 17 years or younger at home. Corrective information reduced misperceptions about the vaccine/autism link but nonetheless decreased intent to vaccinate among parents who had the least favorable attitudes toward vaccines.”

By the way, Werner Troesken at the University of Pittsburgh will be publishing a new book on how American freedoms have allowed infectious diseases to spread, or so sounds the description.  It is from University of Chicago press, due out in May.