“Forgotten not for lack of importance, but for lack of theoretical frame-works”

A paper by current head of the President’s Council of Economic Advisors, Ed Lazear, is significant for what it says near the end about economists forgetting facts, because the facts do not fit into current theory.

(p. 260)  Human capital theory is primarily a supply-side approach that focuses on the characteristics and skills of the individual workers.  It pays far less attention to the environments in which workers work.  As such, the human capital framework has led researchers to focus on one class of questions, but to ignore others.  Specifically, little attention has been paid to the jobs in which workers are employed. 

(p. 263) The fact that some jobs and some job characteristics are more likely to lead to promotions than other jobs is not surprising.  But the analysis suggests that other ways of thinking about wage determination, namely, through job selection, may have been unduly ignored in the past. 

. . .

Researchers have begun to make jobs rather than individuals the unit of analysis.  This change of focus can illuminate new issues and provide answers to questions that were once posed and forgotten.  The questions were forgotten not for lack of importance, but for lack of theoretical frame-works.  The theory is now developed and awaits confirmation in the data.

 

For the full paper, see:

Lazear, Edward P.  "A Jobs-Based Analysis of Labor Markets."  American Economic Review 85, no. 2 (May 1995):  260-265.

(Note:  elipsis added.)

 

Career Opportunities for Economists

  Econ major, and rap recording artist, Stat Quo.  So who says economists aren’t cool?  Source of photo:  http://www.statquo.com/

 

According to Wikipedia, up and coming rap artist Stat Quo earned a 3.54 gpa, while majoring in economics at the University of Florida. How’s that for refuting the stereotypes about economists?

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stat_Quo

 

“Smart People Can’t Come Here”

Several years ago, I got up in the middle of the night to call the United States embassy in Beijing, in order to beg an embassy official to issue a visa to our best applicant for our open Research Assistant position.  He did not want to do so, solely on the grounds that she might not return to China.  The woman we wanted to hire had sky-high credentials by every measurable criterion, and based on letters of recommendation, was exceptional by the non-measurable criteria too. 

How bizarre is the immigration policy of the United States when we view it as a problem that such a person might honor us by wanting to stay in the United States?

 

PALO ALTO, Calif. – Some of technology’s biggest names shared the stage at Stanford University last week to discuss the future of American innovation.

Yahoo co-founder Jerry Yang and Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers venture capitalist John Doerr were among the members of two panels at a technology summit at the university.

The third annual innovation summit, where industry leaders talked about emerging trends and government technology policy, was organized by TechNet, an advocacy group that lobbies on behalf of tech executives.

. . .  

The executives also lamented government policies limiting student and work visas, warning that this shuts out people like Google co-founder Sergey Brin and former Intel chief executive Andrew Grove.

"We have this crazy policy in the U.S. that says smart people can’t come here. I think we all agree it makes absolutely no sense," Yang said. "Are people going to want to build a company in the U.S. . . . or in the new talent centers?"

 

For the full story, see: 

SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS.  "Technology summit sees risks for U.S."  Omaha World-Herald  (Sunday, November 19, 2006):  7D.

(Note:  the ellipsis between paragraphs was added; the ellipsis in the Yang quote was in the original article.)

 

Playstation 3 Fails to Leapfrog Xbox 360

  If Schiesel’s review is on-target, these shoppers, waiting to buy Playstation 3, may regret having camped-out at the store to be among the first to buy the new game platform.  Source of photo:  http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/11/17/business/15game1.650.jpg

 

(p. B1)  Howard Stringer, you have a problem.  Your company’s new video game system just isn’t that great.

Ever since Mr. Stringer took the helm last year at Sony, the struggling if still formidable electronics giant, the world has been hearing about how the coming PlayStation 3 would save the company, or at least revitalize it.  Even after Microsoft took the lead in the video-game wars a year ago with its innovative and powerful Xbox 360, Sony blithely insisted that the PS3 would leapfrog all competition to deliver an unsurpassed level of fun.

Put bluntly, Sony has failed to deliver on that promise.

Measured in megaflops, gigabytes and other technical benchmarks, the PlayStation 3 is certainly the world’s most powerful game console.  It falls far short, however, of providing the world’s most engaging overall entertainment experience.  There is a big difference, and Sony seems to have confused one for the other.

The PS3, which was introduced in North America on Friday with a hefty $599 price tag for the top version, certainly delivers gorgeous graphics.  But they are not discernibly prettier than the Xbox 360’s.  More important, the whole PlayStation 3 system is surprisingly clunky to use and simply does not provide many basic functions that users have come to expect, especially online.

 

For the full commentary, see:

SETH SCHIESEL.  "VIDEO GAMES; A Weekend Full of Quality Time With PlayStation 3."  The New York Times  (Mon., November 20, 2006):  B1 & B7.

(Note:  the bold has been added to "leapfrog.")

 

“Atlas May Actually Decide to Shrug”


(p. A16) During the recent off-year elections, the president repeatedly pointed to the booming economy and noted that his tax cuts were responsible.  With growth strong and unemployment low despite the ending of the stock-market bubble, terrorist attacks and the war in Iraq, he had every reason to be proud.  Moreover, both economic theory and the actual timing of the economic revival support his claims regarding the tax cuts.

That is why it is so odd that rumors swarm around Washington that the president may be willing to raise taxes as part of a "deal" on entitlement reform.  In particular, the rumors suggest the president might be willing to get rid of the provision that caps the income level used to compute Social Security taxes and benefits.  These rumors aren’t without substance; last year the president would not rule out raising the cap when asked.

Doing so would raise the marginal tax rate on the entrepreneurs that Mr. Bush credits for having led the economic recovery by more than 10 percentage points.  The new effective rate would be five percentage points above the level when he took office.  Moreover, in 2011, the rate would go up a further 4.3 percentage points to an effective 53% marginal rate on entrepreneurial income.  The president would thus be not just raising taxes on entrepreneurs to well above the levels that prevailed in the Clinton administration, but to a rate higher than that which prevailed in the Carter administration.  Most of the improved incentives for entrepreneurship and work brought about under Reagan would be repealed.

. . .

Last year an entrepreneur similar to me would have paid federal taxes equal to 33.9% of total income.

. . .

Don’t make it too tough on him, or Atlas may actually decide to shrug.

 

For the full commentary, see: 

LAWRENCE B. LINDSEY.  "Compromised."  Wall Street Journal  (Mon., November 20, 2006):  A16.

(Note:  the ellipses are added.) 

 

The last line of the commentary is a not-so-veiled allusion to: 

Rand, Ayn.  Atlas Shrugged.  New York:  Random House, 1957.


When Government Bets, It Bets with Your Money

   Source of graphic:  online version of the Omaha World-Herald article cited below.

 

When an entrepreneur takes a risk, she risks losing her own money; when the government takes a risk, it risks losing your money: 

 

(p. 1A)  Omaha taxpayers escaped paying for the Hilton Omaha this year, but they likely will have to come up with the money for some big bills before the hotel is paid off in 2032.

In April, city officials were almost euphoric.  They announced the city-owned convention hotel performed well enough that its owners, the taxpayers, wouldn’t have to pony up the money to make the debt payments on the hotel this year.

But a recent audit of city finances reveals a much gloomier financial picture.

The audit raises questions about how the hotel that is connected to the Qwest Center Omaha will generate enough money to maintain its upscale look in the years to come.  The report also causes city officials to doubt whether expanding the hotel is realistic in the near future.

The Hilton’s troubles come at the same time that five other hotels are proposed for downtown Omaha.  But those are not full-service, amenity-rich convention hotels that are costly to build and maintain.

Hilton Omaha mainly competes in a national market for convention business, and like Omaha as a whole, the Hilton has (p. 4A) found the convention market tougher than it expected.

Omaha borrowed nearly $103 million to build, equip and finance the state’s largest and fanciest hotel.

Before the 450-room hotel opened in April 2004, the city projected net revenues would be $8.4 million in 2005.

But net revenues last year totaled just $4.6 million, according to the audit conducted for the city by KPMG.

 

For the full story, see: 

C. DAVID KOTOK.  "Taxpayers Likely to Pay Hilton Bills."  Omaha World-Herald (Sunday, November 19, 2006):  1A & 4A.

(Note:  The online version has a slightly different title:  "Taxpayer to get handed Hilton bills.")

 

“Nebraskans Preparing for the Imminent Arrival of Several Million New York Refugees”

(p. 12) HOUSING prices are falling on both coasts, and bubble panic is around the corner.  The financial magazines are already grabbing their readers by the throat and taunting them with headlines like:  ”U.S. Housing Crash Continues!” ”Where Will Housing Prices Fall the Most?” ”Is It Time to Cash Out?”

What if it is time to cash out?  Where do you go?  If you sell on either coast, then you need to find real estate somewhere that the housing bubble missed.  Guam?  American Samoa?  Wait, how about eastern Nebraska?  Downright frothless when it comes to housing:  the median home price here usually chugs along at the annual rate of inflation and never goes down (up 4 percent last year, up 22 percent over the last five years).

Before you recoil in horror at the thought of living in Omaha, a city of 414,000 souls, consider that this year Money magazine ranked it seventh of the nation’s 10 best big cities to live in, ahead of New York City, which ranked 10th.  O.K., now you may recoil in horror.

These compelling statistics have Nebraskans preparing for the imminent arrival of several million New York refugees (victims of post-traumatic bubble anxiety disorder), who will need emergency real estate and housing triage services.

 

For the full commentary, see:

Richard Dooling.  "Sweet Home Omaha."  The New York Times, Section 4 (Sunday, October 29, 2006):  12.

Distinguished Physician: “I Hate Hospitals”

Dr. James Armitage is a leading lymphoma physician.  His honesty in the passage below, is refreshing.  But instead of it being viewed as a personality quirk of the physician, it should be viewed as one more reason to reform how our medical system is organized.

 

"I hate hospitals. I like working in them; I just don’t like being a patient."

 

Armitage, as quoted in:

MICHAEL KELLY.  "Michael Kelly: Doc lacks patience for being a patient."  Omaha World-Herald  (Thursday November 16, 2006):    1B. 

Jeffrey Sachs “Has Apparently Spent More Time Studying the Economic Thinking of Salma Hayek than that of Friedrich”


  Salma Hayek.  Source of image: http://www.imdb.com/gallery/granitz/0273-spe/Events/0273-spe/hayek_sa.lma?path=pgallery&path_key=Hayek,%20Salma

 

(p. A18) Scientific American, in its November 2006 issue, reaches a "scientific judgment" that the great Nobel Prize-winning economist Friedrich Hayek "was wrong" about free markets and prosperity in his classic, "The Road to Serfdom."  The natural scientists’ favorite economist — Prof. Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University — announces this new scientific breakthrough in a column, saying "the evidence is now in."  To dispel any remaining doubts, Mr. Sachs clarifies that anyone who disagrees with him "is clouded by vested interests and by ideology."

This sounds like one of those moments in which the zeitgeist of mass confusion about national poverty, world poverty and prosperity comes together in one mad tragicomic brew.

. . .  

Mr. Sachs, who is currently best known for his star-driven campaign to end world poverty, has apparently spent more time studying the economic thinking of Salma Hayek than that of Friedrich. 

. . .

Mr. Sachs’s empirical analysis purports to show that Nordic welfare states are outperforming those states that follow the "English-speaking" tradition of laissez-faire, like the U.K. or the U.S. Poverty rates are indeed lower in the Nordic countries, although the skeptical reader (probably an ideologue) might wonder if the poverty outcome in, say, the U.S., with its tortured history of a black underclass and its de facto openness to impoverished but upwardly mobile immigrants, is really comparable to that of Nordic countries.

Then there is the big picture, where those laissez-faire Anglophones in, first, the U.K. and, then, the U.S., just happened to have been the leaders of the ongoing global industrial revolution that abolished far more poverty over the past two centuries than a few modest Scandinavian redistribution schemes.  Mr. Sachs apparently thinks the industrial revolution was led by IKEA.  Lastly, let’s hear from the Nordics themselves, who have been busily moving away from the social welfare state back toward laissez-faire.  According to the English-speaking ideologues that composed the Heritage Foundation/Wall Street Journal Index of Economic Freedom, Denmark, Finland and Sweden were all included in the 20 countries classified as "free" in 2006 (with Denmark actually ranked ahead of the U.S.).  Only Norway missed the cut — barely.

Mr. Sachs is wrong that Hayek was wrong.  In his own global antipoverty work, he is unintentionally demonstrating why more scientists, Hollywood actors and the rest of us should go back and read "The Road to Serfdom" if we want to know what will not work to achieve "The End of Poverty."  Hayek gave the best exposition ever of the unpopular ideas of economic freedom that somehow triumph anyway, alleviating far more national and global poverty than more fashionable Scandinavia-envy and grandiose plans to "make poverty history."

 

For the full commentary, see:

WILLIAM EASTERLY.  "Dismal Science."  Wall Street Journal  (Weds., November 15, 2006):  A18.

(Note:  ellipses added.) 

 

Hayek’s courageous masterpiece is:

Hayek, Friedrich A. Von. The Road to Serfdom. Chicago: Univ of Chicago Press, 1944.

 

Easterly’s great book on how to encourage economic development in poor countries, is:

Easterly, William. The Elusive Quest for Growth: Economists’ Adventures and Misadventures in the Tropics. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2002.


Global Warming May Finally Open Northwest Passage to Shipping

 

  "The Canadian Coast Guard icebreaker Amundsen met a plate of "new ice" on the Northwest Passage, but it was easily traversed."  Source of caption, and photo:  online version of the Washington Post article quoted and cited below.

 

ICEBREAKER CHANNEL, Northwest Passage — The Amundsen’s engines growl low, as if in warning.  The ship steals ahead; its powerful spotlights stab at fog thick with the lore of crushed ships and frozen voyagers.  Ice floes gleam from the void like the eyes of animals in the night.

The Canadian Coast Guard icebreaker Amundsen weaves in graceful slow motion through the ice pack, advancing through the legendary Northwest Passage well after the Arctic should be iced over and shuttered to ships for the winter.

The fearsome ice is weakened and failing, sapped by climate change.  Ultimately, this night’s ghostly procession through Icebreaker Channel will be the worst the ship faces on its late-season voyage.  Much of the trip, crossing North America from west to east through the Northwest Passage, will be in open water, with no ice in sight.

The Amundsen is here to challenge the ice that has long guarded the legendary Northwest Passage across the roof of the Earth, and to plumb the scientific mysteries of an Arctic thawing from global warming.

A relentless climb of temperature — 5 degrees in 30 years — is shrinking the Arctic ice and reawakening dreams of a 4,000-mile shortcut just shy of the North Pole, passing beside the Arctic’s beckoning oil and mineral riches.

"Shipping companies are going to think about this, and if they think it’s worth it, they are going to try it," says the captain of the Amundsen, Cmdr. Alain Gariepy, 43.  "The question is not if, but when."

 

For full story, see: 

Doug Struck.  "Melting Arctic Makes Way for Man; Researchers Aboard Icebreaker Say Shipping Could Add to Risks for Ecosystem."  Washington Post  (Sunday, November 5, 2006):  A01.

 

   Source of map:  online version of the Washington Post article quoted and cited above.

 

FDA Hurdles Block Widespread Use of Baby-Saving Drug

(p. A1)  BOSTON — Like thousands of children in the U.S., Maggie Leaver has short bowel syndrome.  These children can’t absorb enough nutrients from food, and some need intravenous feedings to survive.

A baby’s digestive system can adapt over time, but that may take months or years.  Many of these babies can’t wait.  For reasons not fully understood, children put on intravenous nutrition may suffer liver damage.  Some require liver and small bowel transplants, risky procedures that don’t always work.  Others die waiting for a transplant.

In July, in a paper in the scientific journal Pediatrics, researchers at Children’s Hospital Boston reported on a small study that suggested a promising treatment.  They found that by switching from the standard intravenous formula to a different kind — called Omegaven — babies weren’t progressing to liver failure.  Omegaven, used in Europe for adults, isn’t approved in the U.S. and is considered experimental treatment.

"The kids aren’t dying anymore," says Mark Puder, a pediatric surgeon who was lead investigator on the study.  "We think we have a good treatment."

But Dr. Puder’s effort to get Omegaven widely used in babies has put him in an unusual conflict with the German company that developed the drug.  Fresenius Kabi AG, which makes Omegaven, says it isn’t interested in bringing the drug to the U.S. market.  The company says it doesn’t agree that Omegaven is the best drug for these babies and has a new product that it believes is better.

In 28 of 29 babies treated with Omegaven so far at Children’s Hospital, Dr. Puder says they were able to stop further liver damage — and damage that children already incurred seemed to improve.  Some babies who were switched to Omegaven rebounded enough that they were taken off the waiting list for an organ transplant.  At one point, Maggie Leaver’s condition deteriorated so much that her surgeon thought she was going to die.  Now the 18-month-old is thriving at home in Hingham, Mass.

. . .

Mr. Ducker says the company’s new product, called SMOFlipid, "presents a better option for pediatric feeding."  The company believes the new product does contain all the essential fatty acids babies need and can be used on its own.

Fresenius Kabi says it doesn’t want to invest the resources required to test both products for approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.  It hopes to eventually sell the new product in the U.S., Mr. Ducker says, although no timetable has been set and no trials are under way.

. . .

Because Omegaven is considered experimental in the U.S., if hospitals want to try it, they have to ask permission from the FDA for each individual patient.  The FDA has regulations that enable doctors to use experimental drugs in certain (p. A15) emergency situations.

If hospitals obtain the required permissions, they must then find a way to buy the drug on their own, since insurers typically won’t cover Omegaven because it’s experimental.  The cost can run from $50 to $100 a day per patient.  At Children’s Hospital Boston, the surgical department has already spent close to $100,000 to buy Omegaven for babies.

. . .

Dr. Mooney says he wrestled almost from the beginning about whether to put Maggie on Omegaven. He knew about Dr. Puder’s results, which he calls "amazingly great," but the number of children treated was still small.  He worried about adverse effects.  "It is so easy to get caught in the hype of new things," Dr. Mooney says.  Maggie was already fragile.  What if he put her on Omegaven, he says, "and there was a horrible side effect that could tip her over the edge?"

But when standard therapies failed, he felt "there was nothing else to do."  Given that the treatment is experimental, Dr. Mooney says he believes it was right to wait.  But he also feels Omegaven has made a difference.  "Five years ago, every single one of the kids taking Omegaven would be dead by now, Maggie included," he says.

 

For the full story, see:

MARCUS, AMY DOCKSER.  "Different Rx; A Doctor’s Push For Drug Pits Him Against Its Maker; Dr. Puder Thinks Omegaven Is Best Option for Sick Babies; Company Prefers New Product Turnaround for Little Maggie."  Wall Street Journal  (Mon., November 13, 2006):  A1 & A15.