WSJ has an op-ed today that outlines how and why Houston (and Texas) has outpaced the rest of the country in terms of growth, prosperity, etc. for the last two dozen years or so. I remind my students of this all the time, so I'm glad to see it in print yet again.
We currently live in the most successful economy within the most successful state in the union right now. The only real competition is DC, and we all know where THAT economic "growth" comes from. I know this sounds like John Kerry's dreaded "exceptionalism" but the numbers are what they are - Houston's been pretty successful, and there's more success to come as the energy industry ramps things up over the next five years.
I sure wish the authors would come back and look at some of the hair-brained things that Houston city government has done in the past 10 years, just for a sense of contrast. The light rail fiasco comes to mind as a great example of how to NOT do things.
Tuesday, July 15, 2014
Wednesday, July 9, 2014
Can flipping the classroom help students learn? Sure...
Just found this Slate article on classroom flipping.
If by "flipping the classroom" you mean "requiring students to actually come to class prepared," then the answer is a resounding "yes." If you mean "take all of the rigor out of the class and turn it into in-class group projects" then probably "no."
If by "flipping the classroom" you mean "requiring students to actually come to class prepared," then the answer is a resounding "yes." If you mean "take all of the rigor out of the class and turn it into in-class group projects" then probably "no."
Rasmussen: Only 20% of likely voters think global warming debate is over
Drudge today has a link to a Rasmussen poll showing that the overwhelming majority of likely voters think that the global warming debate isn't over yet. Better yet, they have a link to the questions so you can see that it wasn't done in some heavy-handed and sneaky way.
Thursday, July 3, 2014
John Cochrane on the failure of macroeconomics, Paul Krugman's fallacy
There's a great piece in today's WSJ, but of course it's behind a paywall. So here's an article that discusses it, with liberal quotes:
http://uneasymoney.com/2014/07/02/john-cochrane-on-the-failure-of-macroeconomics/
The best line is a reminder of how blinded some people can be when it serves their politics. Cochrane points out that even the great Paul Krugman has squinted under the lights of his high ideals:
"Paul Krugman writes that even the "broken windows fallacy ceases to be a fallacy," because replacing windows "can stimulate spending and raise employment."
Uh, the fallacy of the broken window is about how spending "government" money is supposed to be a stimulus of some sort. So Krugman actually asserts that it's a matter of scale? What? That must be drastically out of context, right?
Here's the full quote, and it doesn't help his case:
"This puts us in a world of topsy-turvy, in which many of the usual rules of economics cease to hold. Thrift leads to lower investment; wage cuts reduce employment; even higher productivity can be a bad thing. And the broken windows fallacy ceases to be a fallacy: something that forces firms to replace capital, even if that something seemingly makes them poorer, can stimulate spending and raise employment."
It just makes it even clearer that Krugman doesn't understand the fallacy, or perhaps how to use analogy. The fallacy itself doesn't suggest that the window needs replacing in the first place, but that the window was working perfectly and then was broken, needing replacing. It's the assertion that government spending is somehow separate from the private economy that's the fallacy - money spent to repair the window wouldn't have been used for any other investment. Of course replacing capital can help the economy, but only if it actually needs replacing. That's the breakdown I think.
No, Dr. Krugman, the fallacy of the broken windows is just that, and it doesn't change by scale or by how hard we wish it to change. In this case the window seems to broken enough to give a distorted view of reality.
http://uneasymoney.com/2014/07/02/john-cochrane-on-the-failure-of-macroeconomics/
The best line is a reminder of how blinded some people can be when it serves their politics. Cochrane points out that even the great Paul Krugman has squinted under the lights of his high ideals:
"Paul Krugman writes that even the "broken windows fallacy ceases to be a fallacy," because replacing windows "can stimulate spending and raise employment."
Uh, the fallacy of the broken window is about how spending "government" money is supposed to be a stimulus of some sort. So Krugman actually asserts that it's a matter of scale? What? That must be drastically out of context, right?
Here's the full quote, and it doesn't help his case:
"This puts us in a world of topsy-turvy, in which many of the usual rules of economics cease to hold. Thrift leads to lower investment; wage cuts reduce employment; even higher productivity can be a bad thing. And the broken windows fallacy ceases to be a fallacy: something that forces firms to replace capital, even if that something seemingly makes them poorer, can stimulate spending and raise employment."
It just makes it even clearer that Krugman doesn't understand the fallacy, or perhaps how to use analogy. The fallacy itself doesn't suggest that the window needs replacing in the first place, but that the window was working perfectly and then was broken, needing replacing. It's the assertion that government spending is somehow separate from the private economy that's the fallacy - money spent to repair the window wouldn't have been used for any other investment. Of course replacing capital can help the economy, but only if it actually needs replacing. That's the breakdown I think.
No, Dr. Krugman, the fallacy of the broken windows is just that, and it doesn't change by scale or by how hard we wish it to change. In this case the window seems to broken enough to give a distorted view of reality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)