"Hey, do you think we could watch a movie sometime?"
"Sure, when?"
"Maybe Saturday?"
"Okay"
"How about my place?"
"Alright, should we do dinner?"
"Hmmm...lets just order pizza"
"Okay, see you then; but which movie"
"The Johnny Depp one"
"Done"
***
"Hey!"
"Hey!"
(effusive hug)
"I got some wine, thought why not"
"Okay..."
"I mean, we're ordering food so I thought I could make up with this"
***
*rustle*
"Your hand's on my thigh"
"I know...sorry..."
***
"Wine's over"
"Ya.."
"Whoa"
"What?"
"Lets not...I mean...what..."
"You think too much"
"No, look, I didn't mean..."
***
"What are we doing?"
"What do you think we are doing, Sherlock?"
"I should call my folks"
"What??"
"Tell them I'll be late"
"Where's the damn phone?"
....
(adapted from a conversation overheard on the J-4 from College Park to Bethesda, Maryland)
I amuse myself here; Your amusement is intended but boundedly so
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Thursday, March 22, 2012
You may sit, Adam
Rare thing, insight. Rarer still, humour. A natural derivation from these two axioms: humour and insight in one must be rarest. Ronald Coase has it in spades. Spades.
Economic writing isn't usually fun to read. Most economists aren't really all that interesting. Connection? I think so. The best have this quality to their writing - it shimmers, it shines, it grows from the page, a living breathing entity. The writing has that most important element - zip.
So, for your pleasure and mine, here is a case study taken from the 1990 Nobel Symposium on Contract Economics. (By the by, do read. Such a collection of economists, all commenting on each others work. Coase (duh), Alchian, Demsetz, Stiglitz, Cheung, Williamson, Hart, Holmstrom, Rosen, gosh!). Ronald Coase was called to give closing remarks:
"When Professor Werin asked me if I could be a member of this panel, I agreed, but he didn't tell me what my duty would be...I was quite happy with the arrangement...it meant I couldn't be upbraided for not carrying out what I had agreed to do, since I hadn't agreed to do anything."
zing!
"When we move to the legal system...it is not easy at all to say what the legal system is actually doing...the only generalization one can make is that if a change is made it will increase the income of the lawyers..." zing!
"In the rest of economics the existence of markets and firms is assumed...what in effect we do is study the circulation of the blood without a body" zing!
"From my point of view the chapter I enjoyed most was that of Rosen and the reason was that it was a survey of empirical studies...I read it and was fascinated...when the studies agreed I was puzzled and when they disagreed I was puzzled. This is how we got hold of things." zing!
"Williamson...felt that...good work had been done and we need not be ashamed...Well, I agree...that old puzzle of how you describe things: is the glass one-tenths full or nine-tenths empty? I happen to think it is nine-tenths empty at the present. Oliver Williamson has reason to be pleased...since a large part of it is the water he put in..." zing!
In all of this, outside of the superficial though enjoyable comedy, there are lessons buried in the words. They are not there by accident: how do you specify a closing speech? (you can't, but yet you have to); what is the point of law anyway? (it is really not clear); how do we write models in economics? (false metaphors can kill the patient i.e. the economy); how do we know things? (by measuring them); has progress been made? (yes, but in one dimension). I know of few economists (Lucas' and Solow's Nobel Lectures come to mind; most stridently McCloskey of course makes her presence) who can write with such eloquence, such precision and humour. They are teachers, all.
Economic writing isn't usually fun to read. Most economists aren't really all that interesting. Connection? I think so. The best have this quality to their writing - it shimmers, it shines, it grows from the page, a living breathing entity. The writing has that most important element - zip.
So, for your pleasure and mine, here is a case study taken from the 1990 Nobel Symposium on Contract Economics. (By the by, do read. Such a collection of economists, all commenting on each others work. Coase (duh), Alchian, Demsetz, Stiglitz, Cheung, Williamson, Hart, Holmstrom, Rosen, gosh!). Ronald Coase was called to give closing remarks:
"When Professor Werin asked me if I could be a member of this panel, I agreed, but he didn't tell me what my duty would be...I was quite happy with the arrangement...it meant I couldn't be upbraided for not carrying out what I had agreed to do, since I hadn't agreed to do anything."
zing!
"When we move to the legal system...it is not easy at all to say what the legal system is actually doing...the only generalization one can make is that if a change is made it will increase the income of the lawyers..." zing!
"In the rest of economics the existence of markets and firms is assumed...what in effect we do is study the circulation of the blood without a body" zing!
"From my point of view the chapter I enjoyed most was that of Rosen and the reason was that it was a survey of empirical studies...I read it and was fascinated...when the studies agreed I was puzzled and when they disagreed I was puzzled. This is how we got hold of things." zing!
"Williamson...felt that...good work had been done and we need not be ashamed...Well, I agree...that old puzzle of how you describe things: is the glass one-tenths full or nine-tenths empty? I happen to think it is nine-tenths empty at the present. Oliver Williamson has reason to be pleased...since a large part of it is the water he put in..." zing!
In all of this, outside of the superficial though enjoyable comedy, there are lessons buried in the words. They are not there by accident: how do you specify a closing speech? (you can't, but yet you have to); what is the point of law anyway? (it is really not clear); how do we write models in economics? (false metaphors can kill the patient i.e. the economy); how do we know things? (by measuring them); has progress been made? (yes, but in one dimension). I know of few economists (Lucas' and Solow's Nobel Lectures come to mind; most stridently McCloskey of course makes her presence) who can write with such eloquence, such precision and humour. They are teachers, all.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
So let it be written, so let it be done
One, three out of.
Over, out of the way, here's the (20th version of) the abstract:
Transaction cost economics helps explain the existence of economic institutions such as market structure or contract form by considering these to be intelligent governance mechanisms. The focus on governance ignores the institutional environment in which contracts are written. Using data on 20 years of coal procurement in the US, I show that changes in the institutional environment - in the form of the reorganization of the railroads, and the Clean Air Act Amendment of 1990- enables a switch to fi xed price contracts, by changing the transaction
characteristics of relationship speci fic investments and frequent ex-post adaptation. This enables me to derive causal estimates of these transaction characteristics. I find that ignoring the role of the institutional environment can lead to biased estimates of the e ffect of relationship specifi c investments; and ex-post adaptation appears a more important determinant of contract choice than relationship specifi c investment.
I hope I haven't quite sunk that abstract in a morass of academic-speak. Although there ought to be at least a smidgeon of difficult language. Because otherwise, if I reduced everything into commonplace utterances people could understand, they might get the wrong idea. Some camouflage in dense verbiage and mathematical mysticism is actually useful because it makes the reader work a bit to understand what the hell the writer's going on about.
This is why I don't agree with the usual dictum of 'being easy to read'. Because - notice, readers, notice - being easy to read is very easy to confuse with being simplistic. The end result is a temptation to advertise falsely, although the falsity comes in because you're trying be an easy writer. Oy, we aren't writing bestsellers. If you wanted to do that, why do a PhD?
If you want to get me, you're going to have to work at it, at least a little bit. Free riding isn't useful here, babe.
"Now it seems everyone wants to discuss me,
But it must mean that I'm disgusting"
Over, out of the way, here's the (20th version of) the abstract:
Transaction cost economics helps explain the existence of economic institutions such as market structure or contract form by considering these to be intelligent governance mechanisms. The focus on governance ignores the institutional environment in which contracts are written. Using data on 20 years of coal procurement in the US, I show that changes in the institutional environment - in the form of the reorganization of the railroads, and the Clean Air Act Amendment of 1990- enables a switch to fi xed price contracts, by changing the transaction
characteristics of relationship speci fic investments and frequent ex-post adaptation. This enables me to derive causal estimates of these transaction characteristics. I find that ignoring the role of the institutional environment can lead to biased estimates of the e ffect of relationship specifi c investments; and ex-post adaptation appears a more important determinant of contract choice than relationship specifi c investment.
I hope I haven't quite sunk that abstract in a morass of academic-speak. Although there ought to be at least a smidgeon of difficult language. Because otherwise, if I reduced everything into commonplace utterances people could understand, they might get the wrong idea. Some camouflage in dense verbiage and mathematical mysticism is actually useful because it makes the reader work a bit to understand what the hell the writer's going on about.
This is why I don't agree with the usual dictum of 'being easy to read'. Because - notice, readers, notice - being easy to read is very easy to confuse with being simplistic. The end result is a temptation to advertise falsely, although the falsity comes in because you're trying be an easy writer. Oy, we aren't writing bestsellers. If you wanted to do that, why do a PhD?
If you want to get me, you're going to have to work at it, at least a little bit. Free riding isn't useful here, babe.
"Now it seems everyone wants to discuss me,
But it must mean that I'm disgusting"
Monday, March 19, 2012
With a little help from my friends
A faint stirring of the pot: something here about the inalienability of rights, that google appears to want to alienate, perhaps this is frightening?
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Number 2
I'd like a little rest, sometime, but I don't think it's coming anytime soon. Long hard look ahead, I am a rational forward looking "agent" after all, there is much work to be done, much much much. Three equals infinity, like what Jeff Ely said.
But, hang on, what is this "agent" anyway. Why does economics love to use such communist notions? Ronald Coase said we are all communists at heart, like everything Coase says, I cannot disagree. So, are we all economists? Probably. After all, all of us have at one time or another said "this is too expensive, outrageous times we live in, hai o rabba". But that we are all economists does not mean we are economists all. And this is a weakness of economics, not of us. I'm nobody's agent.
How am I to make sense of the future? By not making sense of it, maybe. Ouch, the burden of all this wisdom. Twinges muscles, racks limbs, races minds. I like the word "wisdom", it sounds so regal and empowering. "Clever" is sort of saying, okay yaar, I see what you did (you sonofabitch).
***
On phone with old friend, destined the two of us are to go down greying together, discussing the flirtations taking place in the esteemed hallways of MIT and Harvard:
me: man, the whole thing is weird, why would you want to hook up with her anyway
him: they produced papers, they produced a book....babies are next
me: what, do you think he said "I love how you say internal validity"
burst of guffawing laughter for 2 minutes, the sort of thing that reminds you of your humanity, we can still act like school kids. A lovely foolishness.
But, hang on, what is this "agent" anyway. Why does economics love to use such communist notions? Ronald Coase said we are all communists at heart, like everything Coase says, I cannot disagree. So, are we all economists? Probably. After all, all of us have at one time or another said "this is too expensive, outrageous times we live in, hai o rabba". But that we are all economists does not mean we are economists all. And this is a weakness of economics, not of us. I'm nobody's agent.
How am I to make sense of the future? By not making sense of it, maybe. Ouch, the burden of all this wisdom. Twinges muscles, racks limbs, races minds. I like the word "wisdom", it sounds so regal and empowering. "Clever" is sort of saying, okay yaar, I see what you did (you sonofabitch).
***
On phone with old friend, destined the two of us are to go down greying together, discussing the flirtations taking place in the esteemed hallways of MIT and Harvard:
me: man, the whole thing is weird, why would you want to hook up with her anyway
him: they produced papers, they produced a book....babies are next
me: what, do you think he said "I love how you say internal validity"
burst of guffawing laughter for 2 minutes, the sort of thing that reminds you of your humanity, we can still act like school kids. A lovely foolishness.
Blogging a bubble
this is #201: okay, admittedly half of my posts are lame excuses for pushing whatever nonsense music I happened to be enjoying, usually under the influence of beer or wine.
But, damn it man, if Sachin can have his idiotic landmark - or would it be more correct to say people are willing to give it? - then why can't I. Agree? Okay. So. Next.
I'm not sure too many people have noticed it, but 90% (accurate statistic, that) of all blogs I used to follow can now be officially declared dead. Yet I go on. What lesson, beta, do we learn from all of this tomfoolery?
Let it be known, kind and dear reader, that this author believes this tells us something about the nature and existence of bubbles.
To an economist about to be trained in the degree of a philosophical order, nothing, I mean nothing, annoys more than the casual throw of the term 'bubble'. "But, but", you say, "the economist claims the term". Rubbish. Economists should know better, they do know better.
So, bubbles are often used to describe pricing behavior that forms a bubble. If this idiotic sort of definition doesn't already inform you of the intellectually poor foundations beneath the concept, then the usual definition handed around like Gatorade after a football game should: "bubbles occur when the prices diverge from the fundamentals."
Eh, what. Excuse me, sir. Exactly what are these "fundamentals" oh lord of the universe? Time to use a non-price-quantity framework to describe what people call a bubble.
Many Indian people, of English medium training, around the holy year of 2005 or thereabouts, decided that it would be cool to tell their friends through a website how happy/sad/boring/exciting their lives are; some more talented ones used it as a mechanism to enhance their writing skill, a minor few actually had some ability with words and phrases. One spoke about blow jobs, and got book deals. But this is beside the point (is it?).
Around 2010, many of these blogs stopped dead. It is really quite something. Almost everybody I used to read stopped writing, simultaneously. I maybe will even generate a dataset. Many world famous blogs came to an end. I was sad to see a couple go, because they provided much entertainment during long Sunday evenings. (Sunday evenings are the worst, in case you didn't already know).
Now, if we look back at this, we say "Ah! A Blogging Bubble! Clearly the price of writing diverged from fundamentals. Now, the actors suddenly wake up and realize - hello! My writing is not as valuable anymore! - and- I have more important things to do! Look the index of fundamentals, will you. Oh well, enough of this online stuff."
Of course this is not what happened. So, you say, smarty pants, what happened?
I can't really say. But I know it has nothing to do with fundamentals, because the story of man's existence has been of evolution, growth, adaptation and change. Dynamic, to put it in mathematical terms. It might be a bit rich to compare mankind's evolution to blogging by a few of the Indian babalog, but I think the analogy is basically correct, although quite stretched. "Fundamentals" don't exist, except in some warped notion of a stationary world, where everything must be in line, like what ma'am said.
But, damn it man, if Sachin can have his idiotic landmark - or would it be more correct to say people are willing to give it? - then why can't I. Agree? Okay. So. Next.
I'm not sure too many people have noticed it, but 90% (accurate statistic, that) of all blogs I used to follow can now be officially declared dead. Yet I go on. What lesson, beta, do we learn from all of this tomfoolery?
Let it be known, kind and dear reader, that this author believes this tells us something about the nature and existence of bubbles.
To an economist about to be trained in the degree of a philosophical order, nothing, I mean nothing, annoys more than the casual throw of the term 'bubble'. "But, but", you say, "the economist claims the term". Rubbish. Economists should know better, they do know better.
So, bubbles are often used to describe pricing behavior that forms a bubble. If this idiotic sort of definition doesn't already inform you of the intellectually poor foundations beneath the concept, then the usual definition handed around like Gatorade after a football game should: "bubbles occur when the prices diverge from the fundamentals."
Eh, what. Excuse me, sir. Exactly what are these "fundamentals" oh lord of the universe? Time to use a non-price-quantity framework to describe what people call a bubble.
Many Indian people, of English medium training, around the holy year of 2005 or thereabouts, decided that it would be cool to tell their friends through a website how happy/sad/boring/exciting their lives are; some more talented ones used it as a mechanism to enhance their writing skill, a minor few actually had some ability with words and phrases. One spoke about blow jobs, and got book deals. But this is beside the point (is it?).
Around 2010, many of these blogs stopped dead. It is really quite something. Almost everybody I used to read stopped writing, simultaneously. I maybe will even generate a dataset. Many world famous blogs came to an end. I was sad to see a couple go, because they provided much entertainment during long Sunday evenings. (Sunday evenings are the worst, in case you didn't already know).
Now, if we look back at this, we say "Ah! A Blogging Bubble! Clearly the price of writing diverged from fundamentals. Now, the actors suddenly wake up and realize - hello! My writing is not as valuable anymore! - and- I have more important things to do! Look the index of fundamentals, will you. Oh well, enough of this online stuff."
Of course this is not what happened. So, you say, smarty pants, what happened?
I can't really say. But I know it has nothing to do with fundamentals, because the story of man's existence has been of evolution, growth, adaptation and change. Dynamic, to put it in mathematical terms. It might be a bit rich to compare mankind's evolution to blogging by a few of the Indian babalog, but I think the analogy is basically correct, although quite stretched. "Fundamentals" don't exist, except in some warped notion of a stationary world, where everything must be in line, like what ma'am said.
Friday, March 9, 2012
Obligatory obituary
It would be easy to attempt to contribute to the growing number of glowing good-byes.Rahul Dravid, alone of all sportsmen/women I know, tells me I can play at the highest level if I work at it.
To this day, via the career of Dravid, I believe if I practiced my forward defensive and straight drive enough, I would play for India.
It is a most useful metaphor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)