I was a nervous rising HS freshman.  How awkward I was…

I love growing up.  Or, rather, growing into myself.

Very interesting opinion article from the Grey Lady: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/19/opinion/19douthat.html?ref=opinion

This long week has zapped my creative thinking.

It’s been a _long_ while since I’ve posted.  Slowly, but surely, the writing bug has gotten to me.

An opinion article on the NYT has circled around the econ blogosphere: Economics Behaving Badly. It’s an interesting article that sort of legitimizes behavioral economics while putting it in its place.   The following quote summarizes it pretty well:

Behavioral economics should complement, not substitute for, more substantive economic interventions. If traditional economics suggests that we should have a larger price difference between sugar-free and sugared drinks, behavioral economics could suggest whether consumers would respond better to a subsidy on unsweetened drinks or a tax on sugary drinks.

But that’s the most it can do. For all of its insights, behavioral economics alone is not a viable alternative to the kinds of far-reaching policies we need to tackle our nation’s challenges.

A lot of popular reading in economics is a stem off of behavioral economics, e.g. Freakonomics, More Sex is Safer Sex, Naked Economics (hmm, interesting set of titles there).  I’ve started to loath this sort of reading as it’s merely showing study after study of correlations yet asserting causation.

One thing a behavioral economist might say, going along with the aforementioned example in the quote, is in order to encourage consumers to stop smoking, increase the taxes on smoking (or perhaps, subsidy cessation tools).  But I have to ask, it is an expensive habit but does the expense really encourage people to stop smoking?  I ask this honestly because I’m not sure if money would be the first reason rather than health.

Man, I’m way too zonked to go any further.

Good for me, bad for a lot of others.

http://baselinescenario.com/2010/04/28/wake-the-president/

Just a quick comment: I received a second Census form yesterday.  After I’ve sent in the first one weeks ago.  This makes me question the integrity of the Census.

We did not escape CNBC’s spell: http://nyti.ms/aiVi2J

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/02/19/dc_digging_bostons_plowmen/

Discount rate has changed! Up to a 50 bps variance from the Fed Funds rate, so now at .75% No real effect – just makes it more expensive for banks to borrow from the Fed, and not a lot of that is going on.

Google the word “recursion” and “the loneliest number” as well.   While you’re at it, how about googling “the answer to life, the universe, and everything”, “once in a blue moon”, and “ascii art”.  Fun [geeky] times.

In an ode to shared work humor, here is a depiction of the day I experienced (sorry I’m not about to do every accent aigu or grave etc, and pardon my french, it’s been 6 years…):

L: Cette est une pipe.

B: Mais non, cette est une pipe.  Vous avez dit que ceci n’est pas une pipe.

L: Pardonez-moi, j’ai dit que cette est une pipe.  Quand je dis qu’il ne l’etait pas?

B: Mais non! Cette est une pipe!  Qui d’autre peut verifier que ceci est une pipe?

W: Oui, cette est une pipe.

L: Oui, c’est ca! C’est certainement une pipe!  Quand je dis qu’il ne l’etait pas?!

B: Voici le fichier ou vous avez dit que “ceci n’est pas une pipe.”

L: Ce fichier dit qu’il est une pipe pour hier, pas aujourd’hui.  …idiot.

B: Oui, donc, nous sommes d’accord que cette est une pipe.

L: *le sigh* oui, nous etions d’accord tout le temps.

This wasn’t the first instance of the day with “B.”