A fascinating article which I found through the Valuscience Blog of my friends at Magic in Stanford is titled „Is Chernobyl a Wild Kingdom or a Radioactive Den of Decay?“. The authors, Timothy Mousseau, a US-based evolutionary biologist, and Anders Møller, a Danish biologist, basically debunk the myth that already after a relatively (for standards of nuclear waste and pollution) short period of time, the „Chernobyl Exclusion Zone“ has become almost a national park’s worth of happy wildlife. The article is very long and narrative in tone, though, so here are some remarkable findings of my skimming.

[…]

Greg Mankiw points to an interesting disagreement among high-profile blogging economists about whether it is possible to tax rich people who don’t consume very much (or who consume the same before and after the tax), or more precisely who actually pays if you do.

As I had previously tweeted, I was quite surprised by Joseph Stiglitz‘ remark that in his opinion there are some convictions that all serious economists should share: „resources are limited, incentives matter“. The context was that he didn’t agree with what many other distinguished economists held should be supported by everybody in the profession. Now, the problem with this greatest common denominator of his is that it is barely more than what I remember from a textbook as the definition of the discipline as being concerned with scarcity.

Is the situation of economics really so dire that after decades of science dealing with numbers from complete (non-inferential, every psychologist’s dream) real-world datasets, basic public policy issues are still in the realm of ideology? It seems so. Now, before (as usual …) arguing for a constructivist turn, let me put some of the central irreconcilable statements side by side:

[…]

I just came across a book with the promising title „Street-Fighting Mathematics — The Art of Educated Guessing and Opportunistic Problem Solving“ by Sanjoy Mahajan (2010), which is actually licensed under Creative Commons, so it can be found for free online. The basic premise is to provide some mathematical tools or heuristics to sufficiently approximate solutions to everyday problems (and maybe also provide a more general framework for that kind of reasoning). And it starts teasingly with a topic called „Dimensions“ and „The power of multinational corporations“. Here’s the problem:

In Nigeria, a relatively economically strong country, the GDP [gross domestic product] is $99 billion. The net worth of Exxon is $119 billion. “When multinationals have a net worth higher than the GDP of the country in which they operate, what kind of power relationship are we talking about?” asks Laura Morosini.

What is the most egregious fault in the comparison between Exxon and Nigeria?

[…]

Greg Mankiw points to four economists‘ interpretations of the old Christmas story of Ebenezer Scrooge. The first one, by Paul Krugman, does not really talk much about Scrooge at all, but is an interesting read for it’s coverage of systematic media manipulation by the Political Right in the US (demonstrated on the issue of an allegedly expanding government workforce under President Obama).

The second, by David Henderson, stays closer to the story, and tries to make an interesting point. The claim is that increasing government welfare is actually the „scroogeish“ thing to do, contrary to what many would think at first, and that it is individual charitable giving that follows the true spirit of Christmas. These two approaches are polarized as coercion vs. compassion. I’m blogging about it because I think it is a recurrent theme in discussions, and maybe one issue where political „left“ and „right“ are truly separated by contradicting perspectives.

[…]

Ich lese gerade einen Artikel, der mir mal wieder das Gefühl gibt, unserer Welt in vieler Hinsicht den Spiegel vorzuhalten. Ein paar Facetten davon möchte ich hier weitergeben, ohne das Bild viel zu kommentieren. Es geht um einen neuen Wirtschaftszweig in den USA. Wohl schon länger ist es üblich, dass Investoren Menschen finanzieren, die mit Klagen vor Gericht Geld gewinnen können, den Rechtsstreit aber nicht selbst finanzieren können. Kommt es zum Gewinn, wird dieser zwischen Investor und Kläger aufgeteilt. Erst jetzt wurde aber entdeckt, dass auch Scheidungen solch lukrative juristische Auseinandersetzungen sein können. Wobei ein bisschen Idealismus mindestens bei manchen der Unternehmen auch dabei ist:

[…]

Der viel gelobte Schlichtungsprozess um Stuttgart 21 ist also zu Ende, und es sieht nicht so aus, als ob jetzt Frieden um das Bahnhofsprojekt einkehren würde. In der SZ gab es zwei eher kritische Kommentare zu Prozess und Ergebnis, einer von Heribert Prantl und einer von Andreas Zielcke. Prantls Fazit:

[…]

Ich hoffe, dass die Nachrichten über diese Sache bald ein Ende haben — nachdem ich schon vor drei Jahren darüber gelesen habe bin ich wohl sensibilisiert, und stolpere immer wieder über einen Artikel. Nachdem sich am Beispiel Bisphenol A sehr gut die Gefahren von industriefinanzierten wissenschaftlichen Studien zeigen ließen, und in den USA die Regulierung voranschritt, liefert die Substanz jetzt den Anlass für einen Artikel in der ZEIT über die Verquickung der EU-Lebensmittelbehörde EFSA mit der Industrie. Viele Mitglieder sind gleichzeitig einer Organisation der Chemie– und Lebensmittelindustrie. Entsprechend lax fallen ihre Regulierungen aus:

[…]

In einem ZEIT Interview, das sich nur knapp explizit auf Sarrazin bezieht, aber trotzdem sicherlich in die mit ihm explodierte Diskussion einzuordnen ist, bezieht ein Berliner Historiker und Antisemitismus-Experte seine Erkenntnisse auf den heutigen Umgang mit Minderheiten, vor allem Muslimen. Spannend! Er spricht mir aus der Seele, wenn er fordert, historische Forschungserkenntnisse für die Gegenwart relevant zu machen:

[…]

Greg Mankiw makes a compelling case in his recent NYTimes column that expenditure cuts (i.e. reducing tax exemptions) should please both political parties and both corresponding camps of society. A strong proposition along that line has been made by Obamas deficit reduction commission. Especially interesting: tax expenditures strongly favor people with high income. And Mankiw never even mentions the reduced hassle in filing taxes that would result from thinning out the expenditure forest!

When I wrote about divided government being good government, I think I didn’t quite have that kind of addition to the governing Democrats in mind.

I couldn’t figure out if there’s a serious possibility of one of these guys becoming the new chairman of the Energy Committee, but Joe Barton has been the „Ranking Member“, i.e. the leading minority member. It could be really funny if it wasn’t real:

[…]