If you thought Stata was ugly in real life, wait till you see the new Google Maps version…
Hey, look at this compelling figure from this 2007 report on climate change (7.2MB)!
(This apparently didn’t post last night, but from the gates of the white house,) WOOOOOOOOOO! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Maybe a good time to bring this up
Chris Christie has made a lot of bad decisions and unnecessary enemies as governor. But he’s also been a stand-up guy from time to time. So I’m going to say this in the most even-handed non-partisan way possible. In the wake of Sandy, after the stranded in Hoboken have been rescued, after power, food, gas and water have been restored, after those that have lost everything have been rebuilt…
It’s time for New Jersey to rejoin the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.
If Christie has half the courage of his convictions, he’ll quit equivocating on climate change and do the easiest, most-direct thing in his power to address the reality of more powerful hurricanes, higher storm surge, and the myriad other impacts of climate change in NJ.
RGGI doesn’t account for all of NJ’s contributions to climate change, and it sure doesn’t solve global warming. But it would do something, and that’s at an incredibly low cost. But moreover it would send a message that he’s taking NJ’s interests seriously and not just selling the same old bill of goods.
I don’t mean to be glib, but it seems as if this is a problem with an obvious solution …
If you’re in DC, come to my debate party!
If you’re not… well, sucks for you.
Modeling the cart before the horse - or - why is this a paper?
I can’t comment on the literature to back up their assumption, but this paper is a great example of economic models being used to prove their own assumptions, rather than the other way around. Linked to via Tyler Cowen and Chris Blattman:
Because of their more limited inequality and more comprehensive social welfare systems, many perceive average welfare to be higher in Scandinavian societies than in the United States. Why then does the United States not adopt Scandinavian-style institutions?
…we develop a simple model of economic growth in a world in which all countries benefit and potentially contribute to advances in the world technology frontier. A greater gap of incomes between successful and unsuccessful entrepreneurs (thus greater inequality) increases entrepreneurial effort and hence a country’s contribution to the world technology frontier.
Voila! Our model (using the assumption that greater inequality creates incentives for new technology) proves that a more equal world would be technologically worse off!
We depart from this framework only in one dimension: by assuming, plausibly, that there is a moral hazard problem for workers (entrepreneurs) and for successful innovation they need to be given incentives, which comes at the cost of consumption insurance
The model bears it out, so the assumption must be true!
Counterfactual attribution: why air pollution is killing us and we don’t know it. From the World Health Organization’s mondo 2009 report, Global Health Risks.
Bike po. Yet one more reason I’d rather talk to a DC cop than an NYC cop.