A New Way to Invest in Athletes

Sports franchises are understandably peculiar businesses because they rely on a fan base that is often based on a city or place of residence.  The most important assets for most teams are the players who are the performers and therefore crate a fan base for merchandise sales, tickets and additional publicity. For that reason, it is understandable that with the exception of a few such as the Green Bay Packers, the trend is that most franchises are held as corporations with shareholders.

As the most visible and important assets held by teams, the franchises are used to negotiating with athletes as such with the help of their managers. It is sensible to ask the question whether this is still the most efficient way for athletes to bear the risks of their careers in professional sports. Arian Foster, a football athlete with the NFL's Houston Texans is a pioneer in the diversification of risks by floating shares in his person as an athlete. As covered here, the athlete has sold shares in his personal brand by promising to distribute a portion of future incomes to individuals who invest in him today.

What the athlete has done is to assure himself of a level of income and asks those who have confidence that he will be successful in the future to but futures in his career. In addition, this share purchase comes with a facility that enables holders to trade that stock over time. While the story overwhelmingly concentrates on the risks that come from the possibility that an athlete may be injured and thereby lead to losses for the owners, I am inclined to think that all those risks would be built into the cost of the shares to ensure that the pricing is appropriate.

Unlike the author who thinks that this activity will be a niche investment for die-hard fans, I think that this is a legitimate form of market creation that provides opportunities for real gains and losses too. injury aside, there will be fine investments of this kind just as there will be poorer one too. its just about who can make the well-informed bet. 

David and Goliath: First Impressions

David and Goliath by Malcolm Gladwell
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

To my mind, while it is an easy read, this book represents the most complex idea that Malcolm Gladwell has attempted to communicate. The first chapter is written well and it makes it look like it will always be easy to apply the David and Goliath metaphor throughout. It is not easy and that may explain the harsh judgement of critics. As usual, the author uses a deceptively simple metaphor to explain phenomena starting from war, crime, education attainment and social change. Few authors are capable of making such a tactical tour de force and in pushing such a wide circle, it is possible that some claims will be incredulous. Still, hard earned money well spent if you one chooses to read this book.  


View all my reviews

Tiger on Course For Record

Earlier this year, Tiger Woods retained the top rank among professional golfers. This was significant achievement because it marked the return of this individual to the top of his sport and inspired confidence among his supporters that his earlier troubles notwithstanding, he would win another of the top four golf majors and be on his way to beating the record held by Jack Nicklaus. In truth, I have been very bullish about Tiger Woods and considered that this was the year when he would not only retain top rank in the PGA rankings but would also take at least two of the majors.

As the season gets towards the end, it is evident that Tiger Woods will accomplish only one the two goals contemplated here. Whereas he retains the number one spot, he has failed to add to his stock of majors and the doubts have resurfaced. And the disappointment among the pundits has been aggravated by some missteps that Tiger Woods has taken by shifting the position of the ball during play. Ewan Murray, writing for The Guardian here not only questions the frequency of the illegal moves that Tiger has been involved in but insinuates that the "dishonesty" may be characteristic of a player whose troubles commenced with infidelity. This is not only unfair but illustrates the point that this blogger has made about the tendency of the punditry to kick a man when he is down. Tiger is still far ahead of his peers and I would wager my small fortune that he will at the least match Jack Nicklaus' record. 

Quoting Bart Wilson

"The positive facts about how we became the most prosperous species in the history of the planet are unappreciated in the humanities, often because the facts and logic of wealth creation are regrettably unknown". Bart Wilson in, Economics as a Branch of Literature. 

How India's Caste System has Endured for 1900 Years

As a person with interest in social stratification in modern society, I have been particularly alert to explanations for the rise and persistence of the the caste system in India and other societies. In blog posts such as this and this, I have shown interest in understanding both the backward justifications and the visible and indirect economic and social consequences of India's enduring caste system. Predictably, my view has been that the value of the caste system in India is that it leads to some inefficiencies and also unjustly denies a large population of Indians of true dignity and opportunity for achievement. In essence, to my libertarian mind, caste systems, like other discriminatory structures exist to support aristocracies and justify the existence of inherently flawed hierarchies.

A legitimate question is to ask under what circumstances the caste system of India developed and why it has endured. Joshua Keating's piece in Slate Magazine summarizes  a recent article in the American Journal of Human Genetics which reports results of a genetic study to determine when various groups of people diverged from one another. The theory is that this divergence would be a marker for the commencement of the caste system and is dated at 1900 years. While I am not fully qualified to debate the exactness of this date, i am surprised that the article seems to suggest that the systematic social stratification based on arbitrary considerations has a "short history".

I disagree with this characterization of discrimination and enforced poverty because two millennia of systematic discrimination and prejudice proves that the biases were self-reinforcing and created the stability in that system. bear in mind that leading democracies in the world and related political institutions have existed for less than three centuries. Stratification based on castes has endured for too long and its effects will maintain for longer still. the length of this injustice, similar to slavery and other forms of discrimination should not be downplayed. 

Renewing The Social Sciences

Few students of the social sciences would dispute the broad argument made in this NYT article by Nicholas Christakis. The tenor of the piece is that unlike the natural sciences, the pantheon of social sciences have hardly changed and are still stand alone disciplines that allow for little mixing and integration with other to create newer and more useful areas of study.

This assertion is demonstrably true because the major social sciences including economics, sociology and anthropology are taught and learned in the traditional ways that they have been for at least a century. While this has provided for stability and expanded the body of literature, it is not clear that the disciplines have made meaningful progress in asking new questions and using modern tools. One would add that this conservatism is seen in the fact that fact that in spite of the proximity of subject, these departments still have different foundational courses and traditional structures at the academies.

However, I am less convinced that the desired shake-up of the social sciences would provide for a definitive theory or closure of long-standing areas of enquiry. This is possible in the natural sciences because foundational ideas such as gravity and calculus remain the same but social phenomena changes with observation and with social structures. For instance, the causes and drivers of crime varies by the age profile of society and this has changed substantially over the last century. For that reason alone, it is not possible to have a definitive theory of crime for more than a generation.

What the article states eloquently is that the traditional silos of the social sciences do not make much sense and that knowledge creation is stifled by the singular lenses by which professors in the social sciences approach their subject. In sum, disciplines such a s sociological economics and behavioural economics point to the future.    

Rendition of the Declaration of Independence

Today is the 4th of July and the United States of America marks the 237th Anniversary of its independence. While I am not a citizen of the US, I remain impressed by the enormous and unmatched progress that a nation started by men determined to secure their freedom has become. Bearing in mind that this is a union  built of a bold declaration recited above, it speaks for itself and demonstrates why, within limits, this nation is a beacon for democracy, represented in freedom for its citizens. This rendition is dramatized by citizens of that nation who represent the deep labours that the successors of the founders endured and contested among themselves and with others. May it continue to inspire well-meaning human beings for many more centuries.

Introducing Yuki Kawauchi

It has become unquestioned today that superior and consistent performance in sports is the result of the application of scientific methods of training, nutrition and use of cutting-edge equipment. Thus in most of the sporting activities today, the level of professionalism required for consistent performance is necessarily costly and that explains the partnership between performers and corporations or sponsors who pay for the training and equipment. bearing this in mind, i am particularly fascinated by this story in Slate Magazine about a Japanese marathoner whose methods and techniques for performance provide a resounding exception to this rule. 

Yuki Kawauchi is a leading marathon runner in japan who is different because he runs a personal training regime, enters races more regularly than is considered ideal, has no corporate sponsor while also maintaining a 40-hour per week job with the government. As the article states, his training regimen consists of daily running and entering for long distance races with very regular frequency. the surprise is that despite his peculiar approach to a very difficult discipline, he not only thrives but records better performance than his colleagues who are sponsored and trained by the national athletics institution.

The lack of professional coaching is evident in his running style that inevitably leads to wrong posture and poor stride but his performance in none the worse. As stated, a maverick of this kind inevitably attracts hostility from sports bosses who would like to see a performer under their direct control. 

As a person who runs a annual marathon race in the tropics with virtually no prior training, I agree that it is possible to exert oneself and perform reasonably well without adherence to the conventional professional advise. What I find truly impressive about Yuki Kawauchi is the consistency in performance and the ability to enter a large number of races. Perhaps his good performance is proof of the 10,000 hour rule described by Malcolm Gladwell in this book. In spite of this, my belief is that his athlete is overtraining and while he has kept risk of injury low, is likely to take longer to recover. the ultimate price hough is that Yuki is shortening his career substantially by the overwork of his body and would probably peak soon and decline much faster thereafter. It is still possible that he may prove the exception and have a truly long career because so far, nothing about this athlete is conventional. His career and times are worthy of keeping for close study. 

Amartya Sen's Take on the Race of the Asian Giants

Due to my declared libertarian inclination, I have weighed in with arguments on this blog about the longer-term prospects of India and China. In summary, my consistent contention has been that India may be a bungling democracy but will continue to make steady steps and eventually catch up and outrace China into sustained development. All this is because of my belief that the advantages of a sustained democratic order for more than half a century are not only unique but will be enduring. Despite the steady leadership of China's political party and the surface calmness, its political institutions are not comparatively advanced. This unequalled strength of the Chinese Communist party is perhaps its achilles heel too because of the absence of competing ideas in the political market.

Amartya Sen has written a timely and very incisive article in the NYT here, not only noting the difference between the two Asian neighbors but also seeking to explain why one leads the other. In spite of his being an Indian citizen, he makes the profound statement that India has trailed for so long that it may not be able to catch up with China at all. In this Nobel laureate's view, the gap in development outcomes between india and China is explained by the weakness of the India's public sector and the poor provision of public services.

Of particular concern is that india has failed to internalize the lessons of the Asian miracle which placed a huge premium on provision of good healthcare and education.  The stark comparison is real and reveals India's contradictions and great differences in the capability of citizens. In india's case, the world's largest producer of generic medicine also has appallingly underdeveloped public health systems. To sum it all, India's best industries can compete internationally but the large differences between its best and least educated undermines a longer and sustained growth path. While Amartya sen does not mention it, I am led to ask myself why the seeming comfort with vast inequalities in access and outcomes of health and education services in india is an enduring legacy of the social stratification engendered by the caste system.

Whatever the answer may be, I am aware that the odds of my bet that India will outrace China have shortened substantially. Sen's summary leads me to wonder how badly india would be doing if it did not have the single engine of democracy to begin with.  

3-D Printing is Not Alchemy

Any person who can read this blog post is aware of the fact that 3-D printing has been demonstrated to be able to make usable copies of prosthetic limbs, useful materials and even a firearm. And yet most of the press coverage about the potential of 3-D printing is obviously overstated. reading many commentaries, one would get the impression that this technology renders every physical object subject to production through 3-D printing and therefore that it will have a profound effect on manufacturing and virtually all industrial processes.

Carl Bass, writing in Wired here, adopts a more circumspect approach to the claims and goes through a detailed explanation of 3-D printing. Among the most important points he makes is that the explosion in the use of the technology is still constrained by the fact that this technology seems to be in an experimental stages. But the most profound statement is that 3-D is unlikely to reach mass use and thereby wipe our industrial manufacturing because of the economics of the technology. In particular, the author argues that in scaling up models, 3-D there is a significant cost barrier because the cost appreciates with scale. Calling this the Third Power of 3-D printing, it is empirically established that the time, costs and material required scales up to the third power. Thus a proper business model dos not exist yet and so it is constrained by volume. 

This means the technology is unlikely to displace conventional manufacturing and will be used at small scale by individuals. In essence, 3-D printing will improve over time but is not the equivalent of alchemy for manufacturing. 

Dan Brown's Take on Population Growth

In the interview embedded here from the Guardian's website, Dan Brown, an author of highly popular fiction mentions the fact that world population has trebled in 85 years. Implicit in the question from the interview and the author's answer is the unquestioned assumption that rapid population is undoubtedly a threat to survival of humanity. From the short interview, it is clear that the author and questioner take it that a concern for the fate of the earth is warranted.

My quick review of the acts state that this is true and most of the growth has been in poorer parts of Asia, Africa and Latin America. However, that most of the population still exists should lead to greater caution is asserting that most of the world's ecological and environmental problems are driven by overpopulation. Noting that the publication under discussion is fiction, it must be accepted that the author should communicate his ideas as he sees them. Still, I would suggest that this author should read a couple of books and understand the dynamics of population growth because it is almost a neutral in factor in overall economic performance. The structure of the population is far more important than the absolute number of people.

Added June 21, 2013: Perhaps a subtle issue such as the primary drivers of population growth as oppossed to the absolute population does not make for good plot in best selling fiction.

The Trade of of Graduate Economists

"Most economists start graduate school not having spent much time thinking about social problems or studied much else besides math and economics. The incentive and hierarchy systems tend to reward those with the technical skills rather than interesting questions or research agendas." Dani Rodrik in, World Economics Association newsletter. 

The Real Lesson of the Excel Error

As reiterated by this NYT article by Robert Pollin and Michael Ash, the main debate that animates commentators is the relationship between national debt and GDP growth. This discourse has arisen from an error that on an Excel sheet during the publication of the paper under reference in the article. My view is that the paper looked a bit too neat in determining the threshold at which debt begins to constrain further growth and provided ammunition to ideologues to justify sharp reductions in debt and to counter-punch against those economists who considered a Keynesian approach as a solution.

To my mind, this state of affairs reflects the state of affairs in academia today and more particularly in economics. To be clear, the discipline of economics integrates quantitative tools impressively and provides meaning to phenomenon that would not be tractable. However, that supremely capable economists made this error and that the paper was then taken as a holy grail in the effect of the nexus between debt and economic growth is cause to pause and contemplate. This is because while the quantitative tools are sufficiently developed, it is worrying that it took a couple of years for the error to be discovered and for an explanation to issue. This merely highlights my concern that too much of economic reasoning is suspended whenever a paper is issued that claims to find a connection that answers a topical policy issue.

To my mind, the lesson is that all professionals economists must be as suspicious as they are impressed with the tools that they deploy. The whole profession suffers when errors are that easily missed and that verification is not performed before the studies are given prominence.  

Apple Shares Still A Good Deal

The punditry is full of alarmist messages that Apple has lost its mojo due to the perception that the companies corporation's growth has reached its zenith. I am prepared to state that while I have only reviewed the summary of the statements made by Apple, it is clear that most of the pundits are either ignorant or deliberately distorting the picture.

To start with, an amazing run of nearly a decade of quarter after quarter of increasing profit levels is statistically rare and would be expected to come to an end sometime during the corporation's lifetime. because of that superior accomplishment, it is annoying that this end in growth rate of profits is being read as marking an end to the corporation's dominance based on a fall in share prices.

Added to the above, one would think that Apple released a product that performed poorly when the release of the iPhone in late 2012 went really well and is still the gadget to beat in the smart phone category. It is true that the targets set by financial analysts were not met neither set nor endorsed by the management of Apple. Financial analysts are perfectly entitled to setting sales, market share and revenue targets as they judge fit but are not allowed to reverse themselves when those targets are not met by suggesting that the firm is doing poorly.

So while the share price has fallen, I am certain that those who are selling away are not making a good decision based on the results of a quarter in which revenues were high but profits dropped. To my mind, this is perfect illustration of the poor link between equity values and the performance of a corporation.  As Cassie Slane states here, the share price is lower than it was a decade ago. This is perhaps the moment to buy into Apple. 

John Kay Makes Sense of Money

"The transition from the world in which money is valuable because it is valuable to one in which money is valuable because it is money could happen only because centuries of experience had established confidence that such money would be accepted. There are two commodities-paper money and gold- whose price permanently exceeds fundamental value. But only two. But with gold looking as volatile as Bitcoin, perhaps only one." John Kay  

Big Data is Big But is Not Everything

I still consider myself a keen student of statistics and the use of quantitative approaches to understanding reality or events. For that reason, I am particularly keen to read and understand the claims being made by the "Big Data" movement that digitization of transactions and availability of high powered chips makes it possible today to obtain large data sets for analysis. The claim proceeds to state that big data is now the future and that the availability of information will make all of us very smart and create a deeper understanding of commercial, social and other transactions of life.

Like all claims that come with conventional wisdom, I am suspicious of the unquestioned exuberance over the possibilities created by "Big data". And yet the strength of this narrative is such that few people question it especially as it is now the loudly proclaimed by governments and large management and business firms that are leaders in providing policy and business advise.

David Brooks, writing in the NYT here, provides an incisive view of the "Big Data" movement and dissects the claims being made about it. He raises two important points, the first being that there are certain areas of individual life in which subjective preferences are still dominant and so it is important for "Big data" enthusiasts to be alert to the limits of this movement. To my mind, the most important refutation in the article is the push back against the claim that the surfeit of data obviates the need to create theories because correlations and other statistical techniques will reveal connections between variables.

This preposterous claim by the "Big Data" fundamentalists that theory is obsolete is rightly questioned by the author. In addition, Nate Silver, who himself is a very creative and competent statistician, tackles the claim in this book. Those who make the claim that the mere existence of large troves of data makes theory building unnecessary are overstating the case because any attempt to review and determine the degree of connection between two variables means that a theory exists about their connection. of significance too is that prediction and establishing linkages between phenomenon is not poor because of the absence of data but because of the inability of most professionals to distinguish between the signals and noise. In other words, a spurious connection may exists but unless a plausible theory is used to examine the claim, then big data will find all manner of connections that are just noises.  

Just because more data will be conveniently available does not mean that statistical ken will develop in proportion to it. Indeed, my guess and expectation is that the supply of poor statistical reasoning will rise. Society will still need to find good quantitative thinkers among the volume of "Big Data" crowd. 

Book Review: How the West Was Lost

I am not a tough grader of books because producing a sensible piece of work is very very difficult but found that the author here could have done better with her categories. The title of the book is so far removed from its content because it concentrates on some of the real economic policies blunders of successive US administrations but to add examples from Uk once in a while does not constitute what is known as "The West". I have no doubt about the author's credentials at all but would be cautious when the solutions proposed involved protectionism and closing up into a north American alliance.

Also startling for me is the neo-Malthusian argument that the world is running out of energy, land and food on account of growing populations. Now, this is an argument that is not only set against the grain of history but also requires far more sophistication to pull off than merely stating that it requires 9 kilogrammes of grain to produce an equivalent weight of beef and therefore that the world is doomed. On the same path is the argument made without evidence that conflict around resources such as water will shortly be normal without evidence for it.

In conclusion, I agree that david Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage has been questioned several times but just because China is a "Volume Maximizer" is not evidence that comparative advantage is obsolete. As it is, the simple mathematics of comparative advantage show that no country could hold an absolute advantage in every product imaginable. More recently China's labour costs have been rising and this alone means that Ms Moyo may need to update her arguments. Similarly, the fact that the US is close to being self sufficient in energy undercuts the argument that reliance upon energy imports harms its economy.  

Finally, I find that the book is a very good polemical work but ignores countries that have managed economies very well. In the entire publication, i am surprised that Canada was hardly mentioned except towards the end in the suggestion that the US should go into a North American alliance with its neighbor. In the end, the book puts up a lot of information on the misallocation of resources in the US but does not provide evidence to me that the US, leave alone the West, is really lost.

Is Tiger's Comeback Complete Now?

Its not too difficult to notice that whenever a professional is accused of an indiscretion, then his achievements also become questionable. Tiger Woods is a perfect example of this phenomenon in action. I have stated that the details of his personal life apart, Tiger Woods remains an exceptionally accomplished golfer with a skills set that does not evaporate merely because he has suffered from the difficulties of his personal life. Soon after the events were exposed, this golfer took a long break and upon his return, the uninformed pundits and commercial sponsors assumed that his best days were over and that his professional targets would not be met because he was past his best.

As stated here and here, I have always maintained that this view was completely mistaken and that Tiger Woods still had sufficient time and capability to meet the grand objective of matching the record of 18 majors. Having enjoyed the peace that may come from media focus on his main competitors and the new boys on the block, this athlete has gradually and steadily worked his way back to second in the worldwide rankings. Lorne Rubinstein's piece assesses the steady climb up the ranks and reiterates my belief that Tiger Woods has the goal of 18 majors well within reach. iInterestingly, he adds that it is even possible that Tiger Woods' skill set has improved over time and that he is one tournament away from regaining number 1.

  

How are Locks and Software Alike?

In the early days after I started writing up pieces on this blog, I regularly mentioned my admiration for Bruce Schneier the writer of this blog, that security analysts with really unique view of security. He distills principles for security advice from both economics and technology and delivers very useful insights on what the causes and fixes for poor security both in the real and virtual worlds are. To my mind, two factors that he stresses again and again are that secrecy is not equal to more security and that there's a lot of security theatre which does not pass a cost-effectiveness test but it helps agencies and software makers to look busy and concerned. 

As required, inspiration for this blog post has occurred from my reading of the supremely interesting series of pieces on lock picking by Tom Vanderbilt on Slate Magazine. In the latest piece, the author discusses why it is virtually impossible to make a absolutely safe lock. Curiously, the conclusion is very similar to Bruce Schneier's two principles which asks for understanding that software and general security requires trade offs and also that notwithstanding the claims by lock makers, secrecy does not make a lock any safer from individuals intent on breaking it. 

Essentially, the series of articles by Tom Vanderbilt merely confirm the assertion by Bruce Schneier that principles of good security are important and that society would be better served if the principles were applied more generally. For general consumers of products such as anti-virus software and home owners, security requires trade offs and is an arms race of sorts. There is no absolute instrument to ensure that all households and all people are safe in all activities. Society would be much better if this fact was understood more broadly. 

Christina Romer Explains the Minimum Wage

Christina Romer presents a most coherent piece in the NYT that explains the effects of a minimum wage in terms of distribution effects. Apart from showing that the quest to improve income for poorer workers may be valid, the article shows that the distributional effects makes the overall effects more complicated than is immediately apparent. To start with, it is clear that the enhancement of wages may not all be appropriated by the poorest workers because some of the raise will be taken by younger workers who are residents of higher income households. In effect, as argued, raising the minimum wage in the US would also result in gains for those who work in minimum wage jobs but are not necessarily the most indigent workers in the US.

Equally profound is that the income gains may be real but that because poorer workers do not work on a full time basis, the policy change will not result in substantial economic effect relative to the US economy. Added to this point is that the consumption patterns of the lower income individuals suggest that most of that gain in establishments that employ the very individuals who are on a minimum wage. Understandably therefore, the price rise based on higher wages paid is absorbed disproportionately by this increase. Christina alludes to studies that show that a  minimum wage policy may have a negligible effect on overall employment but this possibly compensated for by the gains in productivity caused by the lower labour turnover.

In all, the analysis shows that the policy intent of the minimum wage policy is clear and perhaps morally defensible but the effect of instituting it is not necessarily positive for the people it is expected to assist. To my mind, the author states convincingly that by raising the minimum wage, the administration has left on the table more feasible alternatives.

Sotomayor on Mercy

The Quality of mercy: "It blesseth him that gives and him that takes". Sonia Sotomayor, in , My Beloved World. Page 204. 

Debating the Limits to Money Transactions

One of the most frustrating arguments that libertarians face is the seemingly sensible claim that society should proscribe certain things especially because there is unequal access to them or that their consumption and distribution may offend morality. Among the most erudite scholars posing this question is Michael Sandel in his book published last year called, What Money Cant Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets. reading that book last year, I deferred to the author's depth in the inquiry but was also frustrated with the view that moral categories must be imposed on all irrespective of the fact that no harm is caused in allowing a poorer person to sell a kidney to a wealthier person in need of it. It is true that in creating a price on organs, society accepts that there will be unequal access will occur.

In an article in late December, John Kay illustrates the absurdity of imposing uniformity by alluding to his payment of €12 to purchase the right to priority boarding on a flight. My view is that paying for kidneys does not of necessity put society on  a slippery path towards slavery because in the latter case, no contracts are willingly executed. there are certainly limits to what money can buy but most democratic societies are hardly close to the limits. As a libertarian, it is clear to me that few markets would survive for a long time if they were completely repugnant to free participants. Thus a market for kidneys and other organs is not the worst thing that could afflict society today. that some markets are not available today is due to lack of innovation and respect for individual freedom and not because of the possibility of exploitation of the powerless or fear of exceeding moral limits.    

Farmers Must Sell Quinoa

I am always amazed at the one-sided analysis that some journalists adopt in the discussion of trade in goods and especially in agricultural and food items. Joanna Blythman of the Guardian wrote a story on the fact that the global demand for a Peruvian crop known as quinoa is raising prices for the product worldwide. A a supporter of enterprise and trade, I think that this is an unequivocally good thing. However,  the journalist, without stating any other numbers, simply states that the price of quinoa has led to a threefold increase in its price and thereby affected its affordability for Peru's poor people. She attributes the rise in price to the expansion in demand in Europe among health conscious people.

That some households may face difficulty and hunger because the prices of quinoa have risen is not to be taken lightly. However, it is clear that other farmers have gained substantially due to the rise in demand for this crop. Any analysis that fails to account for both the effect on sellers and buyers tells on a part of the story and looks suspiciously reductionist. This blogger would state without equivocation that a big part of the solution in world hunger is not about who consumes what but rather that poorer farmers are affected by inadequate demand for the products that they produce. Peru's quinoa farmers should not have to accept the perverse option of low prices just so that everybody can afford that grain. Indeed, the conclusion fro Joanna that the solution to undernourishment is for all food to be grown a home has little connection to the solution for hunger. Do not blame vegetarians for higher preference for quinoa.

Isn't Armstrong's Apology Enough?

When I learned that Lance Armstrong would be having a discussion with Oprah Winfrey, I worried that there would be cynics who would accuse him of trying to use Oprah's profile to wipe out his alleged transgressions. And yet even before that interview was broadcast, it became clear that he would neither find forgiveness nor any understanding from a section of viewers whose minds were made up. And yet I thought that the published commentaries such as this about the discussion with Oprah were dominated by the unproven view that the confessor was not entirely contrite.

Tim Black's article in Spiked-online reflects the fact that the responses to Armstrong are that he did not react in the way that the apologies industry expected him to. To my mind, here is the illustration of the fact that an apology is often demanded for misdemeanor and yet it is never enough. So yes, this man made many grave errors and was very deceitful and unkind to many people but dispassionate people must detest the fact that there are people who seem to enjoy kicking him while he is down. To me, this episode proves that those in positions of power and leadership should be more circumspect and less vulnerable to hubris. And that includes  journalists, warriors for morality and the rest of us. This is not the moment to be fastidious because Armstrong has given his apology. To me, that is acceptable and enough. 

More Abuse of Evolution to Explain Social Behavior

During a friendly discussion with a a friend with whom I attended college a while ago, I argued that it can be stated unequivocally that the degree of scientific literacy on the part of the public has risen remarkably both in the place of my residence and in world populations at large. Implicit in my argument was that the sheer number of articles being published that address scientific principles has most definitely raised the appreciation of science.

Looking through this article by dDan Slater in the NYT and an early blog post here leads me to consider that I may have made my point with more confidence than is warranted. To begin with, the NYT article states that while some evidence for evolution is sound, it is often wound together with other theories to explain human behavior in ways that are not defensible. As the story states, Charles Darwin too extrapolated from evolution to explain the reproductive choices of male and female human beings in ways that are not defensible and amount to pure speculation. As Slater argues, behavioral scientists pick up sensible but unproven hypothesis and assumptions then proceed to gather evidence as proof of those assumptions. As he continues, many scientists have beguin to dispute the theories that have emerged from speculation dressed up as science.

This situation is highlighted by the blog post that I refer to in the preceding paragraph. Back then, I was arguing that many students of economicssts are dressing up their theories in evolutionary language. tThere is very little evidence that evolution supplied humanity with pre-programmed behavior and it is time for a push-back against these interesting hypotheses and they must headers to article be called out for what they are- entertaining guesses.   

France's Moment To Think Clearly

Readers of this blog may recall this blog post last year in which I discussed the ridiculous policy idea by the new government in France. In a move whose motive is clear but whose logic is just absurd, the government of France initiated to tax citizens for overtime tax. At that same time, there were discussions on further tax policy measures intended to raise the marginal tax rates on individuals whose income passed a certain threshold. Unbelievable as it is, the idea by President Hollande is to raise the marginal tax rates to 75%.

Gerard Depardieu, a very famous and wealthy citizen of France announced that he would take residence in Belgium but denied here that this was driven by this increment in the marginal tax rates. During the last weekend, the same actor received a Russian passport from none other than Vladimir Putin of Russia in an obvious rebuff to the French government.

To my mind, the government of France ought to be take to some reflection if a citizen who has paid substantial taxes over decades is suddenly showing preference for Citizenship in Russia. And I am sure that the differences between France and Russia do not rest with marginal tax rates and so perhaps Depardieu is right that calculations on tax liability is not the reason at all for this change. In spite of that, France's government should consider why a leading citizen is so happy to become Putin's buddy. Part of the answer is that both political and economic freedoms matter and citizenship can be cheapened with poor economic thinking manifest in ridiculously high and oppressive tax rates.  

Update: I have to state that the government of France was stopped from raising the marginal tax rate to 75% by a court decision. For that reason, the rise has not occurred but it is clear that the administration is determined to raise it and will maneuver around the court's decision.