Time for another link-o-rama.
Coyote Blog writes about the defeat of school choice in Florida. I
continue to believe that eliminating public schools is the best way to improve the quality of
education. Unrelatedly, he also hopes that Democrats will push privacy as an
issue in the next elections.
Jeffrey Tucker wrote a great article about
showerhead regulations, and a company that's innovating around the regulation
to satisfy customer desires — and being attacked for it.
You might say that water needs to be conserved. Yes, and so does every other scarce good. The peaceful way to do this is through the price system. But because of municipal water systems have created artificial shortages, other means become necessary. One regulation piles on top of another, and the next thing you know, you have shower commissars telling you what you can or cannot do in the most private spaces.
Has central planning ever been more ridiculous, intrusive, and self-defeating?
Finally, I'm finally getting around to blogrolling Marginal Revolution because I can't resist their comments
anymore. In a post about marriage
(that defines a "modal wife") we get everything from this:
I think Tyler's model is dynamic enough to take into account income and intellect; it merely assumes that there exists a set of women who meet the criteria
f(w-sub-1, w-sub-2, …, w-sub-n) > W
and that the search costs for finding a member of that set may be high enough that it is better to satisfice at a level X beneath W, because (NPV(W)-NPV(X)) < (NPV of cost of finding W - NPV cost of finding X). Nothing stops income or intelligence from being in that function.
I am married to one of my modal wives. She is very happy about my application of revealed preference; I married her when other (she claims, modal) wives were available. Perhaps we should call such winners of close contests "supermodals."
and this (notice the excitement!):
I believe the mathematical answer is to estimate how many prospective spouses you will meet in your life, and then choose the first one better than the first 37% of them. I wonder if anyone has actually done this!
PD proposes a hypothetical spouse who has traits that stochastically dominate all other candidates. Perhaps it's possible that the wealthiest woman in the world is also the most beautiful and intellectually and emotionally (and geographically!) compatible (and add: the best lover, cook, baker, co-parent, financial planner, editor, critic, housekeeper...) for some lucky man, but for the overwhelming majority of us, the best we can hope for is someone who is Pareto-optimal in her qualities, is northeast of a particular n-dimensional utility curve, and feels the same way about us.
Modelling of modal marriages must include opportunity costs of search vs. opportunity costs of marriage. Divorce must be accounted for, and that factor is missing in the cursory analysis. Lastly, the existence of multiple modal partners is a multioptima solution problem. Hence, a new economic model of polygamy may be drawn. Ph.D. proposals, anyone?
and the somewhat depressing:
Voltaire: I've probably jumped on you unfairly. Your original quote: "Sorry, you 130-IQ people, you are just not that special". If you are literally refering to the 125-135 set, then yes, they are not as special as they think. (They are smart enough to notice the ignorance all around, but 2-sigma still has a lot of nearbys.) Out past 140, however, it can get quite lonely, and there are a whole set of adjustments that have to be made in order to function quasi-normally. I do believe that the higher the IQ, the stronger divisions become, so the 3-sigma set is fighting not only absolutely sparseness of availability, but also the relative narrowness of its own acceptance criteria. I don't doubt that the really rich have a similar problem. Fortunately in my case, I'm not so high that I couldn't find science-hangers-on. My wife remarked at a company event how like the other wives she was. It sparked an amusing look-around episode.
I've neglected that blog for far too long. Too much funny stuff to ignore.