Friday, June 03, 2005
Can you bottle trust? The answer, it seems, is yes.
Oxytocin, a chemical that is produced naturally in the brain. Its production is triggered by a range of stimuli, including sex...
Arnold Kling opens a discussion on the implications of the aromatic drug:
Oxytocin is "easy and cheap to produce and it is easy to get it in drug stores, at least in Switzerland," Fehr says. So does that mean it could be pumped into the air in department stores by unscrupulous salespeople, turning us all into soft targets?
The hormone doesn't simply decrease inhibitions:
Investors were more willing to part with their cash when they inhaled the potion, Fehr's team reports in Nature. Of 29 subjects given oxytocin, 13 handed over all of their cash. Only 6 of the 29 subjects given a placebo to sniff invested all 12 of their credits.
When the human trustee was replaced with a random number generator the effect disappeared. This shows, the researchers say, that oxytocin specifically boosts social interactions, rather than simply making people more willing to take risks.
The article suggests that marketing already takes advantage of the drug:
Perhaps, but it seems a trifle extravagant, says Antonio Damasio, a neurologist at the University of Iowa in Iowa City. Modern advertising already uses tricks to get us to trust a brand that probably make us boost our own oxytocin levels. "It lures you in with images of wonderful landscapes or sex, and it probably works in exactly the same way," says Damasio.
Thursday, June 02, 2005
Putting a White House Annual Report to a Test
By HAL R. VARIAN
Published: June 2, 2005
EACH February, the Council of Economic Advisers issues "The Economic Report of the President." The report, which can be found at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/, contains useful economic statistics as well as essays by the members of the council.
Nice beginning; a statement of fact followed by a very reasonable and unimposing opinion.
This year's report, as usual, reflects the priorities and interests of the administration and is worth reading for that alone.
Again, a reasonable and valid assertion. I don't know if the reports usually reflect the priorities of the administration, but I'm willing to accept that they do. If this report didn't reflect the administrations priorities, I'd think the admin was up to something.
The ostensible audience is Congress but the essays are generally accessible and are often assigned reading for college economics classes.
Sounds good to me.
This year's report is particularly noteworthy because it was written by N. Gregory Mankiw, a Harvard professor and the council's chairman at the time. Mr. Mankiw is the author of a best-selling introductory economics textbook who is known for his clear writing. In addition to the standard "state of the economy" discussions, there are essays on tax reform, immigration, property rights, the information economy, H.I.V./AIDS and international trade.
Very good background support. The author has already asserted that the report represents the admin's priorities, now we can also expect them to be clear. Look at all the interesting stuff too.
The report is supposed to provide an "accurate assessment of the consensus professional views of economists." Why not use the full quote and source instead of a partial quote that looks to me like "scare quotes"? Recently The Journal of Economic Literature asked five economists to review the report, posing the question, "Does the discussion in the E.R.P. in fact accurately summarize what we as economists know?" Oh, maybe this administration, despite being more clear than others, is pulling a fast one.
Space precludes a detailed discussion of all the reviews, so I will focus on the examination of the chapter on property rights by Jonathan Gruber, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Maybe you could have fit more in by getting to the point. Oh well, I'm sure Mr. Gruber's chapter is representative of the report.
Although Mr. Gruber generally finds the discussion in the chapter to be fair, he disagrees with some of the conclusions. Economists have a saying, "De gustibus non est disputandum," which I like to (mis)translate as "It's disgusting not to dispute."
"Gruber agrees with the report, but it would be wrong not to question it no matter how absurd, especially since it is supposed to be so straight forward."
The chapter points out that property rights help to solve three problems: the tragedy of the commons, which involves overuse of unowned resources; the lack of incentives to invest in unowned resources; and the difficulty of transferring nonowned resources, making trade problematic.
Way to state the obvious. I think pretty much everyone can accept these.
The first example the report gives to illustrate the benefits of property rights is homeownership, citing studies that find that areas with high rates of homeownership have lower crime rates, more educated residents and other positive social indicators.
But, as Mr. Gruber points out, the question of cause is unclear. How's that? Does homeownership cause lower crime rates, or do people prefer to buy houses where crime rates are lower? Both, dumbass. Does homeownership result in higher income, or is it just that those who have higher income can afford houses? Umm. Owning a home provides incentives for maintenance and improvement which generate income.
People with higher incomes can rent if they want to, but they seem to choose to own more, now why would someone suggest that it's not a good idea for people with less income to do the same. When people have a stake in their environment, they tend to want to manage it.
The report fares better with its next example: tradable permits for sulfur dioxide emissions. "Fairs better?" Awfully quick to pass judgment based on silly ponderings. When this program was introduced by the first Bush administration in 1990, it was widely criticized by environmentalists.
But the program is now considered a success, credited with reducing the costs of meeting 1990 sulfur dioxide targets by at least half.
Hmm, an analogous program to the policy you find so questionable "fairs better" because it's already successful.
But Mr. Gruber argues that "it is when the chapter tries to extend these lessons from goods markets to service markets that it runs into trouble."
For example, he argues that the report paints too rosy a picture of voucher programs for school choice. Although there is some recent work indicating that students who use vouchers to move to small private schools improve their performance, there is still debate about what happens to those left behind.
The report cites one study that finds that both those who move and those who do not benefit from vouchers. But this is only one study; other studies find a negative impact over all on student performance. Thus, according to Mr. Gruber, the "jury is still out."
This is plausible, if students/parents choose their own schools there might be grade inflation at schools that don't have well established reputations.
Mr. Gruber also criticizes the president's proposed privatization of Social Security, arguing that "the fundamental reason that the Social Security program exists is to prevent myopes from undersaving for their retirement; how can those same myopes be trusted with the much more difficult decision of portfolio optimization?"
Umm. There's a whole industry dedicated to doing that for them.
The chapter tends to extol the virtues of privatization, ignoring privatization programs that have not worked out. For example, Mr. Gruber points to the guaranteed student loan program, arguing that it has been a failure.
I think he's confusing private ownership w/ decentralization. Guaranteed loans aren't really privatizing, it's more like outsourcing.
Rather than making loans directly to students, the government offers a subsidy to banks in the form of guaranteed repayment. Remarkably, banks are not required to bid for the right to issue these loans, and a result has been both an inefficient mechanism for student aid and a windfall for banks.
Mr. Gruber concludes that the chapter offers an "excellent exposition of the case for property rights" but that policies that work well for goods may work less well for certain kinds of services.
Reasonable conclusion. Now, what was the point suggesting the priorities of the administration were questionable and then simply questioning whether the policies would achieve the desired results?
The report is certainly correct that property rights should be one of the first places to look for solutions to the problems that bedevil public programs. But they should not be the last place, or the only place, to look.
Is that the only place they looked? I didn't read the other essays.
Hal R. Varian is a professor of business, economics and information management at the University of California, Berkeley.