Tyler Cowen Extracts Money From Victor Niederhoffer

By -
At least, I'm just assuming money changed hands at the latest Junto.

Oh, if only one or more Crash Landing readers had attended! Then we could rival Marginal Revolution in our coolness, just this once!

Comments

  1. Anonymous4:36 AM

    You have an inferioriity complex compared to Tyler "Watch me read fast" Cowen? Puhleeze.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous9:59 AM

    OK:

    The topic was worrying, and alsmost the optimal amount of worry:

    1. Tyler said that we worry too much. Within this framework he stated that much of our worrying is irrational (implying he knows the rational amount and things to worry about)

    2. His begginning proof was establishing how tough people had in history mostly referring to dying early in your 30's or so and dying in child birth or infant mortality rates. It was my impression that he now had established his criteria as to what we should worry about in comparison to people in the past: death at an early age.

    3. From this low baseline criteria of what to worry about he went on to belittle irrational people for worrying about things like their housing, job situation, inflation...really anything that was not in-line with what he worried about. To any question about worry he roughly could say: "well, you are not dead"

    4. How does he know what we should worry about...well this really set me off. He admitted that worry is an objective almost "truth". Not only that but it was not even a probabilistic argument but based on Daniel Khanaman research...which I mentioned was in a lab but he was quick to point out that but also they followed people around in the "real world" and counted things like smiles, etc.

    5. Worrying is objective? I cannot even begin to start with how uneasy this made me. It did not even seem to take into account one's personal life experiences (my dad grew up in the depression). I mean does he have an objective risk tolerance for everyone that I am not aware of...wow, same time preference? I guess we are all irrational if we have different consumption vs. savings ratios.

    6. He admitted he was judging interpersonal utility.

    7. He proceeded to smugly tell us what he worries about..implying we should also. We should worry about health care costs especially by 2080...what! That won't effect Tyler at all. So, we individual fools in the crowd that worried about our jobs are wrong but he is corect to worry about health care costs in 70 years for OTHERS because he will be dead?????? What else should we worry about? Global climate change. Why? Because it may be true and catastropic (duck, here comes a meteor). Again, this will not affect Tyler but he worries about it for all of us yet we are fools for worrying about things in our life.

    A tenured professor telling us all not worry about the things most people worry about; worry is objective and proven in a lab; individuals should not worry about silly things because it won't affect them but he can worry about things that won't affect him.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous2:29 PM

    Right on, Pepe.

    Next to the Freakonomics characters, Cowen is the most over-rated economist on the web. But, he probably beats them in the "holier than thou" category.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous6:32 PM

    DMT: I don't have an inferiority complex. I am just trying to not be like radio talk show hosts who purposely never say "Rush Limbaugh."

    --Bob from a relative's computer on July 4th

    ReplyDelete
  5. Bob Murphy12:30 PM

    Pepe,

    Ah I see. I think people worry too much as well, partly for "rational" reasons and partly because of my religious views. (I.e. don't worry God has a plan even if you don't get it.)

    So if TC had just said we are a bunch of worry warts--and then included people worrying about global warming and funding Social Security--that would have been cool.

    But you're right, that sounds ridiculous if he criticizes worrying about unemployment today, yet he himself worries about 6 degrees of warming over the next century. (BTW that's the book he keeps recommending; I'm not saying there will be 6 degrees of warming.)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous2:49 PM

    Yes Bob,

    I did not object to the hypothesis that people worry too much. I would have been happier if it had just been based on probability.

    And yes, I would be fine with worrying about social security/health care taxes. But, I intend to out-earn that worry...if I do not lose my job!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more