I don't think either socialism or capitalism in its pure, activist-supported form is particularly great, but this double standard has always irked me a bit...
I want government health insurance, more redistribution, wealth taxes, better environmental regulation, etc., but if agriculture and manufacturing and housing get taken over by Jacobin writers I'll consider moving to Denmark.
I thought I remembered playing Starcraft II #WhenLehmanCollapsed, but that must be a false memory since Starcraft II wasn't released until 2010. So in fact, I can't remember what I was doing. I don't recall being very concerned at the time.
I do recall that on 9/11 I mostly played Super Smash Bros. with @bennpeifert.
When Osama bin Laden was killed, I was sitting on my couch reading the internet. I cracked open a beer and listened to Toby Keith's "Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue"...
When you see a paper that relies on a structural model, your first question should be "Could this question be addressed satisfactorily with a natural experiment?"
If the answer is yes, close the tab and look for a paper that actually does that.
The exception to this rule is if the makers of the structural model can actually show it fits the data well, instead of just finding best-but-still-awful-fit values for the parameters and calling it a day. But come on, who does that?
Like, suppose the market expects low inflation because people think "Ohh, the Fed will tighten any day now", and then the Fed looks at the market and thinks "Hmm, still no expectations of inflation, guess we don't have to tighten", etc...
Market-driven Fed policy obviously runs into problems if the market makes mistakes. But my point here is that Fed policy can make the market make mistakes, which then leads to a feedback loop and bad equilibrium.
1/I noticed Brit Hume defending Tucker Carlson's remarks about diversity today, and it made me think about how ideas go from the political extremes to the political mainstream. I kind of have a model in my head for how this process happens.
2/I have lived in a non-diverse country - Japan in the mid 2000s - and it was pretty nice. About as nice as America, on average. (Though I should mention that Osaka, where I lived, benefited from some immigrant influence that helped give it a unique attitude and culture).
3/But America is different. It has special strengths - as a nation, and as a culture - that will always give it an advantage, assuming we choose to keep those strengths.
Most importantly, it shows how much white nationalism has been motivated by electoral concerns. The Judis-Teixeira thesis that Hispanic immigration (and high fertility) would lead to an invincible Democratic majority has panicked the Right into supporting soft ethnic cleansing.
Of course the Right is despicable, but I also think the Judis-Teixeira idea has done a lot of damage to the cause of the Left, and to American society in general. Neither immigration nor immigration restriction should ever be seen - or used - as an electioneering scheme.
1/Here's an article about how Trump is screwing up legal immigration to the United States, hurting our economy in the process: nytimes.com/2018/09/02/bus…
2/Trump couldn't get his restrictionist agenda passed in Congress, so he's doing what presidents always do in this gridlocked age - falling back on executive power to make a bunch of small changes that add up.
3/Some people may look at Trump's harassment of legal immigrants and quietly think "Oh good, that means higher wages for native-born Americans."
No it doesn't. It means you just lost your doctor.
Economists are top presidential policy advisers. With a few exceptions like Steve Chu, physicists rarely are.
Economists write books about dating, and food, and a ton of other random stuff, and people buy the books and believe the advice!
Economists are assumed to know about business, about how to invest your money, about world affairs, about politics, about random social phenomena... Physicists are assumed to know about arcane stuff that normal people don't understand...