Truck and Barter

Will Blogging Really Keep You out of Academia?

This article asserts that liars, cheats, frauds, boasters, and numbskulls definitely shouldn't blog, basically because they'll give themselves away...

However, it also seems to suggest that honest, patient, thoughtful, decent, careful, and smart people shouldn't be blogging either, since academics on hiring committees believe that "Past good behavior is no guarantee against future lapses of professional decorum."

Well, that doesn't strike me as persuasive at all. The Chronicle's anti-blogging tale doesn't help me understand how committees fill a professorial job, but it does provide me with a further reason to avoid academia: to avoid a petty "democratic" culture of faux-objectivity.

It had seemed obvious to me that either a candidate is fit to be in the position under consideration or he isn't. And since a long-term blog provides relevant information about the character and personality of the candidate, then the existence of candidate blogs should be a boon for hiring committee who are trying to select a good fit.

In a world of impartial and objective decision-makers, it makes no sense that committees would rather hire somebody who has successfully hidden his personality over somebody whose quirks they know and find acceptable. This is a rather strange preference for uncertainty and risk taking... prefering the devil that you don't know...

So to the extent that the article's writer is successful in warning candidates to avoid blogging, he is making his job, and the jobs of other objective committee members elsewhere, that much harder. Why do this?

Because committee members are NOT objective decision-makers looking for the "best-fit". Decision theorists are in no way worse off for having information provided by blogs. But subjective "my-guy" promoters have a personal incentive to make their guy look as good as possible, regardless of his misfits.

The academic job race isn't a matter of most qualified for the job, but an insider's political game, in which the appearance of a impropriety most likely shared by almost all candidates, is (through some unidentified mechanism) enough to torpedo a candidate. It's like an government election; they all have borderline donations and dealings (the institution makes it so), but some hide it better than others, and you always want to make sure your man has his skeletons in the closet.

Let's say you want to be in academia anyway. Should you, the job candidate, take the author's advice? Should you be worried that your interesting academic-quality blog will hurt your chances of being considered? Actually, the author presents no evidence that a good blog goes against a candidate. And since many other people's blogs are so poorly conceived and executed, yours will stand out as brilliant in comparison.

My advice would be to avoid blogging about one's personal life, coworkers, and family. Blog seriously, sensibly, and thoughtfully. Be reasonable, be accurate, and be willing to admit to being wrong. Being humble at times wouldn't hurt. Refrain from cursing and crude name-calling. And, personally, I'd refrain from politics.

-----

If it weren't a fake experiment creating useless information, I'd say that perhaps last round candidates should be REQUIRED to blog for two weeks....

UPDATE: Dan Drezner agrees:

The default assumption you should make is that the academy has a lot of people who share the Tribble worldview of the blogosphere. I seriously doubt that any amount of reasoned discourse will alter this worldview. So think very, very, very carefully about the costs and benefits of blogging under one's own name.

And Ann Althouse nails it:

Man, these people are just too stupid to be trusted with appointments -- and too timorous to deserve to a university position from which to dribble out the contents of their weak little minds.

Finally, A Complimentary Book!

After years of persistent blogging, I received my first book compliments of a publisher. I've been waiting for my free copy of Freakonomics and was hoping for a deluge of anti-WalMart books, so what do you think the book sent to me is about? Take a guess:

A) Business
B) Economnics
C) Wal-Mart
D) Libertarianism
E) None of the above

Correct Answer: E. Of course!

It's about being a professional in the U.S. Army, a topic I've never really studied or published on. Still, I'd like to heartily thank the account manager at McGraw Hill for kindly sending me a copy of The Future of the Army Profession, 2nd. edition.

Now, I have never been an Army professional, nor will I ever be, as long as selective service remains dormant. And due to conflicts of interest with my RAND affiliation, I cannot review this book, except to say the few of the 33 essays I've skimmed make for excellent, balanced reading -- although more historical-cultural-sociological-institutional and less data-driven than I prefer...

Also, please note that any views of military matters I might accidentally express here are not those of RAND, DoD, or Donald Rumsfeld.

Yglesias: Wrong Again

Though I try to keep the echo-chamber stuff to a minimum, I do often run across things that just cry out for comment. And it seems to happen a lot when I read Matt Yglesias. (Does Brad DeLong really want to push this sort of fundamentally flawed understanding as promising?)

Here he is again:

Of course, I'm not happy with that kind of reporting either. Every time the President gives a speech claiming the system is heading for bankruptcy, I'd like to see news services report, "Speaking today in Canton, Ohio, the President repeated his misleading claim that Social Security is headed for bankruptcy. In fact, even after Social Security's trust fund is exhausted (projected by the Social Security administration to happen in 2041, and by the Congressional Budget Office to happen in 2052) tax revenues will suffice to pay seventy percent of scheduled benefits."

Ah, I'm not sure what he's getting at. "Bankrupt" means "insufficient assets to cover debts." Not some of your debts. All of your debts. For an organization, this means paying out everything it's obligated to (ignoring for the moment that SocSec is a program entirely at the feet of political whims), not just 70%. That is bankrupt (or, more technically, insolvent).

I'm still on the fence about how best to "fix" this system, but bring wrong, and then being huffy while being wrong, certainly doesn't help things.

UPDATE: Ditto from Jane Galt.

UPDATE, Part Deux: Megan says it the way I wish I could have:

Democrats are trying to argue, on the one hand, that the trust fund is real, and on the other hand, that it is not going bankrupt. These are mutually incompatible. For the trust fund to exist, the Social Security Administration must be an independant entity of the US government. Unless the programme is changed, in 2042 that independant entity will not have enough money coming in to cover the benefits it has promised to pay out. That entity will be insolvent--in common parlance, bankrupt.

Econ of Barbecue

Tyler Cowen of Marginal Revolution has a bleg up about barbecue joints near Savannah , GA.

If you know anything, I'd recommend chiming in. Apparently, it's in support of work on the economics of barbecue. Should be fascinating.

Of course, my real question is: does he need any volunteer research help? Specifically, my qualifications include an unmatched knowledge of barbecue joints through most of the Midwest, with primary focus on Chicago. In addition, with meat from the right place, I've been known to make some mighty fine ribs, featuring a homemade sauce.

Have We Brought Kevin Down?

In more of the navel gazing that I like to engage in, I note here that T&B seems to have eluded the notice of this Baltimore Sun article (found via Cafe Hayek) that makes particular mention of George Mason University-associated weblogs.

George Mason tuition is $8,000 a year for out-of-state undergrads, but the considered thoughts of two of its most interesting professors - Tabarrok and co-blogger Tyler Cowen - arrive daily for free on Marginal Revolution. Fairfax, Va.-based Mason, in fact, has become a hub of libertarian economics blogging.

Of course, this might be due to the fact that this group blog isn't made up entirely of GMU-associated folks. So, despite possibly helping improve Kevin's marginal product, we may well be a drag on his inexorable process towards fame. Or at least what passes for it among the econo-blog crowd.

Well, I am taking a class there now, so maybe that will help some...

Not Bad For A Blog "Almost" On Economics

Due in principle part I think to Kevin actually knowing...you know...economics, and the popularity of the Iraqi Dinar discussion hosted by T&B, it looks like this blog comes in at number 26 at Blogshares' rankings of the Top 100 Economics blogs. (Found via #33.)

Of course, I have questions about the categorization of #'s 1-3, but if they're willing to let a group blog with punters like me slide... Though, methodologically, there are certainly some issues -- The Mises Institute and the Mises.org Blog are listed as two separate entities.

(NB: For an explanation of the post title, see here.)

Hedging Options - Bob's New Blog

Although he hasn't asked me to advertise it, I must point out Hedging Options, Robert Arne's new trading blog. Bob is a man who has his priorities straight:

This actually my first trade in a while as I basically took the last six months off from trading. In addition to being a trader, I'm also a Phd econ student. No, they don't mix very well, so I cut back to two classes a semester to focus more on trading.

One reason I wanted to start this blog is that theren't hardly any options blog out there.

I took a Master's level mathematical finance course a while back, but the whole topic wasn't really exciting to me. But Bob makes it sound like loads of fun!

Here's to econ blog specialization!

DecentralizedIntelligenceAgency.Typepad.Gov?

A military intelligence officer in the US Army Reserve makes an interesting case for blogging to be incorporated into the world of intelligence analysis. Essentially, the argument relies on the distributed nature of information, and using blogs as a way to reduce the barriers and costs of sharing information.

Seems like a decent idea to me, though one has to wonder what the institutional policies might be for contributing information to a wide audience. The compartmentalization of information is often a justification for the existence (and thus the bugets) of groups within agencies. I'd be hard pressed to think of an agency that's eager to have its specialty shared, unguarded and uncredited in any way useful to the agency.

This all brings up my disappointment at the demise of the "Terrorism Futures Market". After all, if the case for blogs at the CIA, DIA, or NSC is the benefit from reliance on distributed information, what better than to make that information easier to contribute, faster to interpret, and come with strong pecuniary incentives to contribute? Rather than sift through blog posts and comments, attempting to sort out the wheat from the chaff, time might just be better spent watching contract prices rise and fall. The distaste for the issue, I think, was largely the interpretation that people would be "betting" on death. Contracts for "attempts" at assassinations, attacks, coups, etc., might seem crass, but if one of them is right, and the act is averted, then the gain is mutual: those investing in the contract receive the payoff, counter-terrorism agencies get accurate infomation, and if all goes well, the action is averted (though it could still count as an "attempt".) Of course, those who decried the terrorism futures market never seemed to complain about life insurance. Betting on your own death is ok, I guess.

On the Value of Reciprocity

Due to some function of the spam filter at Knowledge Problem, a comment I attempted to submit was rejected a few times. (Whether or not this should be considered a feature rather than a bug, I'll leave up to you.) Professor Kiesling generously offered to post it as a "guest post." Unorganized and disjointed, I suggest reading it as the comment it was intended. Then move quickly on to her more cogent thoughts on institutional change, as well as competition over WiFi. A subject -- indeed the very article -- I've discussed before.

Random Thought on A Monday: Is Commenting Like Tipping?

Have you ever been a bartender? I have. (Along with a movie mogul and a Comic Book Guy.) One of the common practices of some bartenders, and one that is catching on in coffee-houses and other places where food service comes from behind a counter more often than not, is the placement of a "tip jar" near the cash register. Of course, you've all seen them. You don't ever really see them empty, though, do you? That's because, more likely than not, the bartenders put in the first dollar. The thought is that this will inspire people who look upon the jar to place one of the dollars they receive in change into the tip jar (this is also why you tend to get back five ones in change, rather than a five dollar bill).

Does this really make a difference? Well, while it turns out that there is someone out there who is very into studying the practice of tipping, the question on whether or not this "first dollar concept" actually helps to increase total tips isn't addressed in any of the papers I read through.

(NB: This is not to say the papers aren't worth the time to read. They are fascinating in their own right. As a note to restauranteurs: offering candy with the bill does, in fact, seem to increase the amount of tip left. But speaking from the other side of the table, I'm not so hot on the suggestion of a lot of touchy-feely from the servers. I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that the positive effect from interpersonal touching is a result of the gender of the respondent and the perceived attractiveness of the server in relation to the diner. Guys tip attractive women more. Homely guys tip very attentive, very attractive servers a lot more. I can't speak for the women. It's harsh, but it's true.)

As I posted a comment to Kevin's post directly below, I couldn't help but wonder if there is something similar, though opposite about comment counts. Does a 0 comment count induce people to refrain from commenting? Could it be that few comments on a blog overall might reduce the incentive to comment, despite the traffic levels of the blog? That is to say, with better information, people might tip more or less (as is borne out in a couple of Lynn's studies that show longer duration with a server, such as more courses or expectations to return, the higher the tip), thus increasing the sensitivity of the tip to the performance of the server. Assuming, that is, people expand their expectations to consider that a server giving other people good service will do the same for them. So, If people are coming back to T&B, but routinely see few comments, do they feel that commenting really isn't necessary? As opposed to, say, Kevin Drum or Little Green Footballs, where the first comment is often simply "FIRST!" as though there were some pride-of-place benefit. Of course, the ongoing chat about the Iraqi Dinar is a notable outlier here.

Taking into account what people might otherwise be doing with their time, commenting on sites isn't "free". (And we greatly appreciate everyone who takes their time to do so here at T&B.) So in some ways the amount of commenting could be considered as that extra amount of time (a tip) someone is willing to give over and above simply reading the posts (dinner). But as can be seen from the papers linked to above, the overall tipping levels don't necessarily serve as a good measure of the quality of the service at an establishment. (Something up for some debate, mind you.) Unlike tipping, people will know how motivated others have felt to give a little bit more of their time by seeing the numbers of comments.

Should we expect tipping to be a better driver of good service if people knew more about what others were tipping at a restaurant? And, does commenting on a blog post have "tipping point" where x comments start to generate a larger incidence of commenting?

More on Savings at the WSJ

Over at the WSJ's Econoblog, it's Alex Tabarrok and Dave Altig.

This is easily my favorite of all the recent Econoblog pieces. It is simultaneously more nuanced and compelling as well as considerably more appealing in tone. I'll leave it to others to analyze why, though I would venture it has something to do with the pairing of participants.

Google never fails to amuse me.

Kevin's mention of the Iraqi Dinar shot the Google Ad reel into Iraqi overdrive. Note the last one - it's my personal favourite. One things for sure - it'll surely be a genuinely candle-lit dinner out in electricity devoid Baghdad!

Libertarian whaaAAA?!?

Catallarchy outs the Libertarian Mail Order Bride.

Clearly, another example of the power of decentralized organization and information sharing.

GMU Econ's New Face

George Mason University's Economics Department has a much improved homepage, and a list of the blogs authored by students and faculty. Though it fails to include my ever more popularWal-Mart blog, it does list The Filter^, which I've irresponsibly failed to link to before.

Bryan Caplan at Econlog

Bryan Caplan, Associate Professor of Economics at GMU, proprietor of the Museum of Communism, and my Micro II instructor is now blogging with Arnold Kling at Econlog.

Gmail Invites

Anyone interested in an @gmail address? I've got 6 to give out, and am doing so on a 1st come/served . Leave a note in the comments section with the email address I should send the invite to, or send a note to ian ~ at ~ "this site" ~ dot ~ com.

UPDATE: They're all handed out as of 11:13 AM Dec 22, 2004. Thanks so much for playing. To those who got them, enjoy. To those who missed out, I'm sure there will be more on the way.

Geico Sues Google; Entrepreneurs React

Geico sues Google for having sponsored ads that do not lead to Geico when "geico" is entered as a search term. Fark picks it up (that's where I found it). Fark reader Chris May buys a Google ad so he can be the top sponsored return when geico is entered into Google. Dave Pell had the same idea.

UPDATE 12/15/04: Case dismissed--boy, that was quick:

District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema, responding to a motion by Google for summary judgement on the issue, ruled that there was not enough evidence that the policy confuses consumers. Google filed its motion after Geico rested its case....

The judge has yet to rule on another claim by Geico, that Google is liable for trademark infringement when it lets marketers buy ads that use trademarked names in the ad copy. Google executives have said they remove such ads when trademark holders complain.

Worshiping Hayek

Drezner pointed out this link to a tribe in Africa who worship the Great Hayek. Actually the breasts of the great Hayek.

Who would have known that Friedrich, in addition to an economic genius, was a sex symbol?

Woops, wrong Hayek. :) Looks like those tribal men have a thing for Salma.

Just a little economic humor for you.

Hello... My Name is...

Being new to the Blogosphere, Kevin's warm welcome and invitation to participate here at Truck & Barter is fantastic! This sort of mass participation and public education is the Internet I remember from the 80's.

I am taking an entrepreneurial hiatus to return to The Ohio State University. I am finally finishing a B.S. in Business Management specializing in Economics. This is only a prelude to law school. As a mere undergraduate student, I hope that I can bring some classroom lessons and perspectives here for an honest interpretation. Being a political conservative my views are rarely welcome at my liberal school.

I have taken a particular interest in macroeconomics and I will be heavily engrossed in economics courses for the next few quarters.

I am keeping my non-economic thoughts on my personal blog at My Street.

Thank you to Truck & Barter for this excellent forum and thank you to the readers for indulging our interests.

Rojas on Bowling Alone

Over at Marginal Revolution, Fabio Rojas has an interesting post on a survey contradicting, in some part, Robert Putnam's contention that we live in an ever-more disconnected world, resulting in more people that are "bowling alone" (a once communal activity that is now done independently).

In general, I have a great deal of skepticism about the subject of "social capital", for a number of reasons I won't go into here. As for this particular issue, I generally disliked the book (as well a the article that spawned the book). The argument is presented decently, and Putnam's writing style can be engaging. But I just kept hitting on ideas or examples that could plausibly account for the effect he wanted to show, or were in fact contradictory.

I won't go into all of them here. I just want to point out one example: the massive market in devices that let people communicate with each other. Not only are cell phones becoming so ubiquitous that the population of people who use cell phones exclusively (myself included) are becoming part of the calculations in the election, cell phones are also now competing on the basis of features that allow for the taking and sharing of digital photos. Blackberries are everywhere, as are phones with tiny keyboards to allow for access to email and instant messaging. The growth of instant messaging, while I'm on the subject, has been phenomenal. I've now worked for two consulting companies, and at both employees use IM extensively to talk to each other and keep in touch with friends. The list of people I can contact in a matter of a few keystrokes is astounding to me.

More generally, the penetration of computers in homes is approaching the level of televisions in many areas of the country, and along with this comes the internet, which nearly half the users of which are willing to pay substantial fees to receive as fast as technology will allow. Weblogs, as a category are prominent enough to warrant news stories in papers and on TV. Heck, they were even part of the press crown at the recent political conventions. The publication of them strikes me as an interest in sharing ideas with others, and the readership as an interest in seeing what others have to say.

True, I don't have the numbers at hand to provide a real analysis. But this does not strike me as the consumption pattern of a country falling chronically out of touch with each other. There may well be differences that crop up from being connected electronically, rather than attending a local meeting of the Elks; if so, that could be the basis of an interesting look into our culture. But I'm unable to buy Putnam's argument showing a decline in the membership of organizations as a loss of social capital. (I have an even harder time in this case if we take one of the main benefits of "social capital" to be information sharing: one person can introduce contacts to another, expanding social networks, etc. What is the success of Friendster if not an example of the interest people have in meeting more people?)

Besides, I can't think of the last time I've ever seen anyone in a bowling alley alone. Well, aside from the sad-looking DJ at those "Kozmik Bowl" places...

A New Blog

Take a look through the new (to me anyway, but it does look as though it hasn't been around long) Technology Liberation Front.

Some interesting stuff on markets for downloaded music, broadband, copyright law, and more.

Quick Pointer

Of course, you should be reading everything on T&B first, but if you do have to look elsewhere, I suggest a place I've always liked: Freedom and Whisky (please note the spelling). It includes a great deal of my favorite things; freedom, whisky, and Scotland. Not necessarily in that order.

David has an interesting post up today on oil markets/prices that I thought was worth a read:

For quite a few years now the US Federal Reserve has been printing dollars like there's no tomorrow. This of course means that each dollar buys less and less. Oil is priced in dollars and therefore the price of oil will continually rise, other things being equal.

Capitalism: You may say you hate it...

Via Jacqueline Passey's blog, I found this little gem of a movie:

Hypocrisy

A cute poke at those people who decry capitalism's "dehumanizing" aspects. Though the movie only hints at this, I think it's also worth pointing out (largely because, yes, I do get that pedantic at times) that really only a flourishing capitalistic system can make possible the easy access to a wide range of "alternative" products one might buy if one is disinclined to consume goods that have a certain corporate "taint" to them.

Stock Blogs Take Off

Trader Mike posts a neat time-series of the number of stock market blogs in existence. Up to February, he had collected about 2 new blogs per month. Since then the pace has increased--he has found 16 new ones in June.

This data is excellent, given that Mike's level of effort in discovery has remained roughly constant. I applaud him for creating his own data, an entrepreneurial activity economists would do well to learn.