Curt Doolittle

Form: Quote Commentary

  • END OF THE SUCCESS GAP? “The success gap for women age 40-44 declined significan

    http://www.econ.washington.edu/user/erose/hypergamy_solew.pdfTHE END OF THE SUCCESS GAP?

    “The success gap for women age 40-44 declined significantly in the 1980’s and 1990’s. In fact, according to some measures, the gap has disappeared.

    Hypergamy has declined as well. What has changed is that marriage rates for the less educated have declined precipitously, although the patterns differ for blacks and for whites. I also track education-marriage and education-motherhood profiles.”

    Source date (UTC): 2012-03-29 18:53:00 UTC

  • JEWISH FERTILITY IS BELOW THE REPLACEMENT RATE “While Jewish fertility approache

    http://www.jewishfederations.org/page.aspx?id=46437AMERICAN JEWISH FERTILITY IS BELOW THE REPLACEMENT RATE

    “While Jewish fertility approaches general fertility levels in later childbearing ages, overall Jewish fertility is too low to replace the Jewish population. NJPS data point to an average number of children born to Jewish women of less than 1.9. Demographers generally regard 2.1 as the average necessary for population stability. Moreover, a sizeable fraction of children raised by Jewish women and men in interfaith homes are not raised as Jews. Consequently, the “effective Jewish birthrate” is below 1.9 children per Jewish woman. Current Jewish fertility will contribute over time to a declining Jewish population, if other sources of population growth such as immigration do not compensate for it.”

    Source date (UTC): 2012-03-29 18:49:00 UTC

  • HYPERGAMY? I think this is more of a numeric artifact produced by declining marr

    http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2012/03/puerto-rico-hypergamy-fact-of-the-day.htmlREDEFINING HYPERGAMY?

    I think this is more of a numeric artifact produced by declining marriage rates, and an error in over-attribution of status to income. Women are not ENTIRELY money motivated, just as men are not ENTIRELY motivated by physical attraction.

    1) Hypergamy is not synonymous with mating with alphas, only ‘the best she can get’. Or ‘better than she is used to’.

    2) If male status signals are less dependent upon income, then they will be more dependent upon physical traits, relationships and behavior. In other words, men who are underemployed will find alternate means of signaling.

    The eastern european and Mediterranean (PIGS) males manage to do this effectively already. So do african american males. They exaggerate masculine traits which cast higher income males as effeminate. In other words, traditional masculine traits and physicality compensate for income signals.

    I don’t know why this is surprising. Males vary more than females in ability. There are always ‘unfit’ males that women must ‘marry down’ or ‘mate down’ with. Simply because without polygamy or serial marriages, some portion of women must always ‘settle’ because of the scarcity of ‘good’ men.

    3) This change is occurring only in the lower classes. And only relates to marriages not mates.

    4) The combined burden of unemployed and unemployable males and dependent females will have a higher impact on the state’s finances and the polity than any change in mating patterns. THis will further undermine the institution of marriage and individual accountability (as Murray suggests.)

    But in essence, I think as economists we overrate income. It’s just one of the available signals. And since women and men have different reproductive strategies, and since men vary more than women in ability, it is quite possible for men to adapt without impact to traditional masculine and feminine gender concepts that are outside of the economic sphere.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-03-29 18:45:00 UTC

  • END OF HYPERGAMY? I don’t think so. A redefinition of marrying up is more likely

    http://www.amazon.com/dp/1439197717/ref=tsm_1_fb_lkTHE END OF HYPERGAMY?

    I don’t think so. A redefinition of marrying up is more likely instead. I do think that there is a permanently unemployable lower class of men that will choose to demonstrate their masculinity in more masculine ways — as do Mediterranean and african american men. That said, we’ve reached the balance point in the economy, with women replacing lower quintile men — thus accurately reflecting IQ distributions between the genders.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-03-29 18:40:00 UTC

  • IF WE MUST HAVE GOVERNMENT LETS HAVE RATIONAL GOVERNMENT “We know personal accou

    IF WE MUST HAVE GOVERNMENT LETS HAVE RATIONAL GOVERNMENT

    “We know personal accounts work because we’ve seen them work successfully in Chile and Galveston, Texas.

    In 1981, Chileans were given the option of a personal Social Security account. Within a year and a half, a whopping 93% of workers transitioned from the government-run system to personal accounts. In 30 years, because of the power of compound interest, Chileans who opted for personal accounts have retired with two to three times more money than what they would have received from traditional Social Security. Chile also guaranteed that if an individual’s personal account dropped below the minimum amount the government would make up the difference. In 30 years, they have never had to write a single check.

    The experience in Galveston, Texas mirrors that of Chile: A system that transfers control of retirement decisions from bureaucrats to workers ultimately yields much higher returns than traditional Social Security could ever provide.” – Gingrich.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-03-29 17:38:00 UTC

  • There Is No Ambiguity In Chinese Strategy Over The South China Sea

    But the sea also remains in dispute, with China and five other countries having claims to some or all of its islands, rocks and waters. It is also a cause of superpower rivalry. America asserts its own “national interest” in the freedom of navigation in the sea, and, like the South-East Asian claimants to the sea, sees China as the threat. For that, the ambiguity that shrouds China’s own position has much to do with it.

    via South China Sea: Full unclosure? | The Economist.

    THERE IS NO AMBIGUITY ABOUT CHINA’S POSITION a) It is strategically possible to cause china to surrender militarily through blockade of the south china sea (See Stratfor) because the country would rapidly both starve and economically collapse. b) China is an empire with significant internal frictions that would have vast internal consequences if the government was seen to fail, or even if it was seen to be weak. They are aware that fomenting rebellion would not be difficult. c) Chinese tactics (per Kissinger) are to delay, mislead, lie, and mollify until they have the advantage, then use the advantage to conquer either explicitly or by eliminating all possible options. All chinese culture is predicated on avoidance and deception until the opportunity presents itself (this was a cultural consequence of their geography). All western culture (Per Keegan) is predicated on quick resolution of disputes (likewise a consequence of geography, inferior numbers, and technology.) We cannot judge their actions by western standards ( the same is true of islam). We cannot judge their values by western standards. We cannot judge their strategy by western standards. Deception is the primary tactic in chinese strategic thinking because it is the primary tactic in daily life. (Sun Tzu) China is set to restore itself to middle-kingdom (the center of the universe around which all asian cultures revolve) in part to preserve itself as a political order, in part to preserve the privileges of the party members, and in part to assuage the vast chip on their shoulders for their repeated failures to adapt to modernity which is an affront to their self perception of superiority.

  • There Is No Ambiguity In Chinese Strategy Over The South China Sea

    But the sea also remains in dispute, with China and five other countries having claims to some or all of its islands, rocks and waters. It is also a cause of superpower rivalry. America asserts its own “national interest” in the freedom of navigation in the sea, and, like the South-East Asian claimants to the sea, sees China as the threat. For that, the ambiguity that shrouds China’s own position has much to do with it.

    via South China Sea: Full unclosure? | The Economist.

    THERE IS NO AMBIGUITY ABOUT CHINA’S POSITION a) It is strategically possible to cause china to surrender militarily through blockade of the south china sea (See Stratfor) because the country would rapidly both starve and economically collapse. b) China is an empire with significant internal frictions that would have vast internal consequences if the government was seen to fail, or even if it was seen to be weak. They are aware that fomenting rebellion would not be difficult. c) Chinese tactics (per Kissinger) are to delay, mislead, lie, and mollify until they have the advantage, then use the advantage to conquer either explicitly or by eliminating all possible options. All chinese culture is predicated on avoidance and deception until the opportunity presents itself (this was a cultural consequence of their geography). All western culture (Per Keegan) is predicated on quick resolution of disputes (likewise a consequence of geography, inferior numbers, and technology.) We cannot judge their actions by western standards ( the same is true of islam). We cannot judge their values by western standards. We cannot judge their strategy by western standards. Deception is the primary tactic in chinese strategic thinking because it is the primary tactic in daily life. (Sun Tzu) China is set to restore itself to middle-kingdom (the center of the universe around which all asian cultures revolve) in part to preserve itself as a political order, in part to preserve the privileges of the party members, and in part to assuage the vast chip on their shoulders for their repeated failures to adapt to modernity which is an affront to their self perception of superiority.

  • Yes, We Need To Define ‘Structural’

    One growing point of tension that I that has both semantic and substantive difficulties is whether or not we regard the situation in the mortgage markets as “structural.”

    via Two-Track Intermediation « Modeled Behavior.

    Karl, I would love it if you would solve this semantic problem. Because it’s material to the public debate. The technical definition is artificially narrow and as such leads to either dishonest (Krugmanian) or semantic rather than material debate. To Austrians, “Structural” means that we have misallocated financial capital and thereby caused a misallocation of human and fixed capital such that the cost of reallocating that capital is so high that the fixed capital may be ‘wasted’ and the human capital (human beings) cannot be put to productive ends because the learning curve and lifetime commitments of individuals cannot be altered by the market at ANY possible cost. This circumstance results in a permanent loss of competitiveness in relation to other societies what can allocate capital against the remaining productive workers. We see this as a permanent loss with human consequences. For example, the misallocation of human capital during both the tech boom and the housing boom mean that certain people obtained higher incomes in a short period of time but by doing so lost the opportunity to gain competitive skills (in relation to their ages) that had ongoing value to them. Furthermore, by implication, it means that those prior skills were of lower marketability than the skills that they might have possessed. The counter-arguments are that a) people are infinitely fungible (that’s not supportable) or b) we can keep misallocating capital from boom to boom as a means of redistribution, or c) this process is cumulative and causes permanent shifts toward financialization at the top and unproductive labor at the bottom, and production of inferior goods in the middle. I think you err on the side of (b). I think Austrians err on the side of (c). In more abstract terms I think this is a debate over the welfare of the bottom of society or the middle, with your side favoring the former and the austrians the latter. I also think your side considers this problem immaterial and Austrians (and conservatives) consider it cumulatively destructive. And of course, I disagree with your ‘belief’ that we can fix problems in the future. If that were true we would not have the polarization we do today – a polarization which is being solved, not by reason or argument but by differences in breeding rates and immigration.

  • Yes, We Need To Define ‘Structural’

    One growing point of tension that I that has both semantic and substantive difficulties is whether or not we regard the situation in the mortgage markets as “structural.”

    via Two-Track Intermediation « Modeled Behavior.

    Karl, I would love it if you would solve this semantic problem. Because it’s material to the public debate. The technical definition is artificially narrow and as such leads to either dishonest (Krugmanian) or semantic rather than material debate. To Austrians, “Structural” means that we have misallocated financial capital and thereby caused a misallocation of human and fixed capital such that the cost of reallocating that capital is so high that the fixed capital may be ‘wasted’ and the human capital (human beings) cannot be put to productive ends because the learning curve and lifetime commitments of individuals cannot be altered by the market at ANY possible cost. This circumstance results in a permanent loss of competitiveness in relation to other societies what can allocate capital against the remaining productive workers. We see this as a permanent loss with human consequences. For example, the misallocation of human capital during both the tech boom and the housing boom mean that certain people obtained higher incomes in a short period of time but by doing so lost the opportunity to gain competitive skills (in relation to their ages) that had ongoing value to them. Furthermore, by implication, it means that those prior skills were of lower marketability than the skills that they might have possessed. The counter-arguments are that a) people are infinitely fungible (that’s not supportable) or b) we can keep misallocating capital from boom to boom as a means of redistribution, or c) this process is cumulative and causes permanent shifts toward financialization at the top and unproductive labor at the bottom, and production of inferior goods in the middle. I think you err on the side of (b). I think Austrians err on the side of (c). In more abstract terms I think this is a debate over the welfare of the bottom of society or the middle, with your side favoring the former and the austrians the latter. I also think your side considers this problem immaterial and Austrians (and conservatives) consider it cumulatively destructive. And of course, I disagree with your ‘belief’ that we can fix problems in the future. If that were true we would not have the polarization we do today – a polarization which is being solved, not by reason or argument but by differences in breeding rates and immigration.

  • RULE 🙂 “Our study confirms our hypothesis that people with autism have higher p

    http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/News/Media-office/Press-releases/2012/WTVM054757.htmAPIES RULE 🙂

    “Our study confirms our hypothesis that people with autism have higher perceptual capacity compared to the typical population. This can only be seen once the task becomes more demanding, with more information to process. In the more challenging task conditions, people with autism are able to perceive significantly more information than the typical adult.”

    “The finding may help explain why people with autism spectrum disorders, such as Asperger’s syndrome, may excel in some careers … which can require intense concentration and the ability to process a great deal of information …

    Our study clearly shows that people with autism can do better than typical adults in tasks involving rapid presentations of a lot of information.”

    Aspies, depending upon the severity, are at a disadvantage in some ways, but you can learn empathy if you work at it.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-03-25 18:00:00 UTC