Thursday, November 29, 2012
Saturday, November 24, 2012
Table of Contents
I: Economic Growth and Distribution
1. The Human Capital Century
2. Inequality across the Twentieth Century
3. Skill-Biased Technological Change
II: Education for the Masses in Three Transformations
4. Origins of the Virtues
5. Economic Foundations of the High School Movement
6. America’s Graduation from High School
7. Mass Higher Education in the Twentieth Century
III: The Race
8. The Race between Education and Technology
9. How America Once Led and Can Win the Race for Tomorrow
Friday, November 23, 2012
Thursday, November 22, 2012
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
This blog post is well worth a read, it helped inform my view of social orders and society as found in our book club book - Why Nations Fail.
The first thing of importance I have noted is Klein, at least in the opening chapter, seems to posit a sharp dichotomy between spontaneous orders and planned orders. He uses the example of roller skaters in a rink: either they are each skating purely as they wish, or their movements are entirely planned by a “wise” planner. (This may well be modified by Klein later, but even if so, I have seen others treat this topic as if this was a simple dichotomy, so my remarks are, I think, worth making anyway.)
But real social orders are rarely (ever?) of either extreme. The extremes are ideal types, and real orders more or less instantiate the types. Take musical groups, a social structure with which I have fair familiarity. Even in an orchestra, which is well towards the planned end of the range, the individual musicians still have room for individual creativity and expression. (Otherwise it is hard to imagine anyone spending their life playing in orchestras.) And even the most free-form, improvisational jazz group needs some planning: “OK, we’ll start at eight, and end at about eleven.” Spontaneous or Planned: A Sharp Dichotomy, or a Gradient?
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Monday, November 19, 2012
Sunday, November 18, 2012
Saturday, November 17, 2012
The Retail Landscape (Literally)
The Decline of the Labor Movement
The Cult of Walmart
The Culture of Overconsumption
The Power of Access
Friday, November 16, 2012
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
The U.S. ranked fourth-worst among 29 developed countries for children obtaining a higher level of education than their parents, according to a report released Tuesday by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
US Country report
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
J. Bradford DeLong
University of California at Berkeley, and NBER
first draft October 13, 1997; second draft January 1, 1998
"Robber Barons": that was what U.S. political and economic commentator Matthew Josephson (1934) called the economic princes of his own day. Today we call them "billionaires." Our capitalist economy--any capitalist economy--throws up such enormous concentrations of wealth: those lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time, driven and smart enough to see particular economic opportunities and seize them, foresighted enough to have gathered a large share of the equity of a highly-profitable enterprise into their hands, and well-connected enough to fend off political attempts to curb their wealth (or well-connected enough to make political favors the foundation of their wealth).
Monday, November 12, 2012
For many students, college is less about providing an education than a credential--a certificate testifying that they are smart enough to get into college, conformist enough to go, and compliant enough to stay there for four years.
When I was a senior, one of my professors asked wonderingly, "Why is it that you guys spend so much time trying to get as little as possible for your money?" The answer, Caplan says, is that they're mostly there for a credential, not learning. "Why does cheating work?" he points out. If you were really just in college to learn skills, it would be totally counterproductive. "If you don't learn the material, then you will have less human capital and the market will punish you--there's no reason for us to do it." But since they think the credential matters more than the education, they look for ways to get the credential as painlessly as possible.
Sunday, November 11, 2012
This tract is a performance of terror, in good and bad ways. Few books will teach you more about the politics of bureaucracy and regulation, though not exactly as the author intends
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Table of Contents
1 Introduction Technological Change and the Constitutional Future Jeffrey Rosen
part one 2 Is the Fourth Amendment Relevant in a Technological Age? Christopher Slobogin
3 Use Restrictions and the Future of Surveillance Law Orin S. Kerr
4 Cyberthreat, Government Network Operations, and the Fourth Amendment Jack Goldsmith
5 The Deciders: Facebook, Google, and the Future of Privacy and Free Speech Jeffrey Rosen
6 Is Filtering Censorship? The Second Free Speech Tradition Tim Wu
7 A Mutual Aid Treaty for the Internet Jonathan Zittrain
8 Neuroscience and the Future of Personhood and Responsibility Stephen J. Morse
9 Cognitive Neuroscience and the Future of Punishment O. Carter Snead
10 Reproductive Rights and Reproductive Technology in 2030 John A. Robertson
11 The Problems and Possibilities of Modern Genetics: A Paradigm for Social, Ethical, and Political Analysis Eric Cohen and Robert P. George
12 Endowed by Their Creator? The Future of Constitutional Personhood James Boyle
13 Innovation’s Darker Future: Biosecurity, Technologies of Mass Empowerment, and the Constitution Benjamin Wittes
Translating and Transforming
Technological changes are posing stark challenges to America's core values. Basic constitutional principles find themselves under stress from stunning advances that were unimaginable even a few decades ago, much less during the Founders' era. Policymakers and scholars must begin thinking about how constitutional principles are being tested by technological change and how to ensure that those principles can be preserved without hindering technological progress.
Constitution 3.0, a product of the Brookings Institution's landmark Future of the Constitution program, presents an invaluable roadmap for responding to the challenge of adapting our constitutional values to future technological developments. Renowned legal analysts Jeffrey Rosen and Benjamin Wittes asked a diverse group of leading scholars to imagine plausible technological developments in or near the year 2025 that would stress current constitutional law and to propose possible solutions. Some tackled issues certain to arise in the very near future, while others addressed more speculative or hypothetical questions. Some favor judicial responses to the scenarios they pose; others prefer legislative or regulatory responses.
Here is a sampling of the questions raised and answered in Constitution 3.0:
Â• How do we ensure our security in the face of the biotechnology revolution and our overwhelming dependence on internationally networked computers?
Â• How do we protect free speech and privacy in a world in which Google and Facebook have more control than any government or judge?
Â• How will advances in brain scan technologies affect the constitutional right against self-incrimination?
Â• Are Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure obsolete in an age of ubiquitous video and unlimited data storage and processing?
Â• How vigorously should society and the law respect the autonomy of individuals to manipulate their genes and design their own babies?
Individually and collectively, the deeply thoughtful analyses in Constitution 3.0 present an innovative roadmap for adapting our core legal values, in the interest of keeping the Constitution relevant through the 21st century.
Contributors include Jamie Boyle, Erich Cohen, Robert George, Jack Goldsmith, Orin Kerr, Lawrence Lessig, Stephen Morse, John Robertson, Jeffrey Rosen, Christopher Slobogin, O. Carter Snead, Benjamin Wittes, Tim Wu, and Jonathan Zittrain.
Friday, November 9, 2012
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
By TYLER COWEN
Published: October 13, 2012
OF MAKING AND TAKING The correct distinction is not “makers versus takers.” The problem is that taking, rather than making wealth, appears to be growing in relative influence.
Most of us are actually both makers and takers. Consider farmers who produce food and favor agricultural subsidies. The question is whether the role of wealth maker has more influence over our politics, at any given time, than does the taker role. Is public policy being adjudicated on grounds of ethics and efficiency, or is the real story about lobbying and the relative power of different interest groups?
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
The connection between the American Century and the Human Capital Century concerns the role of education in economic growth and individual productivity. (2)
I found the method of argument in this book fascinating. The authors use the prism of the labor market to better understand US economic change - the demand for labor being influenced by technological change and the supply of labor being influenced by education. They also make an observation and pose a question:
In sharp contrast to economic growth, (over the period of the 20th century) which was relatively continuous, economic inequality was discontinuous. (3)
Monday, November 5, 2012
Great post - unfortunate, but true.
Sunday, November 4, 2012
Saturday, November 3, 2012