ASU, one of the nation's largest public universities, projects 30,000 students will attend fully online by 2020, a tenfold increase from today. Tens of thousands of additional, on-campus students would attend partly online.
Online-only students always pay per credit hour. This fall, undergraduate online tuition runs $425 per credit hour. Students also pay fewer fees than their on-campus counterparts.
Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/community/tempe/articles/2011/06/05/20110605arizona-state-online-classes.html#ixzz1ORvopTCEASU seizing online future
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Adaptive efficiency
I was reminded of the importance of Douglass North's insight in listening to Mike Munger's always excellent comments last month on EconTalk and reading Tim Harford's blog.
Munger observed that institutions evolve, but not necessarily in a wealth enhancing manner - a lesson he learned from North. In his two most recent books, Understanding the Process of Economic Change and Violence and the Social Orders, North makes the point that institutional change is path dependent and very slow to change.
The review of the latter:
North argues that economic change depends largely on "adaptive efficiency," a society's effectiveness in creating institutions that are productive, stable, fair, and broadly accepted--and, importantly, flexible enough to be changed or replaced in response to political and economic feedback. While adhering to his earlier definition of institutions as the formal and informal rules that constrain human economic behavior, he extends his analysis to explore the deeper determinants of how these rules evolve and how economies change. Drawing on recent work by psychologists, he identifies intentionality as the crucial variable and proceeds to demonstrate how intentionality emerges as the product of social learning and how it then shapes the economy's institutional foundations and thus its capacity to adapt to changing circumstances.
The review of the former
Although I think that Violence has a lot going for it, that is not to say it is a successful book overall. It is useful, in my opinion, to contrast NWW with another work of “big think,” Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson’s Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. This is fair because NWW do so themselves in their book. Imagine that yours truly is to teach a graduate class on “Institutions and Economic Performance.” My goal is to train students to do independent research. Which of these two works would better serve as a text? For me the answer is easy -- Acemoglu and Robinson.
Although I do not think NWW is particular useful as a practical blueprint for research beyond taxonomy I emphasize that many of the ideas in the book have merit and are worthy of further exploration, particularly in a policy setting where formal theory (as opposed to ideas) may be counterproductive. Above all, the notion that one cannot simply “get rid” of the superficial exterior of natural states and thereby uncover the beating heart of an open access order yearning to be free is the book’s most important idea, and profound.
So, if institutions move down a path of predation and power concentration this self reinforcing process make will continue toward a stable state that may be slow to change direction.
Harford wrote:
Experimenting, learning, and adapting is inescapable in a complex world.
Harford was referencing military special ops in the above posting. I was motivated to think about this application in terms of adaptive efficiency that might well be destructive rather than productive. Time will tell the story about the long term, unintended consequences of the bin Laden assassination. That is, while the operation may have exemplified the process of adaptive efficiency in mechanics the consequence in terms of path and outcome way well be wealth destoying.
I often conflate military emergence and adaptation and suicide. While methods and mechanics for both may well emerge that reflect adaptive efficiency, the outcome, while stable, may not be wealth creating.
Munger observed that institutions evolve, but not necessarily in a wealth enhancing manner - a lesson he learned from North. In his two most recent books, Understanding the Process of Economic Change and Violence and the Social Orders, North makes the point that institutional change is path dependent and very slow to change.
The review of the latter:
North argues that economic change depends largely on "adaptive efficiency," a society's effectiveness in creating institutions that are productive, stable, fair, and broadly accepted--and, importantly, flexible enough to be changed or replaced in response to political and economic feedback. While adhering to his earlier definition of institutions as the formal and informal rules that constrain human economic behavior, he extends his analysis to explore the deeper determinants of how these rules evolve and how economies change. Drawing on recent work by psychologists, he identifies intentionality as the crucial variable and proceeds to demonstrate how intentionality emerges as the product of social learning and how it then shapes the economy's institutional foundations and thus its capacity to adapt to changing circumstances.
The review of the former
Although I think that Violence has a lot going for it, that is not to say it is a successful book overall. It is useful, in my opinion, to contrast NWW with another work of “big think,” Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson’s Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. This is fair because NWW do so themselves in their book. Imagine that yours truly is to teach a graduate class on “Institutions and Economic Performance.” My goal is to train students to do independent research. Which of these two works would better serve as a text? For me the answer is easy -- Acemoglu and Robinson.
Although I do not think NWW is particular useful as a practical blueprint for research beyond taxonomy I emphasize that many of the ideas in the book have merit and are worthy of further exploration, particularly in a policy setting where formal theory (as opposed to ideas) may be counterproductive. Above all, the notion that one cannot simply “get rid” of the superficial exterior of natural states and thereby uncover the beating heart of an open access order yearning to be free is the book’s most important idea, and profound.
So, if institutions move down a path of predation and power concentration this self reinforcing process make will continue toward a stable state that may be slow to change direction.
Harford wrote:
Experimenting, learning, and adapting is inescapable in a complex world.
Harford was referencing military special ops in the above posting. I was motivated to think about this application in terms of adaptive efficiency that might well be destructive rather than productive. Time will tell the story about the long term, unintended consequences of the bin Laden assassination. That is, while the operation may have exemplified the process of adaptive efficiency in mechanics the consequence in terms of path and outcome way well be wealth destoying.
I often conflate military emergence and adaptation and suicide. While methods and mechanics for both may well emerge that reflect adaptive efficiency, the outcome, while stable, may not be wealth creating.
Saturday, June 4, 2011
America’s Turning Point
Hummel writes:
Lincoln’s war delivered a blow to civil liberties as well. The Union’s resort to nationally administered conscription touched off so much resistance that the President suspended habeas corpus throughout the North. Traditional estimates are that the administration imprisoned without trial or charges 14,000 civilians during the conflict, but some historians believe the figure to be much too low. To be sure, the greater number were citizens of either the border states or the Confederacy itself, and many of those arrested secured quick release within a month or two, usually after swearing a loyalty oath. Yet the federal government at the same time monitored and censored both the mails and telegraphs and shut down over 300 newspapers for varying periods.
He goes on to illustrate the ratchet effect -
Many of these measures were of course abandoned at the fighting’s end. Federal spending fell from its wartime peak to only 3 to 4 percent of GDP. Although not a trivial decline, it still left spending at twice prewar levels, and the largest postwar expenditures were war-related. Interest on the war debt initially accounted for 40 percent of federal outlays, and by 1884 veterans’ benefits were consuming 30 percent. These benefits were so lavish that they constitute the national government’s first old-age and disability insurance and stand as a precursor to Social Security. The impact of the Civil War was even felt in the seemingly unrelated area of obscenity. Congress passed the first act regulating mail content in response to complaints that troops were ordering pornographic material, and this became the basis for the Comstock witch hunts of the 1870s.
The Real Turning Point
This ratchet effect is a phenomenon historians frequently observe. Yet the Civil War did something more.
Lincoln’s war delivered a blow to civil liberties as well. The Union’s resort to nationally administered conscription touched off so much resistance that the President suspended habeas corpus throughout the North. Traditional estimates are that the administration imprisoned without trial or charges 14,000 civilians during the conflict, but some historians believe the figure to be much too low. To be sure, the greater number were citizens of either the border states or the Confederacy itself, and many of those arrested secured quick release within a month or two, usually after swearing a loyalty oath. Yet the federal government at the same time monitored and censored both the mails and telegraphs and shut down over 300 newspapers for varying periods.
He goes on to illustrate the ratchet effect -
Many of these measures were of course abandoned at the fighting’s end. Federal spending fell from its wartime peak to only 3 to 4 percent of GDP. Although not a trivial decline, it still left spending at twice prewar levels, and the largest postwar expenditures were war-related. Interest on the war debt initially accounted for 40 percent of federal outlays, and by 1884 veterans’ benefits were consuming 30 percent. These benefits were so lavish that they constitute the national government’s first old-age and disability insurance and stand as a precursor to Social Security. The impact of the Civil War was even felt in the seemingly unrelated area of obscenity. Congress passed the first act regulating mail content in response to complaints that troops were ordering pornographic material, and this became the basis for the Comstock witch hunts of the 1870s.
The Real Turning Point
This ratchet effect is a phenomenon historians frequently observe. Yet the Civil War did something more.
Friday, June 3, 2011
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
A Few Random Thoughts
The health care debate seems to have settled on two issues: should Obamacare be repealed? And, how should Medicare be saved from bankruptcy. The democrats are arguing that without the constraints of Obamacare, the costs of Medicare will continue rising. The republicans are arguing that Ryan’s plan to slowly shift the system to one of vouchers and the use of private insurance companies. The democrat arguments against Ryan’s plan are that costs will rise so much that the voucher will be insufficient and the old people will end up without care. This is a great divide between those who have no idea how markets work versus those who want to rely on the market. If the third party payer in Medicare was eliminated, individuals would seek out their best options, private companies would offer policies that those individuals want and are willing to pay for. It would drive prices down not up. Costs would rise no faster than the rise in prices in other sectors.
The debt ceiling debate is also interesting. If the ceiling were not raised, the Treasury would have to figure out how to reduce spending. Since it would want to pay the debt costs, it would have to cut elsewhere. The question is whether there is enough to cut without dealing with Medicare and Social Security. Looking at the data, there is enough room to cut – all that has to happen is that revenue matches spending. But scare tactics and wild rhetoric will surely define the debate, and it is likely the debt ceiling will be passed due to fear of government shutdown.
Finally, Pratt links to the survey of economists. I find it not surprising but still depressing that economists consider Krugman a star and don't even think of Hayek or Mises, that 60 some percent vote republican and 20 percent republican.
The debt ceiling debate is also interesting. If the ceiling were not raised, the Treasury would have to figure out how to reduce spending. Since it would want to pay the debt costs, it would have to cut elsewhere. The question is whether there is enough to cut without dealing with Medicare and Social Security. Looking at the data, there is enough room to cut – all that has to happen is that revenue matches spending. But scare tactics and wild rhetoric will surely define the debate, and it is likely the debt ceiling will be passed due to fear of government shutdown.
Finally, Pratt links to the survey of economists. I find it not surprising but still depressing that economists consider Krugman a star and don't even think of Hayek or Mises, that 60 some percent vote republican and 20 percent republican.
Caging the Dogs of War - Robert Higgs - Mises Daily
Higgs' analysis here is familiar to those of us with knowledge of the role of government in society and/or Higgs excellent body of research. That said, this long post is an outstanding review of a set of values/principles that shape the thinking of those who adovcate for liberty and responsibility. These values include:
1. Non aggression and the valuing of human life.
2. Liberty
3. Individualism
4. Responsibility
In an accessible and sensitive analysis of the foundations and consequences of war Higgs makes a number of points worth considering.
First - "catastrophic success" in the current war. Thinking about the first (ultimate?) value described above and war one can readily see the two sides of the argument. Non aggression values life. Intervention in the form of war sacrifies life for a "higher" value or good. So the image of a catastrophic success describes a successful war - death and destruction on a scale (catastrophic) that achieves a value higher than life. I am reminded of Nixon's rationale when asked about the war in his time - in response to the question of why are we fighting he responded - for peace. Yep, an oxymoron but one that is consistent across demoncratic and republican administrations over time.
Higgs says it so much better -
In sum, when we ask ourselves who took the United States to war in Iraq (and keeps it engaged there) and what those individuals hoped (and still hope) to gain by doing so, we quickly come to appreciate what a roaring success this venture has been and continues to be for all of them. In view of the endless death and destruction being visited upon the hapless people of Iraq, however, not to mention the great and growing number of deaths, injuries, and mental disorders being suffered by US troops in the Mesopotamian killing fields, we might well describe this adventure as a catastrophic success.
Higgs goes on to make a provocative point, one that I wish was more widely debated. That is, the Warfare State is guided by a set of motivations that are designed to capture and expand rents - both economic and political. In fact, the warfare state moves to a society that conjoins economic and political activity in order to more effectively hold and expand power. Inevitably this process leads down a road of serfdom - a poverty of existence anticipated and articulated by Orwell, Huxley and others. Higgs' characterization:
Reality of Rule, which is to say, from the government's effectively having gone to war permanently against the bulk of the American people, as well as episodically against unfortunate groups of foreigners in the Third World, where the US government seeks to establish or maintain its hegemony. By saying that the government has placed itself in a state of war against most of the people — namely, all those outside its own supportive coalition — I mean no more and no less than what John Locke meant when he wrote about this condition in his Second Treatise of Government
There it is, a warfare state wages war - I am still trying to decide if this is indisciminate or conscious, but I tend to agree with Higgs. That is the war is internal against those who might prevent rent seeking, oppose rent seeking or passively fail to support the rent seeking as well as externally. The history of the US does confirm this former target or victim of government power. Think of Lincoln (actually the apparatus of war that quickly returned) and the Maryland legislature, Wilson and the actions taken across the US and the more recent Patriot Act. Think large and small actions of invasion against individual by the state in the interest of the warfare state. I will be flying with my family this weekend and as the state fights the war on terror, my wife and children will be subject to the more intimate of invasion of privacy at the airport. So will I.
Caging the Dogs of War - Robert Higgs - Mises Daily
1. Non aggression and the valuing of human life.
2. Liberty
3. Individualism
4. Responsibility
In an accessible and sensitive analysis of the foundations and consequences of war Higgs makes a number of points worth considering.
First - "catastrophic success" in the current war. Thinking about the first (ultimate?) value described above and war one can readily see the two sides of the argument. Non aggression values life. Intervention in the form of war sacrifies life for a "higher" value or good. So the image of a catastrophic success describes a successful war - death and destruction on a scale (catastrophic) that achieves a value higher than life. I am reminded of Nixon's rationale when asked about the war in his time - in response to the question of why are we fighting he responded - for peace. Yep, an oxymoron but one that is consistent across demoncratic and republican administrations over time.
Higgs says it so much better -
In sum, when we ask ourselves who took the United States to war in Iraq (and keeps it engaged there) and what those individuals hoped (and still hope) to gain by doing so, we quickly come to appreciate what a roaring success this venture has been and continues to be for all of them. In view of the endless death and destruction being visited upon the hapless people of Iraq, however, not to mention the great and growing number of deaths, injuries, and mental disorders being suffered by US troops in the Mesopotamian killing fields, we might well describe this adventure as a catastrophic success.
Higgs goes on to make a provocative point, one that I wish was more widely debated. That is, the Warfare State is guided by a set of motivations that are designed to capture and expand rents - both economic and political. In fact, the warfare state moves to a society that conjoins economic and political activity in order to more effectively hold and expand power. Inevitably this process leads down a road of serfdom - a poverty of existence anticipated and articulated by Orwell, Huxley and others. Higgs' characterization:
Reality of Rule, which is to say, from the government's effectively having gone to war permanently against the bulk of the American people, as well as episodically against unfortunate groups of foreigners in the Third World, where the US government seeks to establish or maintain its hegemony. By saying that the government has placed itself in a state of war against most of the people — namely, all those outside its own supportive coalition — I mean no more and no less than what John Locke meant when he wrote about this condition in his Second Treatise of Government
There it is, a warfare state wages war - I am still trying to decide if this is indisciminate or conscious, but I tend to agree with Higgs. That is the war is internal against those who might prevent rent seeking, oppose rent seeking or passively fail to support the rent seeking as well as externally. The history of the US does confirm this former target or victim of government power. Think of Lincoln (actually the apparatus of war that quickly returned) and the Maryland legislature, Wilson and the actions taken across the US and the more recent Patriot Act. Think large and small actions of invasion against individual by the state in the interest of the warfare state. I will be flying with my family this weekend and as the state fights the war on terror, my wife and children will be subject to the more intimate of invasion of privacy at the airport. So will I.
Caging the Dogs of War - Robert Higgs - Mises Daily
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
