我今年再也不寫了

我停筆了!!

The Future of Economics

Something that I 'partially' agree with. From MR:

In my possibly overdogmatic view, economics is most useful when its models are relatively simple and intuitive. We've run out of new models which are simple and intuitive. So the theory game is over. The standard, old data sets have been data mined to death. We're now on to the "can you build/create your own data set?" game. That game can and will last for a long time; in some ways it will favor go-getter extroverts just as the theory game favored introverts.

I think theory still has a bright future. The fact that our current models are flawed means that we can still find better ones. Whether or not they are still simple and intuitive is another thing, but that depends on the modeler's skill. Good theorists can still provide us with simple and plausible economic models.

Sometimes for new discoveries to occur, we need to throw away the old framework that we have been working with for so long. When marginal analysis was introduced to economics, it catapulted our subject to the forefront of social sciences. When information asymmetry was introduced, every subject in economics was fundamentally changed. We are at the edge of another breakthrough, I think.

Am I too optimistic?

A Good Question

Another Application of Game Theory

From Freakonomics blog. Game theory and test taking, from Dixit and Nalebuff's new book: The Art of Strategy.

Consider the following question for the GMAT (the test given to MBA applicants). Unfortunately, issues of copyright clearance have prevented us from reproducing the question, but that shouldn’t stop us.

Which of the following is the correct answer?
a) 4π sq. inches
b) 8π sq. inches
c) 16 sq. inches
d) 16π sq. inches
e) 32π sq. inches

O.K., we recognize that you’re at a bit of a disadvantage not having the question. Still, we think that by putting on your game-theory hat you can still figure it out.

Before reading their analysis, take a shot at trying to reason your way to the correct
answer.

Here’s what they said:
The odd answer in the series is c. Since it is so different from the other answers, it is probably not right. The fact that the units are in square inches suggests an answer that has a perfect square in it, such as 4π or 16π.

This is a fine start and demonstrates good test-taking skills, but we haven’t really started to use game theory. Think of the game being played by the person writing the question. What is that person’s objective?

He or she wants people who understand the problem to get the answer right and those who don’t to get it wrong. Thus wrong answers have to be chosen carefully so as to be appealing to folks who don’t quite know the answer. For example, in response to the question: “How many feet are in a mile?” an answer of “Giraffe,” or even 16π, is unlikely to attract any takers.

Turning this around, imagine that 16 square inches really is the right answer. What kind of question might have 16 square inches as the answer but would lead someone to think 32π is right? Not many. People don’t often go around adding π to answers
for the fun of it. “Did you see my new car — it gets 10π miles to the gallon.” We think not. Hence we can truly rule out 16 as being the correct solution.

Let’s now turn to the two perfect squares, 4π and 16π. Assume for a moment that 16π square inches is the correct solution. The problem might have been: “What is the area of a circle with a radius of 4?” The correct formula for the area of a circle is πr^2. However, the person who didn’t quite remember the formula might have mixed it up with the formula for the circumference of a circle, 2πr. (Yes, we know that the circumference is in inches, not square inches, but the person making this mistake would be unlikely to recognize this issue.)

Note that if r = 4, then 2πr is 8π, and that would lead the person to the wrong answer of b. The person could also mix and match and use the formula 2πr^2, and hence believe that 32π or e was the right answer. The person could leave off the π and come up with 16 or c, or the person could forget to square the radius and simply use πr as the area, leading to 4π or a. In summary, if 16π is the correct answer, then we can tell a plausible story about how each of the other answers might be chosen. They are all good wrong answers for the test maker.

What if 4π is the correct solution (so that r = 2)? Think now about the most common mistake: mixing up circumference with area. If the student used the wrong formula, 2πr, he or she would still get 4π, albeit with incorrect units. There is nothing worse, from a test maker’s perspective, than allowing the person to get the right answer for the wrong reason. Hence 4π would be a terrible right answer, as it would allow too many people who didn’t know what they were doing to get full credit.

At this point, we are done. We are confident that the right answer is 16π. And we are right. By thinking about the objective of the person writing the test, we can suss out the right answer, often without even seeing the question.

Now, we don’t recommend that you go about taking the GMAT and other tests without bothering to even look at the questions. We appreciate that if you are smart enough to go through this logic, you most likely know the formula for the area of a circle. But you never know. There will be cases where you don’t know the meaning of one of the answers or the material for the question wasn’t covered in your course. In those cases, thinking about the testing game may lead you to the right answer.

The joke is on us

From ptt:

1. 看不見的手
一群功夫學生要畢業了, 老師諄告他們: 出去以後, 千萬不能和經濟學家過招,因為他們都有一隻看不見的手.

2. 市場萬能
學生: 既然市場是萬能的, 那麼我們還要經濟學家有什麼用?
老師: 因為經濟學家能給我們帶來快樂, 而這是市場做不到的.

3. 完全競爭
第一天, 上帝創造了太陽, 接著魔鬼創造了灼傷;
第二天, 上帝創造了性, 隨後魔鬼創造了婚姻;
第三天, 上帝創造了一位經濟學家, 而魔鬼陷入了沉思...思前想後了好一陣子, 魔鬼也創造了一位經濟學家.

4. 預測衰退
經濟學家預測出了過去5次衰退中的9次.

5. 經濟學家定律
經濟學家第一定律: 對任何一位經濟學家而言, 一定存在著一位實力旗鼓相當的同時觀點又針鋒相對的經濟學家.
經濟學家第二定律: 他們都是錯的.

6. 論文發表
問: 你應該到哪裡發表論文?
答: 如果你能理解並能證明, 那麼就寄給數學雜誌;
如果你能理解但無法證明, 那麼就寄給物理學雜誌;
如果你不能理解但能證明, 那麼就寄給經濟學雜誌;
如果你既不能理解也無法證明, 那麼就寄給心理學雜誌.

7. 總統的困惑
美國總統和俄羅斯總理在高峰會談的間歇閒聊. 俄羅斯總統對美國總統說: 你知道嗎, 我遇到了一個麻煩. 我有一百個衛兵,但其中一個是叛徒而我卻無法確認是誰.
美國總統則說: 這算不了什麼. 令我苦惱的是我有一百個經濟學家,而他們當中只有一人講的是事實, 可每一次都不是同一個人.

8. 智慧的顯現
一位經濟學家去華盛頓的自然歷史博物館參觀. 當站在恐龍化石面前時, 他對身邊的遊客說: 這只恐龍的歲數足足有20億年又10個月.遊客驚訝且恭敬地問道: 您從哪裡得到如此準確的信息? 經濟學家不無自豪地回答說: 10個月前我來此參觀過. 那時講解員告訴我這只恐龍已經20億歲了.

9. 經濟與政府行為
如果經濟在運轉, 那就徵稅;
如果經濟不斷地在運轉, 那就監督;
如果經濟停止運轉, 那就補貼.

10. 學派之分
問: 要多少個經濟學家才能把一個壞燈泡換掉? 答: 八個. 一個把燈泡裝上, 剩下的負責保持其他條件不變.
問: 要多少個芝加哥學派的經濟學家才能把一個壞燈泡換掉? 答: 一個也不用. 要是燈泡壞了, 市場機制自然會把它更換.
問: 要多少個新興古典學派的經濟學家才能把一個壞燈泡換掉? 答: 那就要看當時的工資如何.
問: 要多少個凱恩斯學派的經濟學家才能把一個壞燈泡換掉?
答: 愈多愈好. 因為這樣便可增加就業, 刺激消費, 使得總合需求曲線向右移.

11. 經濟與天氣
問: 上帝為何創造經濟學家?
答: 因為有經濟學家的話, 天氣預報便顯得準確得多了!

12. 理論與實證
假如有一千名經濟學家去處理換燈泡的問題, 當中會有十個理論經濟學家, 各人對換燈泡的方法有不同的主張.餘下的990個實證經濟學家就努力地去檢驗那一個的理論正確. 最後, 所有人仍是在黑暗之中.

13. 諾貝爾經濟學獎
唯有經濟學這一門學科, 會出現兩位學者互唱反調, 而他們卻分享著同一個諾貝爾獎.

14. 誠實與說謊
甲: 聽說經濟學家總在說謊. 你能否告訴我, 如何判定他在說謊?
乙: 經濟學家大都比較誠實, 很少掩飾. 你只要注意他的嘴就行了, 嘴一動就在說謊了.

15. 經濟學家的語言
美國聯邦儲備委員會主席格林斯潘的名言: 如果你覺得聽懂了我說的話, 那你一定是誤解了我的意思.

16. 絕對真理
一位經濟學家宣稱: 慶賀生日是一項有益身心健康的活動.統計數據表明, 一個人一生中歡度的生日越多, 他的壽命就越長.

17. 做愛什麼是經濟學家? 知道100做愛方法, 卻從未與異性交往的人.

18. 病毒
如果社會是電腦, 經濟學家就是病毒. 可大致分類如下:
利益集團經濟學家病毒: 其作用是把硬碟分割許多小單位, 每個單位均無任何實際用途,卻都聲稱自己是本機器上最重要的部件.
計量經濟學家病毒: 染上此病毒後, 60%的機器將在14%的時間裡丟失38% (正負3個百分點) 的數據.
政治經濟學家病毒: 佔用記憶體但不幹活, 只有到下次選舉才能清除.
政府經濟學家病毒: 你的系統無法工作, 但所有診斷程序都報告說一切正常.
社會主義經濟學家病毒: 造成當機, 毀掉硬碟, 並堅決否認此事發生過.
主流經濟學家病毒: 聲稱受到電腦上其他文件威脅, 並以「自衛」為借口刪除他們.
中央銀行經濟學家病毒: 確保它自己大於其他所有文件.
跨國公司經濟學家病毒: 刪除所有貨幣文件, 微笑著發出經濟即將變好的信息.
供給學派經濟學家病毒: 讓你的電腦沉睡4年, 醒過來卻發現債務增加了三千個億.
環境經濟學家病毒: 阻止你刪除任何文件.

19. 明天/昨天/今天
經濟學家到明天才會知道為什麼昨天預言的事情在今天沒有發生.

20. 錯誤
經濟學家就是這樣一種人, 他並不知道他所談論的. 但是, 他讓你覺得這是你的錯誤.

21. 社會主義/共產主義/資本主義
在社會主義制度下, 如果你有兩隻母牛, 你送一隻給鄰居, 以體現友好.
在共產主義制度下, 如果你有兩隻母牛, 你把它們送給國家, 而國家供應你牛奶.
在資本主義制度下, 如果你有兩隻母牛, 你賣掉一隻母牛, 以所得收入再購進一隻公牛.

I personally like 3, 5, 7, 14, and 20

Who is better? Jordan vs. Kobe

This confirms what I have thought all along:

As you can see, out of necessity Jordan was taking on a large offensive responsibility early in his career; as his teammates got better, he slowly eased back on the workload, and his efficiency improved as a result. Kobe's story is the opposite: with great teammates early, he didn't have to do as much, but when Shaq left before the '05 season, Kobe was actually forced to take a larger role in the offense than even Jordan ever had to.

It's more interesting, though, to look at the efficiency levels the players maintained vs. their % of possessions used. The mark of a truly great offensive player is to maintain a high level of efficiency while taking on a large share of the team's offensive responsibility, and even though Kobe's numbers are impressive, Jordan is consistently more efficient than Bryant no matter if he's using more possessions or not. Also, note the translated defensive ratings: aside from their age-21 seasons, MJ is better (sometimes vastly so) at every turn.

In other words -- and this should be obvious -- when we watch Kobe play, we're seeing a far lesser version of Michael Jordan in action. Similar in style and mannerism, maybe, but when we translate the statistics for era, it becomes very clear that Jordan was actually the one "playing chess" while Bryant "plays checkers."

我笑了

星期一發考卷，我發現我的成績都是2倍的成長。

只有在台灣

前幾天，我在我的同學的MSN暱稱上看到了這麼一句話:

亞洲國家對法律的見解分析。

新加坡:一切禁止,除非法律允許

香港:一切允許,除非法律禁止

中國:一切禁止,包括法律允許

台灣:一切允許,包括法律禁止

而最近幾星期，我們越來越了解陳水扁這8年都在忙什麼了。一位國家領導人竟然也做出如此可恥的事，我們也不僅要問，為何在台灣會發生這種事?

我上星期在藍鷹打北區大專杯，我們清華大學拿下了冠軍，但是又是經過了一番波折。 若大家記得的話，我們在2006年的大專杯也是遇到一些問題。然而這一次有一位明新科技大學的選手，沒有誠實的稟報成績，隔天被我們檢舉，因此喪失資格。當時，明新科技大學是團體組領先的。

對我來說，打比賽要照規矩來，你今天犯規了就是要接受懲罰。然而，在台灣，你必須顧及到比賽的和氣與主辦單位的面子。對我來說，是否要檢舉一位作弊的人是完全不需要去思考的問題，然而在台灣這種情重於法的詭異風氣下是要慎重考慮的。我們這一次做了對的事情，但是又得罪了一些人。從這一件事情可以看得出來，為什麼我們社會的精英也會為知法犯法的人辯護。

只有在台灣:
1. 一位打了別校的選手的教練還可以繼續在那學校任職，並且繼續擔任該校的高爾夫球教練。並且時常提醒大家，他並沒有"圍毆"，報紙寫錯了。這種人就是我所說的3D - dishonorable, dishonest and despicable。

2. 還會有教練極力擁護打人的教練，並且無時無刻的想辦法排擠清大高爾夫球隊，一抓到機會就使清大高爾夫球對難堪。當主辦比賽時，故意忘記將清大的選手列入成績表上。並且故意安排某校的教練頒獎給我們。這種人就是我認為最糟糕的人之一。就是因為陳水扁身邊有這種人，他才會理直氣壯的犯法。

3. 犯規的選手的教練還有臉露面頒獎。並且握著我的手，笑笑的說: "我們明年會再來!" 很好! 但是，有羞恥心的教練早就躲起來檢討了，怎麼會教出這麼糟糕的學生，丟臉死了! 這種人就是厚臉皮的人，就是入獄的前一刻還會高舉雙手吶喊: "你關的住我的身體，但是你關不住我的心!"

若此風氣不退，台灣是不會進步的，希望可以早日改進。

上星期五

我們拿下北區大專北乙組團體賽冠軍

贏台大一杆，好險~!

A Major Problem: Sperm Shortage

From Daniel Hamermesh at Freakonomics:

There’s a shortage of sperm in Britain! Apparently, Britain needs donations for about 4,000 women per year; to reach that number, about 500 sperm donors per year are required, while only 300 are currently registered. Things were fine until 2005, when a law was enacted allowing children of sperm donors the right to discover the identity of their father at age 18; simultaneously, the number of women who could use the same donor’s sperm was limited further.

How about outsourcing to other countries? Doesn't international trade somehow solves the problem?

最近很忙

常常光顧我的blog的人一定知道，我最近比較少張貼文章。

這是因為我最近非常的忙，但是忙完後一定會更積極的經營這blog!

What Obama should Learn from History

Obama's Victory Speech

In other words, the guy has class!

Homo Economicus vs. Homo Sapiens

Behavioral economist Dan Ariely explains that conflicts between standard economic theory with our true behavior in PC vs. Mac style:

The imperfections of human beings:


Gifts:


The heartless and unbiased homo economicus:


The farsighted homo economicus:


The super-intelligent homo economicus:


The fomulaic homo economicus:


The homo economicus who never regrets:

Its Time

Some of the best videos from Obama's Youtube Account:

The 30 minute infomercial:

The Real Debate

The race for the white house is drawing to a close, and though there have been different issues being thrown around, all will agree that the most important topic for the next US president is the economy. Hence, even though your attention might be drawn to other more interesting but irrelevant issues, the real debate should be on the economy.

Amazing Science: Scotch Tape and X-rays

What is the relation between the two? Answer: Scotch tape can create X-rays!

In the current issue of the journal Nature, Dr. Putterman and his colleagues report that surprisingly fierce flows of electrons were unleashed as the tape was unpeeled and its gooey adhesive snapped free of the surface. The electrical currents, in turn, generated strong, short bursts of X-rays — each burst, about a billionth of a second long, contained about 300,000 X-ray photons.

Who is Voting for Obama?

Some answers may surpise you:

So a canvasser goes to a woman's door in Washington, Pennsylvania. Knocks. Woman answers. Knocker asks who she's planning to vote for. She isn't sure, has to ask her husband who she's voting for. Husband is off in another room watching some game. Canvasser hears him yell back, "We're votin' for the n***er!"

Woman turns back to canvasser, and says brightly and matter of factly: "We're voting for the n***er."

That Looks Awesome!

Topology is fun! The videos below demonstrate this fact

Turning the Sphere Inside Out:




The Klein Bottle:

You had a Bad Day

Brokers with Hands on their Faces

And don't forget about George!

Intrade is Being Manipulated

Currently, the prices trading at Intrade:

Obama 83.4% of winning the election

McCain 16.1% of winning the election

However, not too long ago, Obama didn't have such a comfortable lead at Intrade. In fact, Intrade predicted a very close election, unlike other prediction markets which favored Obama. This caused some speculation that the traders at Intrade were pro-Republican. Now it is clear that McCain's winning probabilities were boosted by one particular trader:

An internal investigation by the popular online market Intrade has revealed that an investor’s purchases prompted “unusual” price swings that boosted the prediction that Sen. John McCain will become president.

Over the past several weeks, the investor has pushed hundreds of thousands of dollars into one of Intrade’s predictive markets for the presidential election, the company said.

“The trading that caused the unusual price movements and discrepancies was
principally due to a single ‘institutional’ member on Intrade,” said the company’s chief executive, John Delaney, in a statement released Thursday. “We have been in contact with the firm on a number of occasions. I have spoken to those involved personally.”

As you might guess, as much as this trader loves McCain, other more rational traders saw an opportunity to make money by selling McCain, and buying Obama. It didn't take long for Intrade to display the "true" probability of Obama winning.

It looks like its going to be a landslide!

The picture below shows the predicted distribution of electoral college.

5000 visitors!!!

Small milestone!! I am ecstatic!

James Heckman on Obama

Link

I do not think it's class warfare [Obama's economic policies], I think it's empirical economics. The real issue is the empirical content of the supply side economics dogma. It's pretty threadbare. The "real business cycle" theory is simply inconsistent with empirical evidence. That does not prevent it from being taught as gospel to students (it's really gospel not empirical evidence). I would first and foremost talk to Ray Fair (Yale) and Mark Watson (Princeton) about the evidence for the supply side model. What is ironic is that those who preach supply side practice a crude version of Keynesian economics that ignores all of those incentive effects claimed to be so important by the supply side theorists. The real question apart from the current turmoil is the longer run. Denying the value of investment in knowledge;in infrastructure;in basic science and education at all levels has been and will continue to be harmful to our long run health. In my mind Obama's eyes are fixed more on things that will improve the US economy in the next century. The basic data on the current crisis is still being revealed, but it's clear that the absence of serious regulatory oversight contributed mightily to the current problems. It's not class warfare; its about a future-oriented society.

What am I reading: Poincare's Prize

This semester, I'm taking a course on topology, just for fun. Hence, I've grown more and more interested in stories about mathematicians who work in the field of topology, and no tale is grander than the race to prove the Poincare Conjecture!

Math enthusiasts will know that it is no longer a conjecture, but a theorem now. It was finally proven for n=3 by Grigori Perelman, an odd Russian genius who chose seclusion and anonymity over fame and glory. The book "Poincare's Prize" is full of stories about mathematicians who succeeded in proving the conjecture for certain dimensions (Smale proved n>4, and Freedman proved n=4), and others who spent the better part of their lives searching for one.

As if the writing wasn't enough, the lives of these mathematicians keep the reader engaged. The story of some of these mathematicians will bound to make the reader smile (people like Stephen Smale), some will evoke unlimited sympathy (all those who failed to find a proof), some will leave the reader angry (like Yau Shing Tung), and finally there is one person who will force the reader to imagine the unconstrained capabilities of the human mind, and that person is Grigori Perelman.

Perelman is the shining star of the book, his ultimate triumph and his withdrawal from mathematics and the media's attention not only makes for a potential Hollywood movie, but also forces the reader to think about the meaning of accolades and prizes, more importantly to ponder the underlying drive to find truth.

Below are some pictures of Perelman, taken by a person who spotted him on the subway in Moscow.

Paul Krugman Wins Nobel Prize

As titled

I do not understand alot about internation economics beyond the concept of comparative advantage. However, everyone thinks that the award is well deserved.

However, I am surprised that he won the prize alone, despite the fact that there were serveral other economists who were instrumental in the development of the modern trade theory. People like Dixit, Helpman, and others. Bhagwati is very deserving too!

More Nobel Predictions

Thomson Reuter's Predictions

Again, a very very strong list! Armen Alchian is 94 years old, I think. He definitely deserves it!

In light of the financial crisis, a large portion of economists think that Richard Thaler and Robert Shiller are short listed, another portion feels that the institutionalists will win, people like Armen Alchian, Oliver Williamson, Jean Tirole, Oliver Hart, Gene Grossman, John Moore. The first two are the founders of the New Institutional Economics, while the last three have been instrumental in developing the incomplete contract theory, and Jean Tirole is just a genius in the field who will be recognized sooner or later.

By bet is still on Eugene Fama, Kenneth French and Richard Thaler, but if Oliver Williamson or Armen Alchian wins, I'd be very very happy too!

The Divide Among Multi Handed Economists

Something has always bugged me. It seems too irresponsible and naive to classify economists by the usual left versus right argument, or intervention versus non-intervention. Instead, Paul Romer gives us an alternate and better way of dividing economists (via Greg Mankiw):

Debate among economists about the $700 billion Paulson plan reveals a deep divide between realists and fundamentalists.

To be more specific:

The financial crisis provoked three open letters to policy makers. Fundamentalists opposed the plan. Realists supported the plan or supported more discretionary powers for dealing with the crisis without endorsing any specific plan.

A quick look through the lists of economists who signed the various letters shows that the camps do not separate cleanly along the familiar lines of left-versus-right or active-versus-limited government. The key difference lies in the relative weight each side gives to formal models as opposed to judgment.

Fundamentalists have an unswerving faith in models. Policies should always be derived from the best available model. Data should be filtered through a model. If an observation does not fit within the context of a model, it should be excluded from consideration.

Realists are more conscious of the limits of models and more comfortable with a division of labor between the researcher who improves the models and the clinician who makes policy decisions. They recognize that the power of models comes precisely from a commitment to abstraction that filters out potentially important complexity. They believe that useful evidence can accumulate with direct experience as well as through the research process of testing and refining models. They believe that researchers should consider the possibility that the fault lies with the model when its predictions diverge from clinical judgment and that policies should draw on both sources of evidence.

Well, so who is right!? The answer is not clear:

Many times, the confidence fundamentalists have had in abstract models turned out to be well founded and the objections raised by realists who were more focused on details were misplaced. The fundamentalists were right that an airline industry could still function even if airlines could set their own fares; that people could still talk to each other even if they purchased phone service from different companies. The realists pointed to all the complicated details that arise in such markets, details that simple models could not capture. Fundamentalists, correctly, ignored the detail and pushed prescriptions based on the textbook model of competition.

Other times, the models are missing something that is too important. In the study of macroeconomic fluctuations, real business cycle theorists and their descendants, the dynamic stochastic general equilibrium modelers, are the quintessential fundamentalists. Their models are a useful way to make research progress, but in macroeconomic policy making, the great depression, which these models cannot explain, is a decisive data point warning us that the models are incomplete and have to be supplemented by clinical judgment.

In my humble opinion, a level of abstraction is important for economics. There are a plethora of variables that affect an economic outcome, and the relationship between each variable is also too complicated to trace. Economic models are important for policy makers who wish to make decisive and quick judgements on the issues at hand. A model that is too complicated shadows the one or two variables that are truly important for making the right decisions. In other words, abstract models allow economists to focus on the things that matter.

However, economic models are inherently different from the real economy. Though the models are quite right under certain given conditions, changes in the environment that is ignored by the models can lead to incorrect predictions. As a result, on the other hand, economists also have to be wary of the limitations of these models. For too long, financial economists have downplayed the role of default risks, and risk managers have thus focused too much on market risks, leading to an underestimate in the amount of risk their assets are exposed to. The primary reason for this is their belief in models.

As to the 700 billion bail out plan... I have no idea whether or not it is a good idea. But to rejuvenate the economy with a large dose of liquidity is a good thing, and probably the only way to reignite the confidence in investors again. The question though, is how should we use this 700 billion dollar wisely? Where does this money go and how?

Debunking conventional wisdon: China's Pollution

A surpising new finding:

A detailed analysis of powerplants in China by MIT researchers debunks the widespread notion that outmoded energy technology or the utter absence of government regulation is to blame for that country's notorious air-pollution problems. The real issue, the study found, involves complicated interactions
between new market forces, new commercial pressures and new types of governmental regulation.

........ One of the most surprising findings was that "the kinds of technology currently being adopted in China are not cheap. They're not buying junk, and in some cases the plants are employing state-of-the-art technology."

And furthermore, Joe Biden was right about China burning dirty coal:

The findings suggest that emissions levels from Chinese powerplants, he said, "depend almost entirely on the quality of the coal they use. When they're hit by price spikes, they buy low-grade coal."

But there is hope!:

In some respects, the situation is more amenable to change than many people had assumed, Steinfeld said. With expanding regulatory capacity and increasingly sophisticated efforts to regulate through market-friendly pricing mechanisms, reformers could achieve change relatively quickly, he said. "At least the technology -- the physical infrastructure of China's energy system -- is not an impediment," he said. Indeed, it can ultimately prove a key asset for achieving better environmental outcomes.

That is what I call a bargain!

A woman buys a house on eBay for $1.75

I guess things are really bad right now.

If the world were allowed to vote....

If the whole world were allowed to vote for the president of the United States, Obama would win hands down! The only country that is leaning for McCain is Macedonia.

Taiwan supports Obama 78% to 22%, while China supports Obama 81% to 19%.

Economists for Obama

I like this blog alot!

This list is most impressive!

Economic policy advisors:

Jason Furman (director of economic policy)
Austan Goolsbee (senior economic policy advisor), University of Chicago tax policy expert

Karen Kornbluh (policy director)

David Cutler, Harvard health policy expert

Jeff Liebman, Harvard welfare expert

Michael Froman, Citigroup executive

Daniel Tarullo, Georgetown law professor

David Romer, Berkeley macroeconomist

Christina Romer, Berkeley economic historian

Richard Thaler, University of Chicago behavioral finance expert

Robert Rubin, former Treasury Secretary

Larry Summers, former Treasury Secretary

Alan Blinder, former Vice-chairman of the Federal Reserve

Jared Bernstein, Economic Policy Institute labor economist

James Galbraith, University of Texas macroeconomist

Paul Volcker, Chairman of the Federal Reserve 1979-1987

Laura Tyson, Berkeley international economist, Bill Clinton economic adviser

Robert Reich, Berkeley public policy professor, former Secretary of Labor

Peter Henry, Stanford international economist

Gene Sperling, former White House economic adviser

Other prominent economists who support Obama:

Brad Delong, Berkeley macroeconomist

Joseph Stiglitz, 2001 Nobel laureate

Edmund Phelps, 2006 Nobel laureate

Ray Fair, Yale macroeconomist

Dan McFadden, 2000 Nobel laureate

Robert Solow, 1987 Nobel laureate

Prominent finance people who support Obama:(not actually economists)

William Donaldson, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chair 2003-05

Arthur Levitt, SEC chair 1993-2001

David Ruder, SEC chair 1987-1989

Warren Buffet, investor, richest person in world

Latest Nobel Buzz: Nobel Prize Prediction 2008

An article has boldly predicted that an economist of Indian decent will probably win the Nobel Prize this year. Their choices are;

1. Jagdish Bhagwati - International trade specialist
2. Avinash Dixit - Game theory, IO, International trade, .......
3. Partha Dasgupta - Development economics, environmental economics

I cannot say that I am familiar with their work, or even the fields that they have revolutionized, so I can't comment on this list. However, I would say that if Dixit wins, it probably won't be for his contributions to game theory or industrial organization, since there are plenty of other guys who have had more impact on these two fields.

The article continues to list some more economists who have a chance:
Peter Diamond - Macroeconomic titan
Dale Mortensen - search and matching theory in frictional unemployment
Christopher Pissarides - Again, search theory, unemployment
Elhanan Helpman - International trade titan
Robert Barro - Macroeconomic titan
Paul Krugman - New trade theory
Paul Romer - Endogenous Growth Theory
Gene Grossman - Work on asymmetric information (probably for incomplete contracts too)
Eugene Fama - Market Efficiency Hypothesis

I think all these guys deserve a prize. But in light of the recent financial turmoil, and the lack of common understanding that economists have displayed in response to this catastrophe, I think we should award the prize to Eugene Fama (and Kenneth French), and Richard Thaler (I really do not know why he is not mentioned more often). This award would be a joyful occasion to both sides of the profession: those who believe in government intervention and those who do not.

I studies finance during college, and I know how Fama's efficiency argument has been a basis for much of the deregulation argument (not to mention a whole bulk of finance theory is based on it), while Thaler's contributions to behavioral finance has led a whole new revolution on making economics more about homo sapiens than it is about homo economicus. In my opinion, both deserve the prize, and what better time to give the prize to them than now!

The Bailout Plan: Joker Style

I think I will make a summary of what happened with the financial crisis, and the policy advice of some of the more pominent economists as soon as possible. It just doesn't seem right for my blog to be silent on this issue.

Best Graduate Schools in Economics

The full list is here.

And for the finance people, this is a list for finance.

Hillary Would be Proud of

Rwanda!

Rwanda will be the first country where women will outnumber men in parliament.

Pictures from Beijing-Hsinchu Economic Conference

新竹清大的黃春興老師

新竹清大的吳易樺學長

北京清大的羅偉卿學長

新竹清大的龍歌

下午討論會的主持人，俞欣榮

新竹清大的老師群

俞哥聽問題

新竹清大的許峰銘

我口渴了，馬拉松式的報告

北京清大的張賀與孫靈菲

北京清大的單淼 (有人念成 ㄉㄢ 水)

余沛成: 我都聽不懂。俞欣榮: 攝影師在&*%##&^%個##$%#阿?

北京清大的趙燕琛

新竹清大的邱詩詠學姊

大合照!

How to Explain Inflation to Your Wife

Very SEXIST, but good!

'When we married, you measured 36-24-36. Now you’re 42-42-42. There’s more of you, but you are not worth as much.'

Just a Correlation!

芝加哥大學經濟教授 Casey Mulligan 說選共和黨的話，男女平均收入會比較接近。也就是說，若你希望男女平等的話，你就應該支持共和黨當選。但這是真的嗎?

有一個部落格願意解釋這個現象:

Given the Republicans' strong anti-equality record, Mulligan's finding that Republican presidents increase pay equity for women surely demands an explanation. What is the causal mechanism here? But curiously, Mulligan is entirely silent on this point. He offers no explanation for these findings -- not even the usual blather about how Republicans let the magic of the market do its thing.

.....It's not that Republican economic policies help women all that much. It's that they hurt the working class, especially working class men. A lot.

也就是說，不是女性的薪資上漲，而是男性的薪資在共和黨的執政下被往下壓縮了。

近幾年經濟學時常只是提供一個有趣的 correlation 而沒有做太多的解釋。這不是一個好現象!

What are Commercials Trying to Tell Us?

Even though 20 years ago, economists have rendered advertising content meaningless, since its sole purpose is to look flashy and act as a signal of quality, I really think that analyzing advertising content is an important issue in industrial organization and the future of microeconomics.

Think about this: I can tell you that my house is 'huge', or I can instead tell you exact number of acres. Which one would you rather hear? However, which one would arouse interest?

Just my humble opinion.

First Lesson in Economics

"It is through exchange that difference becomes a blessing, not a curse."

This should be the first lesson in economics. And as pointed out by The Austrian Economists, "Have the benefits of the specialization and exchange ever been presented more concisely and beautifully than in that one sentence?"

開學前最夯的學術會議

首屆兩岸清華經濟論壇:

A Check Up from the Neck Up

馬侃前幾天震驚了美國政壇，選了阿拉斯加的女州長，培林，當他的副手。這選擇有許多讓人匪夷所思的地方:

1. 阿拉斯加已經是共和黨的大本營了。難道馬侃不想拉攏一些中間選民嗎?

2. 馬侃最喜歡講歐巴馬缺少經驗。他卻選擇了一位比歐巴馬還沒有經驗的人當副手。才當州長兩年，之前是做一位人口不到9000的州長。他以後想要用什麼來攻擊歐巴馬?

3. 培林被懷疑濫用職權目前正在接受調查。這故事在這裡:

Sarah Palin’s sister Molly married a guy named Mike Wooten who is an Alaska State Trooper. Mike and Molly had a rocky marriage. When the marriage broke up, there was a bitter custody fight that is still ongoing. During the custody investigation, all sorts of things were brought up about Wooten including the fact that he had illegally shot a moose (yes folks this is Alaska), driven drunk, and used a taser (on the test setting, he reminds us) on his 11-year old stepson, who supposedly had asked to see what it felt like. While Wooten has turned out to be a less than stellar figure, the fact that Palin’s father accompanied him on the infamous moose hunt, and that many of the dozens of charges brought up by the Palin family happened long before they were ever reported smacked of desperate custody fight. Wooten’s story is that he was
basically stalked by the family.

After all this, Wooten was investigated and disciplined on two counts and allowed to kept his position with the troopers. Enter Walt Monegan, Palin’s appointed new chief of the Department of Public Safety and head of the troopers. Monegan was beloved by the troopers, did a bang-up job with minimal funding and suddenly got axed. Palin was out of town and Monegan got "offered another job” (aka fired) with no explanation to Alaskans. Pressure was put on the governor to give details, because rumors started to swirl around the fact that the highly respected Monegan was fired because he refused to fire the aforementioned Mike Wooten. Palin vehemently denied ever talking to Monegan or pressuring Monegan in any way to fire Wooten, or that anyone on her staff did. Over the weeks it has come out that not only was pressure applied, there were literally dozens of conversations in which pressure was applied to fire him. Monegan has testified to this fact, spurring an ongoing investigation by the Alaska state legislature. But, before this investigation got underway, Palin sent the Alaska State Attorney General out to do some investigative work of his own so she could find out in advance what the real investigation was going to find. (No, I’m not making this up). The AG interviewed several people, unbeknownst to the actual appointed investigator or the Legislature! Palin’s investigation of herself uncovered a recorded phone call retained by the Alaska State Troopers from Frank Bailey, a Palin underling, putting pressure on a trooper about the Wooten non-firing. Todd Palin (governor’s husband) even talked to Monegan himself in Palin’s office while she was away. Bailey is now on paid administrative leave.

As if this weren’t enough, Monegan’s appointed replacement Chuck Kopp, turns out to have been the center of his own little scandal. He received a letter of reprimand and was reassigned after sexual harrassment allegations by a former coworker who didn’t like all the unwanted kissing and hugging in the office. Was he vetted? Obviously not. When he was questioned about all this, his comment was that no one had asked him and he thought they all knew. Kopp, defiant, still claimed to have done nothing wrong and said to the press that there was no way he was stepping down from his new position. Twenty four hours later, he stepped down. Later it was uncovered that he received a $10,000 severance package for his two weeks on the job from Palin. Monegan got nothing.

馬侃選她有一個原因是因為她沒有長期待在華府，有她在，馬侃的改革決心看起來會比較有說服力。但是，看樣子培林跟一般的政客也沒有差多少。所以選她當副手馬侃真能說服大家，這個組合能夠給美國帶來重大的改革嗎?

4. 更恐怖的是，馬侃在選她之前只有跟培林見過一次面:

McCain really doesn't know that much about Palin, either. He met her once in February. He interviewed her as part of the vetting process...and that's it. He never worked with her.

而且她不知道培林正在接少調查!!!!

A very reliable source overheard Republican spokesperson McHugh Pierre state TODAY that he had spoken to the McCain Campaign. They are coming to Alaska tomorrow to check out the "Troopergate" investigation.

In other words, THEY DID NOT DO SO PROPERLY AHEAD OF TIME.

喔天阿! 馬侃到底在想什麼阿!?

總結以上的一些疑問，我們可以發現兩件事: 1)馬侃現在很緊張，想要用一個女的副手拉一些人氣。2)馬侃的判斷有問題。沒有看過所有的證據在做決定，也沒有跟其他人先討論。

從馬侃這一次選副手的表現來看，她以前批評歐巴馬簡直是 "一百步笑五十步"。這選舉已經提前結束了!

I'm so happy! I got the bronze medal!

我們這一屆奧運的7金夢破碎，換來了4枚銅牌。這對國人來說也許會蠻失望的，但是對選手而言呢? Dan Ariely，現在最有名的行為經濟學家之一，在他的部落格寫:

What do you think? Who is likely to experience more regret? Someone who won the silver medal in the Olympics, or someone who won the bronze medal in the Olympics?

In one study Bob Willingham took thousands of photographs of athletes in the seconds after they had won or lost a medal. Next, David Matsumoto then coded the photographs according to the athletes’ expressions.

What did they find? bronze-medal winners looked nearly as happy as the winners of the gold medal, whereas the expressions of the silver medalists more closely resembled the athletes who placed fifth.

Silver medalists at the Olympics seem to perform what we call an upward comparison — they compare themselves against someone better off than them. Bronze medalists seem to perform downward comparison — they tend to compare themselves with people who did worse.

所以若論我們選手的福利的話，這銅牌可是與金牌等價阿!!

The Amazing Bolt!

How good is Bolt? This graphic illustration tell us just how lucky we are to witness one of the most amazing feats of the human body.

給學弟妹的

To 學弟妹:

若你在閱讀這一篇文章，就表示你即將要成為研究生。這是什麼意思呢? 當經濟的研究生要幹什麼呢? 你們即將面臨哪一些挑戰呢? 這一篇文章將分成兩大部分: “研究生應有的態度” 及 “即將面臨的挑戰”。

研究生要幹什麼?

課堂裡的生活
顧名思義，研究生就是要做研究 (你不會以為只要念好手邊的書就好了吧?)。當然，你們也會修許多課，但是這一些課都是為你們未來作研究而開的。所以這一些課都會有考試，但是時常都是take home exam，其目的在培養各位自己找答案的能力。也因為如此，所以各位修這一些課的態度也要有別與以往大學時追求考試高分或是報告高分的態度。各位要記得，修這一些課是希望各位具備作研究的能力，因此你們主要的目標應該是要如何靈活的應用你們在課堂裡所學的東西，及這一些東西有沒有寫論文的空間。如此一來，你們會需要駕馭老師所教的同時也會需要主動到圖書館找尋相關的資料以取得更全面的理解。各位只要記住，念研究所要培養自己找尋答案與學習的能力。

當然，自己悶著頭在圖書館念書也不是辦法。一本一千多頁的原文書往往不是尋找答案最好的開端。最好的起頭時常是自己身邊的同學，學長及老師。研究所的同學要彼此互相學習與交流。各位入學不久後，就會發現每一位同學在經濟領域裡都有不同的專長，因此今天你若有問題，往往可以從同學身上摸著頭緒。哪一天同學問到你懂的問題，你也要很主動的題供一些意見，因為研究生彼此的關係就是有來有往，一起向上進步的狀態。系上的老師也是很棒的寶庫。老師也都很樂意分享他們所知道的一些東西。但是老師與同學也時常只能給一個很粗略的答案，因此各位可以請老師或同學推薦書或是論文以便自己取經。因此，各位要謹記，不管你們是問老師或是問同學或學長，你們的態度應該不是要問答案，而是應該要問尋找答案的途徑。

課堂外的生活
我不會推薦各位看哪一部電影 (黑暗騎士很好看，我看了兩遍!)，我也不會跟各位說要怎麼分配自己的時間，或是各位應該修幾學分或是可不可以打工 (有一位很不錯的經濟學家，Kevin Murphy，就是從打工學習到很多經濟學)。我只能跟各位說，適當的休息很重要，但是經濟學的靈感來源千奇百怪，各位要時常胡思亂想。例如，各位若有看奧運，可能會發現中華職棒打到第五名也可以拿錢，而中國的運動選手只有拿金牌才有奨金可拿。各位可以想想，這兩種不同的獎勵方式會如何影響選手的態度與表現呢? 或是若各位有注意女子體操可能有耳聞中國體操選手年紀不到16歲的傳聞 (奧運選手一定要滿16歲才能參賽)，各位也可以想一想有什麼辦法可以證明這幾個中國女子體操選手年齡不及16歲?

我的重點來了! 雖然經濟學家沒有實驗室，但是我們有更好的工作場所: 整個社會就是我們的playground。要隨時保持好奇心，有時候最愚蠢的問題卻是經濟學突破的開端 (Michael Spence就是問說 “為何要去學校念書?” 而最終得了諾貝爾獎)。因此”思索”經濟學是很重要的!

然而想出一個答案還不夠，各位還要把它寫出來，把你的經濟邏輯清楚的表達出來以便其他人能理解。有的時候寫一寫才發現自己想的答案是錯的，或是寫一寫才發現自己的論點了無新意，不值得追究。一個想法的好壞要把它寫出來才能印證。這時候各位又會遇到一個問題，

你已經把一個想法清楚的在白紙黑字上表達出來了，整個邏輯也說的通，但是你要如何判斷經濟故事豐富不豐富，或是你的想法有沒有貢獻? 簡而言知，就是要如何判斷什麼是好的想法? 這就要看各位有沒有時常閱讀書或論文。看書或論文可以幫我們培養”經濟學的品味”。任何人都可以做數學模型，任何人都可以掰一個經濟故事，但是要如何做出一個好的研究就要多看一些大師的作品。剛剛開始看的時候，大概只能看得懂一點點，但是看多了之後就可以看出一些端倪，各位也會發現自己的能力逐漸提升，想法也越來越精緻，寫出來的東西可看性也變高了許多。更重要的是你們也會培養出經濟學的品味，可以判斷自己做出來的東西是好是壞。

茶餘飯後，你也可以把你寫的東西跟你的同學或老師分享並徵求他們的意見，你也可以問他們看哪一些書或論文來幫助你發展你的想法。一個想法要多跟他人討論，若你的同學或老師都聽不懂或看不懂你寫的東西，那你可能就要換一個題目。但也很有可能是你不會”推銷”你的想法!

同樣的想法有可能因為包裝的好壞而受到不同的待遇。這東西很抽象，我自己也非常不懂。每一個想法都有一個經濟的故事在背後支撐他，你要如何把你的經濟故事弄得有趣，或是有影響力是很重要的。各位除了多看一些大師的論文之外，也可以多參加我們系上星期二下午的研討會，可以聽聽看其他教授是如何present他們的論點。

因此，課堂外的時間，各位要多”想”，”寫”，”讀”，”討論”及”聽”經濟學。


念經濟研究所會面臨什麼挑戰?

數學
這是最常被提及的(問題)挑戰。許多學弟妹即將面臨所謂的”語言障礙”。沒有錯，數學在經濟學沒有什麼神聖的地位，它不像在物理學裡可以幫我們解開宇宙的秘密。它在經濟學裡所扮演的角色只是一個語言而已! 經濟學家喜歡用數學來傳達自己的想法因為它比較嚴謹。若我們今天不使用數學，我們的答案會異想天開，變的沒有確切的依據，容易偏離經濟思維的軸心 (這軸心就是人會作出理性的選擇)。正是因為數學能清楚的表達出經濟邏輯，要成為經濟學家就必須熟習這語言才能讓其他人接受你的想法。

在美國開學前，經濟系的研究生都要上所謂的 “math camp”。可以從該堂課中學習到念經濟應具備的數學能力。台灣的經濟研究所沒有這種課，所以各位要自己補強這一方面的能力。許多人將個經，總經與計量所用到的數學統稱為經濟數學。然而，這不是一個理想的分類法，因為各位隨便拿一本經濟數學的課本會很難找到計量相關的數學。一般所稱的經濟數學都是在討論最適化的方法，也就是optimization，一般而言，微積分基礎好的人理解這不會有太大的問題。但是計量經濟都在討論資料的處理，若有念過數理統計者將較容易理解。

若要加強數學，可以買一本經濟數學的書或是一本數理統計的課本，也可以旁聽清大所開的一些數學課。清大數學系是全台灣最有名的數學研究機構之一，大家可以在這兩年間，把握機會多修一些數學系所的課，收益良多。那要聽哪一些課，買哪一些書呢? Greg Mankiw 有推薦經濟系的學生修下列的課程:

1. Calculus – 微積分
2. Linear Algebra – 線性代數
3. Multivariable Calculus – 多變數微積分
4. Real Analysis – 實數分析 (這在清大只有開給研究生的水平，修前請三思)
5. Probability Theory – 機率論
6. Mathematical Statistics – 數理統計 (可以考慮修計財系，鐘經樊老師的課)
7. Game Theory – 賽局理論 (任何想要研究個體經濟學的人一定要修)
8. Differential Equations – 微分方程 (修ODE就好)

若大家覺得考試壓力很大，可以考慮旁聽。我個人曾修以上所有的課程除了微分方程。(但我實分析被當!) 修過這一些課程對理解課程內容與論文的數學模型有非常大的幫助。

大家若有空也可以到圖書館參考下列的書籍。這一些書對我來說是有很大的幫助。至今我都時常放在我身邊，因為我時常會需要參考它:

數學:
1. Elementary Classical Analysis by Jerrold E. Marsden and Michael J. Hoffman
2. Principles of Mathematical Analysis by Walter Rudin

經濟數學:
1. Optimization in Economic Theory by Avinash Dixit
2. Mathematics for Economists by Carl P. Simon and Lawrence E. Blume

數理統計:
1. Introduction to Mathematical Statistics by Hogg, Craig and McKean
2. Introduction to Statistics and Econometrics by Takeshi Amemiya

其實有一些經濟學課本後面的附錄中也有一部分是講經濟數學的，內容也都相當豐富。我個人最喜歡 Geoffrey Jehle and Philip Reny 所寫的 Advanced Microeconomic Theory 裡的數學附錄。暑假剩下幾周的時間不妨從這一本書的附錄開始複習。

經濟
大家是來念經濟學的，但是時常會覺得自己的精力和時間都奉獻給數學了。這也難免，畢竟要學會寫程式之前必須要先搞懂程式語言。想要看一本得過普立茲獎的書之前，最起碼需要看得懂英文。然而，我發現許多人看原文書時，會鑽研那一本書中的文法，每一個不懂的單字都查字典，每一頁都圖滿了密密麻麻的中文筆跡。這種態度是很好的! 可惜的是，時常會因為這樣而忘記了書的情結或內容，根本不記得書到底在寫什麼了! 念經濟學也時常會這樣。有時會很興奮的在那邊偏微分，但是卻完全忘記我們為何要這樣作。所以當你看到一個數學式的時候，你不僅要確認他導出來沒有問題，更重要的是你要理解他經濟含意。有的時候看多了就自然會明白一些數學式子背後的意義。更厲害的人，給他一個經濟問題，他不用數學也可以一步一步的推敲結論。而他的邏輯脈絡是可以一步一步的用數學表示。這就是所謂的經濟直覺。這是所有經濟學家都在尋求的。我個人發覺有一個方法是可以很快的培養這種直覺: 多看經濟的書。

看課本或上課時常會感到疲勞或乏味，漸漸的就失去對經濟學的熱忱，因為課本或課堂的內容有時過於技術性。我個人喜歡看經濟的書來培養經濟直覺，因為看這些書不僅可以學到許多大師是如何思考經濟問題，更可以培養對經濟的熱忱 (因為裡面沒有過多的技術細節)。以下我推薦幾本我喜歡的書給各位:

1. “The Armchair Economist” by Steven Landsburg – 若只有時間閱讀一本，就看這一本。
2. “The Logic of Life” by Tim Harford – 兩個月前才看完的，最後面有介紹到民主的形成，非常精彩!
3. “The Undercover Economist” by Tim Harford – 個經教到差別取價時，要閱讀第三章!
4. “Freakonomics” by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner – 想要了解一下經濟思維的另類應用，就一定要看，我有作者的簽名喔!
5. “The Strategy of Conflict” by Thomas Schelling – 賽局的經典著作之一，將賽局 “人性” 化了。我有作者的簽名!
6. “Thinking Strategically” by Avinash Dixit and Barry Nalebuff – 想認識賽局理論的思考方式，但是又怕數學，這本必看。
7. “Knowledge and the Wealth of Nations” by David Warsh – 經濟故事書。裡面發生的事都是真實故事，故事男主角，Paul Romer，是被譽為鐵定能拿諾貝爾獎的經濟學家。各位會念到的內生性經濟成長模型就是它所提出的。
8. “More Sex is Safer Sex” by Steven Landsburg – 書的內容將外部性的一些驚人結果描述的很清楚。
9. “The Economics of Life” by Gary Becker – 裡面探討的東西偏難，但是這位諾貝爾獎得主就是有辦法化繁為簡。建議對經濟學有一點認識時再看。
10. “When Genius Failed” by Roger Lowenstein – 講述幾位華爾街最聰明的頭腦，最後差一點把整個美國經濟給搞砸。不要念計財! 開玩笑啦!
11. “Defending the Undefendable” by Walter Block – 若你心臟夠強就看，因為它有很多論點你看了可能會生氣。但是這本書是好書。
12. “The Making of Modern Economics” by Mark Skousen – 必讀。一位念經濟的人一定要了解經濟學從亞當斯密斯那看不見的手開始，到現在理論的演變過程。這本書很多故事!

清大是一間很棒的學校，各位不要排斥與其他系所交流 (我跟資工的同學交流發現我所學的東西在他們那邊可以應用到一些問題上)，各位也不要排斥學習其它新的事物 (我跟不同系所的朋友聊天總是學到一堆有趣的知識)。當研究生就是能學多少就學多少。我相信保持這樣的態度會讓你如魚得水，在清大過的非常充實自在。

Cheers!

余沛成

男女比例，B型肝炎和茶葉價格的關連

有一個小故事很有趣，想跟各位分享。

經濟學界目前有一個吵的很兇的議題 (不，我不是要講次及房貸的問題! 雖然他也是吵的很兇。)。這議題就是，為何中國男女比例會失衡? 目前西方國家很均衡，50.1%的人口是女性，而在中國只有48.4%人口是女性。這表示有將近4千萬對岸男性同胞在自己國家內找不到老婆。

各位讀者可能會認為: "廢話! 當然是因為我們中國傳統上，重男輕女所導致的，在加上中國一胎化政策，使拋棄女嬰兒的誘因增加所致。" 這也是我的第一反應。然而，印度也有此現象而印度沒有一胎化政策。是不是印度也有重男輕女的現象?

1998年的諾貝爾獎得主 Amartya Sen 在1990說，亞州有一億個女性不見了 (100 million missing women)。這是因為我們重男輕女所導致的。換句話說，是文化問題。

有許多經濟學家對這答案不滿意 (我們對不具體的東西都不太能接受)，但是也找不到其他的論點加以反駁，所以Sen的答案也就無人挑戰。直到2005年一位年輕的經濟學家Emily Oster找到了一個令人驚奇的答案!

有醫學研究發現，B型肝炎患者比較容易懷男胎 (這是為什麼不要問我)。Oster就利用這變數去分析，她發現B型肝炎可以解釋為何中國會男女比例失衡，因為中國有許多患者。照Oster的理論來說，我們亞洲會男生比女生多是因為許多母親懷女胎的機率很低。資料也支持Oster的論點，B型肝炎可以幾乎解釋中國75%的失蹤女性。這是經濟上很驚奇的發現，因為她徹底顛覆了我們的傳統觀念! 也使Oster一夕成名。

但是，她的理論一出來後就有許多發現推翻她的說法，包含台大的林明仁在內。換句話說，從其他管道下收集到的資料顯示，B型肝炎是無法解釋亞洲男女比例失衡的現象。

而今年，Oster 更是做出了一個驚人的舉動。她承認她3年前的結果是有誤的! 她找到了新的data，重新分析，發現B型肝炎無法解釋。她誠實的舉動又使她聲名大噪!

最近又有一個研究，Nancy Qian 發現當茶的價格提升時，男女比例會比較平衡。這是為什麼呢? 大家有沒有發現，在茶園裡大部分的工作者都是女性? 那是因為茶業都長在比較矮的灌木上，而女生採茶有優勢。所以當茶的價格上升，養育女性的誘因也增加。

所以，以後當有人提到B型肝炎，或是喝茶時，可以想想這些東西對我們生活的深遠影響。

Lightning Bolt

世界上最快的人是 Usain Bolt. 他幹脆叫 Insane Bolt 好了. 因為人類可以達到那種速度真的是太可怕了。

100m 跑 9.69! 這是人類史上很重要的一天。到最後的時候Usain Bolt還提早慶祝，不然可能可以更快。

奧運現場沒人看

根據這篇報導，以及我這幾天看電視觀察的結果，似乎奧運許多比賽都沒有什麼觀眾。場子顯得稍微冷了一些些。但是，北京早在一個月前就把所有的票給賣光了阿! 到底發生了什麼是?

原來最主要的原因是這個:

Officials and observers offered several explanations for the empty seats. Some speculated that tickets reserved for sponsors and VIPs might be going unused in preliminary or qualifying rounds as officials with a claim to them wait for the finals. Chinese organizers provided large state-run enterprises with blocks of tickets, particularly to non-marquee events, to distribute to workers. Many of those employees may simply be deciding it is not worth the hassle to use them.

送出去的票，人家不一定領情阿! 所以，還是一張一張拿到市場上去賣會比較有效率。其實，我倒認為不是去的人不夠，而是體育場蓋的太大了! 有一些熱門比賽，如游泳田徑等，體育場大沒有關係，但是一個舉重場地蓋那麼大就表示他們太仰賴拿到送出去的票的人會來觀看比賽。所以若要由市場決定的話，他們就不會把冷門賽事的場館蓋太大。

然而，一個極權國家還是有辦法解決這一些小問題的:

Venues across Beijing were dotted Tuesday by the cheerful cheer squads. At the Fengtai Sports Center Softball Field, about 200 people sporting yellow shirts with "Cheering From Beijing Workers" inscribed on them in English and Mandarin sat in the scorching sun in the outfield bleachers, which were otherwise largely empty. Covering their heads with white caps, towels or pieces of newspaper to stave off the heat, they waved tiny red flags, red fans and inflatable noisemakers. Several described themselves as blue-collar workers who had gotten tickets from their factories or companies and had been schooled in the art of good cheering.

我是有一個問題，art of good cheering 是什麼?

幾枚金牌?

這一次的奧運在中國舉辦，因此有謠言說中國這一次預期可以得將近39枚金牌，超越美國! 然而，奧運已經有許多年都是被美國主宰，中國的金牌數真能比美國多嗎? 經濟學家能幫我們回答這個問題嗎?

顯然，有一位經濟學家很嫺，跑了一下數據，而得到以下的結果:

而中國預期能得幾枚金牌呢?

作者，Andrew Bernard 用了一個國家的人口數，GDP，以前在奧運的表現及他是否為主辦國等變數跑。他發現因為中國是主辦國，他們可以因此而受惠5枚金牌。有趣吧!

老虎伍茲巧裝成Paddy Harrington

哈靈頓感覺好像昨天才拿下英國公開賽的。才過短短的幾星期，Harrington拿下他生涯的第3座大滿貫，成為史上第4位同一年拿下英國及PGA錦標賽的選手。也成為70年來第一位歐洲選手拿下PGA錦標賽，更是高球史上歐洲第一位連拿兩個大滿貫的選手。說起來容易，但是Harrington這一整個星期都找不到手感。前兩天他失誤連連，打71 - 74，落後領先者6杆之多。但是最後兩輪他打66 - 66，拿下冠軍。最令人嘖嘖稱奇的是他最後三洞連推進三個15尺左右的推杆，讓所有高球迷見識到他的抗壓性，也讓領先榜上出現戲劇性的變化。原本領先的Garcia，因為這三個推杆反而輸給Harrington兩杆。這可能也是我看過最精采的比賽之一。

雖然，這兩次的大滿貫都沒有老虎參加，但是Harrington的實力沒有人懷疑的。因為根據Wikipedia，他是唯一跟老虎伍茲同組的情況下，平均杆數比老虎低的選手:

Harrington is the only player in the world to have been partnered with Tiger Woods in a tournament five or more times and to outscore him. Harrington has a 68.83 average in six rounds, compared with Woods' average score of 69.50. The rest of the world's top players averaged over 70.

新的高球英雄，Padraig Harrington.

Beijing Olympics: Opening Ceremony

這一屆奧運的開幕典禮是所有華人引頸期盼的。大家期待全世界可以看到我們中國人的實力。我只能說，這開幕典禮好的沒話講。中國對世界說: "我來了!"

一開始就2008個人的陣行，震撼全場。後面的表演也讓觀眾目不轉睛，深怕一眨眼就錯過了最精采的畫面。

我當時一直在罵髒話，因為我的MOD機器在8:00一開始時連不上線，我一直打123想好好罵一罵中華電信。但是MOD一連上線之後，我就連上廁所都不敢上。

許多國外媒體稱這一次的開幕典禮為史上最精采成功的。然而，我的心中總覺得好像有一點不對勁，好像缺少了什麼。所以，我當時看完後，其實是有一點失望的，因為我最後覺得這表演有一種濃濃的 "共產" 味道。

我母親也同意。她跟我說: "她們的表演有氣魄，但是沒有氣度。" 而聯合報的黑白集更是寫說她們的表演缺少 "個性" 與 "自由"。

但是總而言之，張藝謀策劃的非常成功，也讓我們中國人在世界的舞臺上發光。

最近

沒有太多精力顧我的網誌，因此有一陣子沒有文章了。

這是萬萬不可的! 因為8月是奧運，又在北京比，我怎麼能不blog這一切呢?

當然，我也會繼續寫一些經濟相關的文章。

敬請期待。

我沒有這根球杆

聽說是很棒的父親節禮物

1985 年美國公開賽

陳志忠在1985年的美國公開賽 (Link1, Link2)，在第一天的比賽他打了一個double eagle，是美國公開賽史上第一隻double eagle。他打完兩天後，也締造了36洞後的最低杆紀錄。他那時領先。他到了最後一天的第5洞已經拉開距離到4杆，但是惡夢也在那時開始:

Chen's approach to the par-4 green came up short and right. Then he attempted a tough chip from thick grass, the shot he laments today. ....... T.C. Chen made an ill-timed double-hit on his way to blowing a 4-stroke lead and earning the nickname "Two-Chip" Chen.

那一球真的影響很大! 他最後輸給 Andy North 一杆。想像他那一年贏的話，高爾夫球在台灣，甚至在亞洲的發展是否腳步會更快呢? 我一職認為他那一年贏的話，台灣會更重視培育高球人才。真的非常可惜。

這星期的PGA錦標賽要回到陳志中當年的球場。

Maskin on Hurwicz

From an email:

But it is Leo's personality that will be remembered most fondly by those who knew him. A warm and charming man, he had a deadpan sense of humorthat could turn somewhat sharp on occasion. Once a visiting seminarspeaker wrote a theorem on the blackboard. Asserting that the result was"obvious," the speaker looked around the room, daring anyone tochallenge him. Leo piped up immediately: "Is that proof by intimidation?"

Obama's Colleagues on Obama

Obama's Colleagues-

Michael McConnell:

Back in 1990, when McConnell was still teaching at Chicago, he wrote an article about church- state relations for the Harvard Law Review that Obama, who was then the Law Review's president, edited. As McConnell recently recalled the experience to Politico: "A frequent problem with student editors is that they try to turn an article into something they want it to be. It was striking that Obama didn't do that. He tried to make it better from my point of view."

Richard Epstein:

Epstein, who once almost sold his Hyde Park home to Obama and would buttonhole him to talk about things like state mandates for health insurance, offers one reason why: "He was always a terrific listener. He'd sit there and cock his head, take it all in."

Of course, as Epstein points out, Obama's willingness to listen didn't necessarily mean he was willing to be convinced. "What you don't get, alas and alack, out of all this is a change in point of view," Epstein says. "If you ask me whether I had any influence on his intellectual or moral development, I'd say no, not even a little."

Daniel Fischel:

"He's much more intellectual, much more thoughtful, much more interested in discussion, debate, and dialogue than the typical politician. And that gives me some confidence about him, even though from my perspective he's much too liberal. I've never voted for a Democrat in my entire life. He's the first one I might vote for."

Homo Economicus vs. Homo Sapiens

From The Economist:

Even so, "we are nowhere near the demise of traditional neoclassical economics," he argues. Instead, insights from brain studies may enable orthodox economists to develop a richer definition of rationality. "These traditional economists may be more impressed by brain evidence than evidence from psychology," he says; "when you talk about biology either in an evolutionary or physical sense, you feel they have greater comfort levels than when you start to talk about psychology.”

我認為運用其他學門的研究方法及融入他們的學科對經濟學而言是非常棒的! 畢竟研究就是這樣，就是要嘗試之前沒有人做過的東西，將我們人類的知識再往前推一步。不管對錯，因為若是錯的，你也是有貢獻的: 至少你可以告訴後人這是錯的。

然而，我對於 "腦神經經濟學" 的發展並不樂觀。已有太多的證據顯示，在實驗室做的結果跟在市場上表現出來的行為是有很大的差異的。John List 就是在這方面最有名的經濟學家。他發現人類在實驗室所做的決定，跟在市場上所做的決定是不一樣的。而在市場上的決定跟經濟理論的預測比較相近。我們到頭來是要研究人類在市場上的行為，而不是實驗室內的行為。

Sorry, but it is not National Tsing Hua University

From The Economist:

IF YOU are a PhD student in America, there's a good chance that your undergraduate degree came from Tsinghua University in China. That's because
Tsinghua and Peking Universities are now the top feeder schools for American PhD
programmes. Chinese students have the largest presence in the natural sciences and engineering, and the better funded hard sciences have the most students. Thus, when you aggregate the number of PhD students, the Chinese universities prevail.

不好意思，他不是在說我們的清華大學。但是，跟早期比，我們的清華大學似乎是很少人出國念博士了。其實這跟美國的現象很類似:

American students who do have the skills necessary for a quantitative PhD might also be less likely to pursue graduate work, because these skills are in high demand. A clever graduate with strong quantitative skills can fetch a high salary right out of university. The alternative of seven years of indentured servitude to your adviser probably sounds less appealing to many recent graduates.

若你是清大電機畢業，出去找工作很容易，導致出國念博士的意願降低許多。所以，當張忠謀在擔心我們缺乏國際觀，他必須想一想，是什麼東西造成這個現象的? 若你真想要提生咱們的國際觀，就降低給土生土長的工程師薪水吧。不願意喔?

倒是，台灣可以拉一些大陸學生來台求學位。這樣的話，我們搞不好真需要100多所大學。我一直認為台灣可以export教育。看看馬政府有沒有能力推銷台灣的教育給對岸。

Academic Bickering

四年前，兩個經濟學家做了關於網路對音樂產業的影響。他們的結論是音樂產業的銷售下滑不是因為網路上音樂分想的關係。這非常 surpising 的 result 也刊登在最棒的期刊之一: JPE。


然而，有經濟學家不同意這個結果。他公開反駁說，他們的研究有許多瑕疵，實證結果不夠嚴謹。因此，雙方展開了筆戰。


最近關係又惡化了。因為反駁的經濟學家做的研究投稿到JPE，卻沒有被刊登。而其中的匿名審查者是被批的作者之一。Yikes!


Details