I apologize for the extent to which I hijacked the site for political rantings the last couple months. But now that the election is over I think we're all in agreement about the desire to have general discussions on a variety of interesting topics, political or not.
To that end, well, I need something to do. So if you have anything I can research, or analyze, or whatever, gimme some ideas. Does the stock market do better when Congress and the White House are controlled by different parties? Do the long travel distances mean that sports teams in the West get more of a home-field advantage? I dunno, I'll take anything.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I like the idea of anything - stock market, whatever - being affected (or not) by the same party controlling the Congress and White House. I'd like real evidence to dismiss (or not) Sean Hannity & Co.'s pure terror at the notion.
ReplyDeleteAnd for the record, I am in support of political rantings.
I don't know about everyone else, but I really enjoy your in-depth updates on politics and would thus support any 2010 analysis you can give us. Typing 2010 I thought of it in my head as "twenty-ten," the only spoken version of 2010 in South Africa; this reminded me of the World Cup, which leads to some interesting avenues of investigation. Perhaps (these are long term): level of democratic freedoms in a country linked to WC performance; GDP (and/or percentage change in GDP) linked to WC success; number of years at war in the last 100 linked to success.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately that gives you nothing to study for the next two years. Right now you could look at: level of democratic freedoms vs. percantage of the population that is openly homosexual; percentage of population that is Christian linked to number of guns owned; amount of waste recycled in a city linked to economic success, unemployment rate, or percantage of votes that went to McCain.
One last strange idea: is the market for recyclable cans and bottles an example of perfect competition? There are many buyers and sellers, a homogenous product, low barriers to entry and exit, everyone has the same information (e.g. cans are placed in bags on the sidewalk on Thursday nights), and firms (e.g. the homeless can collectors) attempt to maximize profit. Any thoughts?
Obviously implied: no one party can affect the market price.
ReplyDeleteThe health care crisis...causes and solutions? This is an issue that I have been trying to wrap my head around. The cause is multi-faceted and I have yet to heard an suggestion on a solution that really sounds like it would make a fundamental difference.
ReplyDeleteHealth Care. Causes are multi-faceted and I have yet to hear a convincing solution.
ReplyDeleteSorry for the duplicate. It didn't seem to post at first.
ReplyDeleteHeh, sweet. Thanks for the ideas. Might work on the market thing b/c that's easy. (Btw, did one in 2004 - extremely basic - on market vs. presidential party. Dem years came out significantly better, but it'd be hard to say that's b/c of having a Dem president. Also, I did an arbitrary one quarter lag, so for example Clinton would have been listed as president through 2Q in 2001).
ReplyDeleteBart, I liked lots of your ideas. I could look at the 2006 WC right? It's likely I would make heavy use of this in most of your suggestions.
I also like the idea of working on health care. Plus, that could be useful in my job. I personally am huge on Wellness (formerly known by its more descriptive term Preventative Health Care).
And as always, the biggest problem is compiling the data, so if you have a good resource for your question that helps. Or even better, if you see some data and then can ask a question, that's good too.
Thanks again!
my 2 cents:
ReplyDeleteHaving recently completed Sach's The End of Poverty, and currently in the middle of Easterly's White Man's Burden, I am very much in need of guidance. What should be done? Easterly says what shouldn't, and does begin to explore what should, but without any real applications. Sachs creates a plan that is too specific, and not at all capable of being implemented, with unreasonable, unrealistic time lines.
Any information at all about steps towards "the end of poverty" (without Sachs) would be much appreciated. Not sure about your interest in the matter.
"Not sure about your interest in the matter."
ReplyDelete-Heh, yeah, who cares about world poverty anyway?
But seriously - I haven't read those books so I'm probably not the one to comment. I am, however, in favor of the strongest possible directives to remove trade barriers for these countries as much as possible. In particular, I think ending aid to farmers in the United States could really help move this along. In terms of policy though, I should probably wait for Bart and Warren to comment.