Why Conservatives Must Surrender on 'Redistribution'

Why Conservatives Must Surrender on ‘Redistribution’

This is an interesting essay by Bloomberg columnist Josh Barro on how GOP indifference to income inequality, among other things, contributed to the re-election of President Obama.  Quoting from the article,

“But the key problem in this debate isn’t that liberals’ ideas are bad, though many of them (especially on trade) are. It’s that conservatives have no serious proposals of their own on rising inequality.” 

H/T to my Baylor colleague, economist Steve Green, for pointing this article out to me.

]]>

Why Conservatives Must Surrender on ‘Redistribution’

Why Conservatives Must Surrender on ‘Redistribution’

This is an interesting essay by Bloomberg columnist Josh Barro on how GOP indifference to income inequality, among other things, contributed to the re-election of President Obama.  Quoting from the article,

“But the key problem in this debate isn’t that liberals’ ideas are bad, though many of them (especially on trade) are. It’s that conservatives have no serious proposals of their own on rising inequality.” 

H/T to my Baylor colleague, economist Steve Green, for pointing this article out to me.

Bridgepoint Education Holiday Bowl…

I find it somewhat ironic that the bowl game that Baylor University’s football team is playing in (against UCLA on December 27th at the Holiday Bowl in San Diego, CA) is sponsored by a firm called Bridgepoint Education, which (as best as I can tell) is a “competitor” to University of Phoenix.

If you go to Bridgepoint Education’s website (located at http://www.bridgepointeducation.com), and look under the curiously named tab called “Innovations”, two “universities” are listed; specifically, Ashford University http://www.bridgepointeducation.com/innovations/ashford.htm and University of the Rockies (http://www.bridgepointeducation.com/innovations/uor.htm).  Their other “Innovation” is labeled “Technologies” (http://www.bridgepointeducation.com/innovations/technologies.htm), one of which is a “… publishing solution for sharing dynamic digital content, engaging readers, and capturing insightful analytics”.

College Football's Big-Money, Big-Risk Business Model

Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

The conclusions in this WSJ article drawn corroborate what Cornell economist Robert Frank has been saying for years – that big-time college sports is a winner-takes-all game, and that it is a losing proposition for the vast majority (apparently > 80%) of colleges and universities that participate in this competition.

I thought Stanford economist Roger Noll’s comment was interesting – that “It’s obvious that intercollegiate sports are less popular in the rest of the country than they are in the Midwest and in the South.”  Having taught for five years at Penn State, Noll’s point was not at all obvious to me – I guess it all depends upon how you define “Midwest”.

I also found the following statement interesting: “The success of this marriage between broadcasters and college football will depend on a set of assumptions—one of them being that the current structure of the cable television business won’t change.”  The article goes on to point out an important demographic trend which suggests otherwise – people (especially younger people) are cutting the cord in droves.  No wonder this is happening, considering how expensive cable is (the article lists an average price of $135 per month).

So in a nutshell, it seems like the business model that “Big Football” is based upon is pretty much doomed; that is, unless Big Football figures out a way to monetize itself in a cord-cutting world…

]]>

College Football’s Big-Money, Big-Risk Business Model

College Football’s Big-Money, Big-Risk Business Model – WSJ.com.

The conclusions in this WSJ article drawn corroborate what Cornell economist Robert Frank has been saying for years – that big-time college sports is a winner-takes-all game, and that it is a losing proposition for the vast majority (apparently > 80%) of colleges and universities that participate in this competition.

I thought Stanford economist Roger Noll’s comment was interesting – that “It’s obvious that intercollegiate sports are less popular in the rest of the country than they are in the Midwest and in the South.”  Having taught for five years at Penn State, Noll’s point was not at all obvious to me – I guess it all depends upon how you define “Midwest”.

I also found the following statement interesting: “The success of this marriage between broadcasters and college football will depend on a set of assumptions—one of them being that the current structure of the cable television business won’t change.”  The article goes on to point out an important demographic trend which suggests otherwise – people (especially younger people) are cutting the cord in droves.  No wonder this is happening, considering how expensive cable is (the article lists an average price of $135 per month).

So in a nutshell, it seems like the business model that “Big Football” is based upon is pretty much doomed; that is, unless Big Football figures out a way to monetize itself in a cord-cutting world…

Did the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) Lead to Risky Lending?

Did the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) Lead to Risky Lending?

by Sumit Agarwal, Efraim Benmelech, Nittai Bergman, Amit Seru  –  #18609 (AP CF)

Abstract:

Yes, it did.  We use exogenous variation in banks’ incentives to conform to the standards of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) around regulatory exam dates to trace out the effect of the CRA on lending activity.  Our empirical strategy compares lending behavior of banks undergoing CRA exams within a given census tract in a given month to the behavior of banks operating in the same census tract-month that do not face these exams.  We find that adherence to the act led to riskier lending by banks:  in the six quarters surrounding the CRA exams lending is elevated on average by about 5 percent every quarter and loans in these quarters default by about 15 percent more often.  These patterns are accentuated in CRA-eligible census tracts and are concentrated among large banks.  The effects are strongest during the time period when the market for private securitization was booming.

http://papers.nber.org/papers/W18609

Are You Brilliant, or Just Lucky?

Are You Brilliant, or Just Lucky? – WSJ.com.

This article applies insights from Michael Mauboussin’s new book entitled “The Success Equation: Untangling Skill and Luck in Business, Sports and Investing” to investment decision-making. I particularly like the author’s description of a classic experiment in which “… people guessed the outcome of a coin toss. When told they got the first four tosses correct, they concluded on average that they would be able to guess 54 of the next 100 coin flips.” In other words, people often fool themselves into attributing skill to pure luck.