Thursday, October 6, 2016

Can Extreme Global Poverty Be Eradicated?

The Economist has an interesting piece on extreme global poverty:
“The global poverty count should also elicit a kind of embarrassment. As the world economy grows ever more prosperous and sophisticated, the problem of extreme poverty looks less like a tragic inevitability and more like a peculiar anachronism. The average person in extreme poverty lives on $1.33 per day. It would therefore take just $0.57 per day to rescue them from this plight. That observation invites a thought experiment. If it were somehow possible to transfer without cost the right amount of money into the right hands, how much would it take to end extreme poverty altogether? The answer is just $159 billion a year, according to the World Bank, or less than 0.2% of global GDP.
That estimate is calculated at purchasing-power parity. If an actual dollar were transferred to a poor country from America, it would stretch much further, because prices in poor countries tend to be lower ... Taking these lower prices into account, the amount needed to bring all the world’s poor up to the poverty line drops to $78 billion a year, or just 0.1% of global GDP”

What do Continental Europeans Think of the British?

Very funny –
“A new study into Europeans’ most popular Google searches might elevate the Brexit debate to an even more awkward level. It turns out that our continental neighbours have some rather uncouth questions about Britain – and they’ve been taking to Google to search for the answers.
“Why are the English crybabies?”, the Portuguese apparently want to know. “Why are the British so stupid?”, Germans are asking….
Some of the queries are just plain rude. “Why are the British so ugly?”, the Dutch want to know. The Italians are asking “Why are the British dirty?”, while Spaniards have no questions: they’ve simply been stating “The English are strange”.” 

Education Matters: Widening Gap Between the Low-Skilled and the High-Skilled Workers

Comparing Earnings of White Males by Education for Selected Age Cohorts: “High School vs. College Graduates”
A Statistical Brief by John Coder and Gordon Green
Sentier Research - October 2016
Summary
The “working class” in America has been frequently defined as white males with a high school education working at wage and salary jobs. Some have said that this is one of the groups that has been “left behind” and newly energized during this year’s election process. This statistical brief compares changes in earnings for white males, contrasting the experiences of high school graduates and college graduates between 1996 and 2014. It utilizes a cohort approach to examining changes in their earnings. The results suggest vastly different experiences for high school and college graduates during the period. For example, during this 18-year period wage and salary income per cohort member for high school graduate cohorts declined by 9 percent overall while the income for college graduate cohorts increased by 23 percent. In 2014, income per cohort member stood at $94,601 for college graduates but only $36,787 for high school graduates. Using cohort analysis instead of cross-sectional methods shows that while wage and salary incomes of white male college graduates soared as they aged through this 18-year period, the earnings of most high school graduate cohorts managed only meager gains and, for some cohorts, declines. It may be that the “working class” understands better than most just how far their earnings have fallen behind.
The term “working class” in this report refers to white males with a high school education.

Tuesday, October 4, 2016

Will the Human Brain Provide a Model for the Creation of a Super-Intelligent Machine?

The Human Remembering Machine by ADRIENNE LAFRANCE
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/10/the-human-remembering-machine/502583/

Gherkins and the Fight Over the US-EU Trade Deal

A fascinating piece – Globalization: A Pickle's Tale
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/10/globalization-a-pickles-tale/501398/

Why Macroeconomics is Hard

Noah Smith hits on the truth:
“Now, the big question is whether faith in monetary policy might have been misplaced. The seemingly small effects of quantitative easing, and the difficulty of dealing with very low interest rates, are causing some macroeconomists to cast about for alternatives to the New Keynesian paradigm.
This illustrates the real fundamental problem with macroeconomics -- the lack of good evidence. Business cycles take years, and each one is a bit different from those that came before, so the number of data points is very small, especially relative to the enormous complexity of modern theories. Time-series statistics, one of the core methods of empirical macro, often requires almost as many assumptions as theory. What’s more, natural experiments -- the lucky accidents that allow microeconomists to glean facts about cause and effect -- are very rare in macro. That makes it very hard to test any theory. Evidence does exist in macro, but it’s thin, subtle and ephemeral. It gently nudges theorists gently in the direction of the truth, rather than giving them a hard push.”

Google Finally Challenges Apple in the Smartphone Hardware Space

Google's new Pixel Phone may be better than Apple’s IPhone