==> Oh my gosh, a peer-reviewed publication cited my doctoral dissertation. I am still in shock. Topan and Paun–like me–think Mises makes an invalid argument to establish the apodictic preference for satisfaction sooner rather than later. Jeff Herbener responds.
==> This guy literally lives in the NYU library.
==> Pat Michaels and Chip Knappenberger show that the “consensus” climate models are arguably wrong with 95% confidence. (It’s hard to phrase it accurately; go look at what I’m talking about. The point is, we’re taking into account the “uncertainty zone” in the model runs.)
==> Silas Barta thinks the economics of climate change is too important to be left to the generals. I plan on doing a follow-up post for IER on this. (I am still not sure that Silas’ point  is necessary for his argument, and on top of that, I’m not sure he’s actually crystallized what’s going on with the tax interaction effect. I know he didn’t like my statement in the comments–which he quotes with amusement–but the problem is that the result pops out of a general equilibrium model. It’s hard to give intuition on something like that, and in fact various authors have given different intuitions to explain the result.)
==> I’ll be spamming you more in the future about it, but next week I have a new Mises Academy class on ObamaCare.
==> Look, I realize it sounds like I’m just pouting and making excuses, but COME ON: the paper products these days are cutting corners. (HT2 von Pepe) Do you know how fast I go through a roll of paper towels now, compared to five years ago? I’m being serious.
I can’t remember whoKen B. sent me this Economist article on trouble in the (experimental) sciences, but anyway, here ya go.
==> JP Koning wrote the best Fama vs. Shiller piece I had seen, when they were big in the news. You know how I like to say that the most hardcore proponents of the EMH believe it as a matter of faith, not empirical evidence? Here’s Koning describing how Fama and Shiller responded after the 1987 crash:
Eugene Fama, who along with Shiller and Lars Hansen shared the Nobel Prize this week, had very different reaction to the event than Shiller. In an essay penned not long after the crash, Fama, a true believer in the efficient market hypothesis, did his best to square the event with theory. The crash, wrote Fama,
[FAMA:] has the look of an adjustment to a change in fundamental values. In this view, the market moved with breathtaking quickness to its new equilibrium, and its performance during this period of hyperactive trading is to be applauded. [Perspectives on October 1987, or What Did We Learn From the Crash? 1988]
[BACK TO JP KONING’s COMMENTARY:] Fama’s effort to justify the crash as a rational response to economic news falls flat. A 22.6% decline requires something cataclysmic, but no significant events preceded the crash. Sure, there was a skirmish in the Persian Gulf with an Iranian oil station, a new tax proposal in the House, and a sell signal from guru Robert Prechter, but none of these events were capable of moving markets more than a few points.
Robert Shiller, on the other hand, gathered data. The day after the crash, he sent out questionnaires to hundreds of investors.