Gender, Names, and Fraud Charges

Today in my Gender in Cross-Cultural Perspective class we were discussing a classic article about gender-based naming practices among some segments of Chinese society.  The basic point of the article is that names provide important clues to ideas of personhood which are profoundly gendered.  Men gain and choose for themselves a series of names throughout their life that continue to mark them as individuals, celebrate milestones and accomplishments, and demonstrate their ability to use the nuances of their language in interesting and cleaver ways.  Women, in contrast, are given names that connect them to hopes for the larger family, that mark them as wives or mothers, or that reference something from the time they were born.  Women have a tendency to lose individualized names as they age, being referred to sometimes even simply as “old woman.”  Our class discussion was very interesting and we were able to point out some continuity with practices like taking on a husband’s name at marriage along with the more obvious differences.

Then, one student mentioned a news story that I had somehow missed about a man in Florida who had his driver’s license revoked because, the state said, he had committed fraud in obtaining it.  The fraud? He had changed his last name to his wife’s when they were married.  

Open for Business

When Governor Walker was elected a few years ago, one of the first things he did (even before some of the more, shall we say, controversial moves) was to commit to supporting business growth in Wisconsin.  The slogan "Open for Business" was a key part of the governor's new platform to create 250,000 new jobs.  Personally, I'll admit I found it tacky to slap the bumper-sticker like slogan on our beautiful state welcome signs [the best in the Union!], however if we can put that aside for the moment, this sentiment of promoting business growth is typically one of the top responsibilities of any political leader.  The question is, how do we best go about doing it?

The utility of the coin flip?

Recently Freakonomics guru Steven Levitt announced a new research project of his on strategic decision making.  He argues that when we really cannot make a definitive decision between two things then the only logical choice is to flip a coin.  With that he launched a new website that is dedicated to Freakonomics Experiments.  You send in your decision that you cannot make, flip a coin, let them know your outcome, and then they check in with you a couple of times in the future to find out how that decision turned out for you.  I am really curious what they find out.  I think this is fascinating, but perhaps not for the reason Levitt does.  I believe it's fascinating because it disregards the role of emotion in that decision, which reflects a problem with the role of emotion for decision making in modern society.

Monetizing Trolling?

It seems that Facebook is experimenting with a new business model ... they are quietly rolling out a pilot that will allow you to send a direct message to someone for a fee, whether you are friends with them or not.  The extreme version seems to be $100 bucks to email Mark Zuckerberg.  However, they also seem to be experimenting with a $1 charge to message "regular people."  This is a really interesting economic experiment of the type I get really fascinated by ... how do we put a price on weird stuff?  And what are the consequences of doing it?

Getting into (Blue) Heaven ... 20% at a time

There has been a proliferation of "Tipping" stories in the news in the last few months, and I thought I'd weigh in on the topic as it's one of those fascinating questions that economists (and social scientists in general) puzzle over that force us to think more carefully about our models of human behavior.  That, and because one of my favorite under-rated movies of all time provides this kernel of wisdom from Steve Martin, aka Vincent Antonelli, aka 'Todd Wilkinson' ...

"It's not tipping I believe in - it's OVER tipping!"

Words to live by.

Trillion Dollar Coin

It seems that the country (or at least the portion of the country that follows wonky economic policy issues) is getting more and more interested in the possibility of using a "Trillion Dollar Coin" to avert the debt ceiling showdown - an idea first proposed by the Simpsons as a method of WWII recovery aid.  Yes, that's the world we're living in now - perhaps we can use Spider-pig to solve our crime problems for us as well.   For those not following along at all, here are some of the key highlights and a bit of an FAQ on the trillion dollar coin solution:

Actuaries to the rescue? A market-based solution to an externality problem

I promise I'll go back to our regularly scheduled program of topics that are non-gun related soon enough (sneak preview: coming soon will be topics on the economics of the star wars 'death star', state tax subsidies and their effect on business, and an interesting new pricing strategy for drinks in bars), but I ran across a kind of brilliant market-based solution that might bypass some of the trickier gun control issues.  So at least this version of gun control policy is in an area I actually know something about and is more of a standard economic solution to a problem. In a post similarly titled to my earlier post over the weekend, the author presents her son's idea:

Game Theory, Externalities, and Vaccinations

One of the problems with having an economist in your family is that, no matter how hard you try to fight against it, you get sucked into looking for interesting questions about human behavior.  Such is the burden that my wife bears.

Yesterday, our son had his one-year old round of vaccinations at the doctor's office which sparked a question from my wife, Katie.  But first, a little more background:

Internet governance, international trade, and the future of the web

Today in Dubai a meeting will be held that may, in part, shape the direction of the internet in the future.  While we all take for granted now that it's just "there," in actuality the protocols and standards for the internet are governed and directed by policymakers in the U.S. and around the world. 

This article in the Economist lays out the situation quite well:

"THE rules of the internet decide its speed, safety, accessibility, flexibility and unity. They therefore matter not just to computer enthusiasts, but to everyone with a stake in the modern world. On December 3rd officials from more than 150 countries, plus do-gooders, geeks and other interested parties, will meet in Dubai to argue about how to run the network—and fight over who should control it.

Since the internet’s creation, a ragtag bunch of academics, engineers, firms and non-profit outfits have been in charge. That delights innovators but has been a nightmare for the tidy-minded, and especially for authoritarian governments. They would like the net to be run like the world’s telephone system, with tight standards and clearly set charges. The Dubai meeting brings the chance to write new rules, with a review of an elderly treaty: the International Telecommunication Regulations."

Twinkies, Pizza, Health Care, Hockey, and Black Friday Economics

There has been no more divisive topic in Wisconsin over the last two years than the words "union" and "collective bargaining," which made me hesitant to write this post.  However, over the last few weeks there have been some really interesting economic events in the news surrounding labor issues.  Besides that, we are about to start a unit on monopoly in my principles of microeconomics class and a bargaining unit in my game theory class, so these topics are of particular relevance to my students right now.  Thus, I'm going to attempt to do the impossible: write a fairly balanced, informative post on labor issues that presents some interesting questions for discussion.  You can let me know whether I succeeded.