Making them up as I go (2)

1. Tell the truth.
2. Entice, or fail.
3. To emphasize, summarize.
4. If it ain't short, it don't work.
5. Be clear.


And so I don't forget:
Don't explain. Just tell a story.
Don't argue. Just say things that make sense.
Expect people to be bored by the writing, and shorten it.

Sunday, August 21, 2016

If you say you "over-exaggerated"...

If you say you "over-exaggerated" it means you still think you should have exaggerated, but not quite so much.

Sunday, August 7, 2016

Not for its economics

From The Economist:

David Ricardo showed in 1817 that a country could benefit from trade even if it did everything better than its neighbours. A country that is better at everything will still be “most better”, so to speak, at something. It should concentrate on that, Ricardo showed, importing what its neighbours do “least worse”.

If bad grammar is not enough to make the point, an old analogy might...

I thought that was nicely written -- or at least a nice escape from some fairly crude terminology.

Monday, July 11, 2016

Use over time


Not quite at random, "use over time" graphs from Google:




Sunday, May 29, 2016

Formatting HTML, a detail


On the econ blog I'm complaining about Martin Feldstein. Yeah you should have heard of him // I'm not gonna say who he is // It doesn't matter anyway.

I looked him up on Wikipedia. Copied the first paragraph and pasted into my blog. Pasted it in the "compose" view. That way the links and HTML formatting gets pasted in, along with the text. So I get to see how (in this case) Wikipedia had formatted the text.

The article begins with Feldstein's name. As Wikipedia has it:

Martin Stuart "Marty" Feldstein

If you look at Wikipedia's HTML for Feldstein's name, it turns out that the name is bolded but the quote marks are not.

<b>Martin Stuart</b> "<b>Marty</b>" <b>Feldstein</b>

The text is bolded, but the quote marks are not. I always wondered how to handle situations like that. I think this is a good way to do it.


Saturday, April 16, 2016

That's what it's like when I write.


That is the first time in this series that I've gone from correlation to causation. And even though I've known for thirty years that debt is the problem, the move still bothers me. Because while it's obvious to me that debt is the problem, it's apparently not obvious to most people.

That is the first time in this series that I've gone from correlation to causation. Even though I've known for thirty years that debt is the problem, the move still bothers me. Because while it's obvious to me that debt is the problem, it's apparently not obvious to most people.

That is the first time in this series that I've gone from correlation to causation. The move still bothers me, even though I've known for thirty years that debt is the problem. Because while it's obvious to me that debt is the problem, it's apparently not obvious to most people.

That is the first time in this series that I've gone from correlation to causation. The move still bothers me, even though I've known for thirty years that debt is the problem. Because, while it's obvious to me that debt is the problem, it's not obvious to everybody.

That is the first time in this series that I've gone from correlation to causation. The move still bothers me, even though I've known for thirty years that debt is the problem. Because it's obvious to me, but it's not obvious to everyone.

That is the first time in this series that I've gone from correlation to causation. The move still bothers me, even though I've known for thirty years that debt is the problem.

Friday, April 1, 2016

"Literally"

From On the Mechanics of Economic Development by Robert E. Lucas, Jr:
"The diversity across countries in measured per capita income levels is literally too great to be believed."
So Lucas is saying: Yeah, we measure per capita income levels, and we get results, but our results must be no good because we cannot believe -- we literally cannot believe -- those results are right.

I literally do not believe this is what Mr. Lucas meant to say.

Wednesday, March 23, 2016

Le mot juste


"Simulation" maybe?


So ... if the word comes from the late 20th century or the 1980s ... how come the "use over time" graph shows more use in the 19th century and less in the 20th?

Screw it. I'll just use "sim" to mean "simulation".