Random links
- Live Below the Line: Meals and Menus for Under 1 Pound Per Day
- A cookbook covering the sort of foods that might be close to your budget if you were living at the global poverty line. What the book Poor Economics got into is that the biggest issue for the global poor may not be calories but boredom. (Things like grain subsidies actually seem to cause much of the poor to get less of it, and nutritionally complete diet often aren't what the poor choose as they can be a bit weird and not-overly-tasty sounding). Of course, living on about $1.50/day in this manner assumes a stable income, not the fluctuations you might find in reality - for the poor borrowing and saving is often quite a difficult task. Even with microfinance interest rates are quite high.
- Veiling
- The abstract: "Veiling among Muslim women is modeled as a commitment mechanism that limits temptation to deviate from religious norms of behavior. Our analysis suggests that veiling is a strategy for integration, enabling women to take up outside economic opportunities while preserving their reputation within the community. This accounts for puzzling features of the new veiling movement since the 1970s. Veiling also has surprising e?ects on the intergenerational transmission of values. Compulsory veiling laws can lead to a decline in religiosity. Bans on veiling can inhibit social integration and increase religiosity." (Interestingly, in a variety of Islamic-majority country there are some anti-veiling government policies in place.
- Stephen Harper and the tyranny of majority government
- This G&M opinion piece is a bit overblown, but I also happen to prefer minority governments. I don't really care much for government funding of advocacy organizations - it seems to introduce too much of a political bias - but at least keeping things like the ombudsman's office and environmental review processes intact would seem to be a good thing. I wondering if the elimination of the "civil society" would be more agreeable if doing it somewhat along the lines of the public funding model for elections. That'd still leave a status quo bias in place as far as funding is concerned, but might nonetheless be better than the status quo.
- Why efficiency is smarter than renewables
- "If we ... have $1 to spend,better that it be spent on energy efficiency than on clean energy. That’s not way things work now. Today, wind and solar power get generous tax breaks and subsidies. Energy efficiency investments do not. The government has it exactly backward. ... The problem with clean energy is that electricity from wind turbines or solar panel, as a rule, costs more than power generated by burning coal or natural gas. ... over time the higher costs of clean energy create a drag on economic growth, whether they are paid by the government or by energy users. By contrast, money spent on efficiency reduces costs over time."