X-Envelope-to: politics@ohstvma.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"politics@ohstvma"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 6 Oct 1992 08:37:00 EST
From:         ZIMMERJ@WABASH.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Just as Carl has Quieted Down

>From: Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>

>For the record, I was on Jamie's mailing list.  That, BTW, is the
>correct spelling.  And I read Jamie's remarks to your criticisms, and
>the one post of yours which Peter forwarded along.  It was quite clear
>to me (though I am just a physicist) as well as to the economists (if I
>may be so bold as to speak for them) and, it seems, to the rest of us
>who were lurking that Jamie did indeed address your points.

I'm not sure about this, but I don't think I ever said that Jamie NEVER
adressed my points.  He did.  The problem was that his responses were merely
variations upon the same arguments I had already answered.  For example (its
been a while, so correct me if I screw up this paraphrase), he had originally
argued that in his hypothetical example (which was of highly dubious relevence
to reality) firms maximized profits by discriminating.  When I pointed out that
profit maximizing firms would never abide by such a covenant, he just reverted
back to arguing that firms would collude to punish independent-minded firms, a
claim which begs the question under consideration (whether firms could collude
like this in the first place) and which I had adressed posts and posts ago.

> In fact,
>his remarks were quite compelling.

Yes, but after hearing them enough, they lose thier novelty.

> Now what you may have sent Jamie
>that you didn't send to the rest of us, I can't remark upon,

To my knowledge, I didn't send *anything* to Jamie that the rest of you didn't
get.  Or let me put it this way: everything I sent to Jaime, I fully expected
the rest of you to receive as well.  I was under the impression that in
replying to Jamie's post, the rest of his list received it as well, but I guess
I was wrong (an e-mail expert I am not :) ).  In any case, I pointed out that
his arguments were repititious and that that was why we would never be able to
reach agreement.  I mentioned that having debated Jamie several times during
the summer, I was surprised by this; I had always found him to be a very
skilled debater before, but little of that skill was showing in the latter
stages of the current debate.

>but in the
>post that got distributed, you showed no evidence, studies, or reports
>(of the billions you claim exist) to support your stand.

I think I did much earlier, but let me refer you simply to Kruger, "The
Economics of Labor Markets."  This is a text which adresses my claims and
contains empirics to back them up.  I also referred Jamie (and the rest of his
list, I thought) to "Markets and Minorities" by Thomas Sowell.

>>Being a student of economics, I know beyond any doubt that I am right on this
>>point.

>You aren't the only student of economics on this list

I hope not!  :)

Regardless, I know that Jamie is certainly not a student of economics.  Over
the summer I had to explain to him that an increase in the tax rate has no
direct effect on the money supply, which he erroneously believed.  Also, I had
to explain to him what it meant to shift a supply or demand curve.  I didn't
mind this, especially since Jamie had been such an otherwise thoughtful
opponent and seemed genuinely interested in knowing what he was talking about.
However, in the last argument, he showed far less interest in actually
understanding why he was wrong, seeing as how he simply ignored the sources to
which I referred him (see above).

I'm not sure of Jamie's knowledge of game theory, but he never seriously
rebutted my claim that profit maximizing firms would break his convention.  I
openly admit that I know only a little game theory, but it seems to me that his
hypothetical example's real-world relevence is refuted by the existence of the
basic "Prisoner's Delimma" (which was what I was trying to argue earlier, but
didn't remember the name of the phenomenon I was thinking of -- I don't mind
occasionally looking up info I'm not that familiar with).  I know Jamie never
explained why this isn't an analogous situation.

>                              -Tim

>p.s.:  you can have the last word, Jason, but do satisfy my
>       curiosity as to the extent of your authority - let us
>       know how long you have been a student of economics.

I'm currently a Junior undergrad, which is more than enough to know that
discrimination is, in fact, costly to firms (this is not an argument that
requires much high-powered analysis).  This is also more than enough to be able
to interpret the empirics relating to this issue.  This is also more than
enough to know that most economists back me on this (I cited a few for support).

If you or Jamie would like to asses qualifications, please reciprocate and let
me know how much econ the two of you have studied.  I have no qualms about
revealing my background, because I know that everything I've learned
(literally) supports me.  If you two know something I don't, I encourage you to
bring it out into the open (although this really should have been done a long
time ago).

Likewise, if any graduate/professional economist reads this and disagrees that
firms which discriminate in hiring incur an opportunity cost in doing so,
*please* let me know.  Such a claim would be genuinely intriguing and might
change my mind if it came from someone who actually knew what they were talking
about.

Jason
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU