Rethinking Markets

I thought these two articles, written a week apart, are kind of amazing. Here’s the NYT on NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who is in his (hopefully?) last term as mayor:

In a speech on Wednesday in Singapore, where he received a prize for urban sustainability, Mr. Bloomberg spoke about the difficulties of leading a city into the future amid a political culture that is often focused on the short term.

The mayor noted that technology, despite its benefits, can add new pitfalls to an already grueling process. “Social media is going to make it even more difficult to make long-term investments” in cities, Mr. Bloomberg said.

“We are basically having a referendum on every single thing that we do every day,” he said. “And it’s very hard for people to stand up to that and say, ‘No, no, this is what we’re going to do,’ when there’s constant criticism, and an election process that you have to look forward to and face periodically.”

Later, Mr. Bloomberg noted that long-term urban planning “requires leadership, and standing up, and saying, ‘You know, you elected me, this is what we’re going to do,’ and not take a referendum on every single thing.”

And then, a week later, we have another article on Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel:

At a time when the nation is only beginning to pull itself painfully and delicately out of a deep recession, and when cities and states are cutting essential services and wondering how to keep the courthouses open and the lights on, an infrastructure proposal for a single city with an estimated cost in the billions — with a “b” — is audacious. Mr. Emanuel, in an interview, suggested that nothing less than this “integrated, comprehensive approach” will do for what he calls “building a new Chicago.”

With the plan, Chicago is taking a leading role among cities and states struggling to keep their infrastructure from crumbling further but frustrated with legislative gridlock in Washington, said Robert Puentes, director of the metropolitan infrastructure initiative at the Brookings Institution.

“There is tremendous interest in doing something different — people aren’t waiting for the federal government to raise the gasoline tax or pass the carbon tax and have money raining down,” he said. He cited successful campaigns in “can-do states” that include Colorado, Washington, Arizona and Virginia to finance economic development projects with public-private partnerships, and Los Angeles’ vote in support of a major transportation referendum in 2008.

IMHO, Emanuel comes out looking much better that my current mayor. Bloomberg looks like a guy who is more worried about critics than actually having a plan for the city (which is, not surprisingly, a consistent criticism of him as mayor). But whatever your politics, it does seem amazing that we are currently at a place where we can do amazing, long-term planning; and also a place where we can’t possibly do anything.

I have no patience for religious nutjobs who hide their discrimination behind religious doctrine. And a big screw you to Mayor Bloomberg, who could have taken the opportunity to say that treating women as less-than-equal people is wrong, but instead simply said that it was inappropriate on a ‘public’ bus.

The clash is not between religious and women’s rights. The clash is between a modern world where women are treated as full people, and a pre-modern world where women are simply less than men. We’re not going back, people.

“As demonstrated by the protagonists in The Big Short, the collapse of the housing market was not inevitable. The entire system of mortgage and lending was based on completely unstable foundations, but investors were too blind with greed to notice. They could have learned from the LTCM debacle 10 years prior that commensuration of risk is impossible, even if it seems lucrative at first. I learned an important lesson about commensuration of risk today because I took the risk of not reading The Big Short and now I am screwed and really have nothing else to say. “

You fucking moron, Democrats are doing poorly because the economy is in the shitter. Full stop.

I’ve been reading Karen Pryor’s Don’t Shoot the Dog, about positive reinforcement and dog people training. I’m going to try out a new thing for my class this fall, what I am calling the League of Discussion Awesomeness. One of my biggest issues is how to balance discussion and lecture, and more specifically (given the admissions office-selected student body) how to get great discussion out of my students. I am of the strong belief that while different students have different styles, and one of those styles is to listen intently but not participate directly in class. And I simply reject that style. I’m done being the teapot, and my students should be done being the receptacle.

But this means that I run into the problem of some students dominating discussion, with others hanging waaaayy back. And as anyone who has been in the Q&A of any sociology talk on any level, an often-talker is not necessarily a thinking-talker. So how to get lots of high quality discussion across the board. This semester, instead of the normal guesstimating points for participation, I’m going with the League of Discussion Awesomeness. Being in the LoDA guarantees you full marks for participation. And so much more!

Initially, getting into the LoDA for a class means just speaking up in class. But then, a couple weeks in, I’m going to make getting into the LoDA something that requires nomination from your fellow students. When someone makes a ‘LoDA worthy’ comment, students can respond by putting their finger up against their nose. A floor of 3 votes (or something, I’ll calibrate as we go) to start, maybe with the number of votes going up as the semester progresses.

This (hopefully) will have three effects. One, it will create a positive incentive for participation – LoDA gets grades, accolades, maybe even a cash prize or something. Two, it will allow fellow students to have a hand in shaping participation. A big complaint at places like Barnard/Columbia is that everyone thinks they are smart and everyone else talks about trivial, personal, or not-on-point stuff. The voting for high quality discussion – a ‘smart’ comment – allows students to vote for quality over quantity. And three, it will send a signal to the high-quantity, low-quality discussants that their comments are not being received as godly wisdom. Hopefully, this will encourage students to participate more, and participate smarter.

I’m still working out the details, but does this sound like a viable plan? Am I missing something gigantic?

Summertime is when the Galia Melons are in season:

If you haven’t been doing it already, you should be taking this opportunity to eat your favorite melons, stone fruits, or fresh figs, brie & prosciutto. Eat watermelon! Save the apples and oranges for October and December. Live in the hot.