amateurpolymath

I don't see this as evidence that economists => inequality. Even if we accept the notion that economists are directly responsible for growing inequality, it's worth remembering that there are disagreements within their ranks.

I would argue this is when most economists lost influence in Washington, while a few like Art Laffer gained massive influence. The New Deal era prior to this was largely motivated by the work of noted economist John Maynard Keynes. Although the causality is debated, the New Deal was followed by recovery and economic growth. Economists gained influence in the public sphere because of the effectiveness, real or imagined, or "Keynesian" economic policy. These folks had lost sway in Washington by the early 70s due to the stagflation crisis[1] and the collapse of the "New Deal coalition" after the tumultuous 1968 presidential election.

The late 1970s was dominated by the ideas of economists like Art Laffer, who took an uncontroversial economic idea "tax revenue is maximized at some point between 0% and 100%" and turned it into "the tax revenue maximizing rate must be lower than our current rate" without presenting sufficient evidence for his claim. This was a convenient for some in Washington who already believed this to be true, and thus the "Laffer curve" was born. The following era of deregulation and lower taxes on the wealthy likely played a large role in increasing income inequality.

[1] The causes of stagflation are still debated, but I am convinced this was directly caused by the OPEC oil cartel using it's market power to quickly inflate the price of oil by 400%, creating a massive supply shock that started the stagflation spiral.

In the US, our democratic process has delegated all these roles to regulatory agencies that are staffed with economists. The FTC, FCC, Justice Dept., etc. all employ many PhD economists. Whether their bosses and the politicians listen to their recommendations is another matter.

Whether people are upset by price discrimination or not depends on how it is perceived. For example, no one seems upset at discounts for seniors, students, or military, despite this being a form of price discrimination.

To your second point, customers often do try to fool vendors into thinking they are in the consumer group that is offered lower prices. As an example, non-students use their old student IDs all the time.

Re: correlation with a legally protected class, this can be solved with marketing. Price discrimination based directly on gender would be illegal. But if you put one product in a blue box in the "men's" section and one in a pink box in the "women's" section, consumers will self-select. This is very common with razors, soap, and other such products.

Lastly regarding your edit, if a consumer pays his or her reservation price they are left with zero surplus. But that doesn't mean the transaction was pointless. The consumer gets the consumption value of the product. I'm willing to pay at most $2 for a bottle of Coke. That's my reservation price. If I'm offered a Coke for $2, and no vendor offering a lower price is available, I will pay that price and enjoy the Coke.

> Intelligence is the capacity to achieve your goals. Intelligence is highly heritable. A goal of most people is to become wealthy. So people who acquire wealth tend to be much more intelligent than average, as wealth is graded on a curve

That is an impressive syllogism you've got there.

I've taught many MBAs and I can attest to their disappointing analytical skills. However, a company like Amazon already has plenty of analytically skilled employees. What they need from the MBAs are their management skills. I suspect Amazon is particularly targeting those MBAs who have experience with operations and supply chain management experience. At Amazon's scale, even a small reduction in costs is worth the cost of hiring all these MBAs.

My impression when reading this was that the author intended it to be taken seriously. It is written with a decidedly "academic" tone. However, it is very light on actual research and evidence. Author says "Humans are inherently cooperative" is a bias on the Left. Where does this come from? More unsourced claims that strike me as suspect: "Respect for the strong/authority" is a bias on the Right. Women have more "Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness."

I can't help but wonder how the author would respond to having zero men awaiting her swipe.

> Monopolies don't last.

This is simply untrue.

I think many people who are physically unable to take a hike (disabled, elderly, ill, etc.) would appreciate a VR system that can closely mimic a real hike.

Also, if a VR system can perform well as a hiking simulator it would be able to realistically simulate things that don't exist, places that are too difficult/expensive for an average person to visit, or experiences that are too dangerous to attempt in reality.

EDIT: For example, I'd love to visit the moon or Mars but it's highly unlikely I'll ever be able to physically go there. A highly immersive VR simulation would be very appealing to me!

This stuff is rampant because the incentives are there. Academia values original publications all else. Tenure, promotion, and respect of your peers depends almost entirely on publication in academic journals. Doing replications is not considered original and often raises the ire of more senior members of your field (the ones you're probably criticizing). In fact, making your research difficult to replicate is probably a smart career move --- no one can come along and use your data to publish something better!

Until replicability is required by top journals, and replications are appropriately valued by these fields, you'll continue to see this kind of drek trotted out.

Publish or perish.

I don't see the problem. Fred can sell his time/labor to make up the difference. If that is not possible for some reason, Fred could also default on the debt. Then the lender takes what she can get and learns not to make loans that cannot be repaid.

No, it is predicated on the assumption that $500 at time t is worth $600 at time t+1.

I was homeschooled my entire life. I taught myself how to read as a toddler, so my parents decided that I needed to have a great education. However, they had no faith in public education and no money for private school. I'm currently finishing up a Ph.D. and have a healthy social life, so I consider homeschooling a success in my case. My thoughts, in case anyone is interested:

I imagine it is much easier to homeschool now that PCs and the internet are ubiquitous. My mom had to do a lot of work assembling curricula and sifting through textbooks that would be much easier today.

Homeschooling works better in groups. It ends up being like a regular school environment but with much smaller class sizes and heavier investment by the teachers. In my teens, my group met on Saturdays for a long intense literature class, Mondays for most other classes, and individually for math. Naturally we had lots of reading and homework to do the rest of the week. Some of the "classes" I took were more in-depth than my university courses.

Homeschooling taught me my most valuable skill: how to teach myself. I taught myself algebra because I didn't like the way it was explained to me (textbooks offered more rigor). I read lots of classic literature in my spare time, taught myself how to touch type, play guitar, etc.

The biggest downside was not having a guidance counselor. No one in my family had been to college, and that led to me making dumb mistakes in the college application process (like not applying to top schools because they were too expensive, not knowing they offered substantial need-based financial aid). I also struggled to learn to program on my own.