Econ, Hip Hop, & Liberty



Finally got 2.17% sensitivity!!!!

Pathetic, I know but I’m taking victories where I can find them.



Blu & Exile - Dancing In the Rain

Seattle, baby. Mothafuck a struggle, we dancin in the rain

Source: oh-beatriz



Method Man & Redman  - Da Rockwilder

Get the fuck up for this one

Source: hip-hop-lifestyle

So, the assignment in my financial econometrics class is to come up with the best model for predicting bank failure using either a logit or probit model. It’s going to be judged on sensitivity and specificity which can be seen on the lower table below lstat. I keep changing the model and creating new variables, but it never improves sensitivity and usually slightly harms specificity. 

Basically I need to get as close as I can to 200, and I’m stuck at 100 with 100% specificity but 0% sensitivity. 

What am I doing wrong?!?!?! 


Classic song, classic album.

New Everything

My whole Ayn Rand like tumblr is too pretentious for the stuff I really want to post. So this blog will remain econ focused but also feature other stuff. Mostly the same except a lot more good hip hop and hopefully more original posts. So no more creating atlantis just me, the capital monster

The railroads, writes historian Edward Ayers, “neither wanted to police Southern race relations and then be sued for it nor to run extra cars [to segregate black passengers from white passengers]. It was clear that white Southerners could not count on the railroads to take matters in hand” by blocking or expelling black passengers from their first-class cars. ”Some whites came to blame the railroads for the problem, says Ayers, “for it seemed to them that the corporations as usual were putting profits ahead of the welfare of the region.” The critics were mostly right. The railroads were not civil-rights pioneers but contract-bound, profit-seeking businesses for whom commerce was a “universal solvent.” Outraged southern legislators, who already resented the railroads’ economic power, passed laws requiring segregated accommodations. (It was one of these laws, passed by Louisiana in 1892, that the U.S. Supreme Court upheld in the famous “separate but equal” case, Plessy v. Ferguson.) Combining the technocratic lust to regulate business with the reactionary zeal to preserve social stability, Jim Crow laws imposed static definitions on a dynamic commercial culture inclined to treat customers as “colorless, odorless, and timeless.”
Virginia Postrel, The Future and Its Enemies (via laliberty)
Stop Saying "Unarmed Black Man"


I know this stopped being relevant to people’s interests about two weeks ago, but it wasn’t until now that I realized this was a problem.

Very frequently, when a cop perforates some innocent black kid and the media decides to actually care, the victim’s family and friends…

Source: anarchyinblack

look over there!


The federal government is telling you to be afraid of ISIS, a group of ‘terrorists’ who have declared themselves Iraq’s new government, 7 thousand miles away.

This is the same federal government who arms it’s nations police with military equipment (you’re at least 8 times more likely to be…

The Debate over "Administered Pricing"


Blogger Lord Keynes made a post last year on Gardiner Means’ theory of “administered pricing.” LK explains the concept:

Administered price theory was developed in the early 1930s, and noted how many industrial prices are deliberately set by private businesses, tend to be relatively




Scotland voters are to the left of the UK population and they receive more in benefits than they pay in. So why do people want them to stay?

Britain loses access to their claim of the North Sea Oil if Scotland secedes. Scotland is the biggest producer of gas in the EU.

Kind of hope it happens. I always tend to lean in favor of any action that decentralizes power.

In principle I agree, it’s always great to see a move toward decentralization. Yet on the other hand I think both places will be worse off from this. Britain loses out on energy and Scotland loses out on all the benefits from Britain’s most productive. My guess is that if it goes through there will still be extensive and generous deals between the two in trade and finance to mitigate uncertainty from the change. Like an energy for cash special deal.


Scotland voters are to the left of the UK population and they receive more in benefits than they pay in. So why do people want them to stay?

Britain loses access to their claim of the North Sea Oil if Scotland secedes. Scotland is the biggest producer of gas in the EU.



From the ISO’s kick-off forum “Why You Should Join the Socialists & Change the World”.

"Starbucks baristas make about $9/hr. If they make 3 drinks for $5 each, they pay for their hour of their labor & supplies. At 5 drinks they pay for themselves & a coworker. At 10 the whole store for an hour. At peak hours they make 2-300 drinks & see none of the profits. Every drink after 3 is theft."

Firstly, does each separate employee at Starbucks really make one drink every 18 seconds (60*60/200 = 18) for the entire time they’re working? That sounds like a gross exaggeration.

Secondly (this is so obvious it’s embarrassing to point it out) to make a coffee involves an enormous production process. The milk, the sugar, the coffee beans, the machines, the building, the land, the machines that made the machines, the transportation costs, the plastic for the cup, the machines that made the buildings for the chemicals that produced the plastic, and so on—all of these costs come together to form the price. Are you really so dense that you think the person who assembles the final pieces together is wholly entitled to the value of the coffee?

Thirdly, have you actually bothered to look at the real profit margins? Starbucks makes a margin of about 12%. Not 11000%, 12%. And this 12% is a quasi-rent (it doesn’t include the sunk costs), over the long-run the “true” profit is only the rate of interest which is normally around 3%. It’s unreal that someone could be this stupid.

Source: dentonsocialists


Millions of citizens nationwide could be heard muttering “God, why are you so stupid?” to themselves after realizing they had looked to an elected official for some kind of solution.

Private vs. the Public Option: The “Rule of Two”

Evidence that the private sector is so much more efficient than the public sector led economist Thomas Borcherding (The Sources of Growth in Public Expenditures in the U.S., 1902-1970, Duke University Press, 1977) to conclude a “Bureaucratic Rule of Two: Removal of an activity from the private sector to the public sector will double its unit costs of production.” The astounding claim of “Rule of Two” is a testable hypothesis, one that Professors James T. Bennett and Manuel H. Johnson, who later became Vice Chair of the Federal Reserve, set out to examine with real world empirical evidence (see Better Government at Half the Price, 1981).

Bennett and Johnson evaluated a wide range of services and found the following examples:

  • Private refuse collection firms provided twice the service at half the cost;
  • Private fire service firms operated at half the costs of public fire departments;
  • Private debt collectors could operate at 40% of the cost of a government agency;
  • It costs the government three times more to repair a similar sized ship than a commercial ship repair enterprise;
  • Federal hydroelectric plants were significantly higher cost to operate and had nearly 50% more employees;
  • Private airlines consistently outperformed government-owned airlines, leading to sweeping trend of deregulation across the globe;
  • Weather forecasting costs were cut in half when a portion of the costs were outsourced to a private firm;
  • Policing services, and more commonly, private ambulance services, undercut the cost of publicly provided services; and
  • Amid the falling quality of public schools and calls for vouchers, there is evidence that public institutions employ 40% more labor than private institutions.