Public Intellectuals - Revision history

Erasmuse at 21:58, 2 April 2021

2021-04-02T21:58:33Z

Erasmuse at 21:56, 2 April 2021

2021-04-02T21:56:08Z

Erasmuse at 21:47, 2 April 2021

2021-04-02T21:47:24Z

Erasmuse at 21:31, 2 April 2021

2021-04-02T21:31:56Z

Erasmuse at 21:26, 2 April 2021

2021-04-02T21:26:51Z

Erasmuse at 14:21, 2 April 2021

2021-04-02T14:21:50Z

Erasmuse at 14:20, 2 April 2021

2021-04-02T14:20:43Z

Erasmuse: Created page with "Check here later for thoughts on Alex Tabarrok and Schumpeter and the Policy Entrepreneur."

2021-04-01T14:58:08Z

Created page with "Check here later for thoughts on Alex Tabarrok and Schumpeter and the Policy Entrepreneur."

New page

Check here later for thoughts on Alex Tabarrok and Schumpeter and the Policy Entrepreneur.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-==The 2020 Alex Tabarrok Example, with Covid]]
+==The 2020 Alex Tabarrok Example, with Covid==
 George Mason economics professor Alexander Tabarrok has vigorously advocated for intelligent covid-19 vaccination policies. His ideas are not profound, but they are startling to simple folk-- things like "Instead of giving 100 people two shots of vaccine, how about giving 200 people one shot each, since 95% effectiveness is not all that much better than 80%?"  Ezra Klein wrote a New York Times op-ed about him titled,[https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/01/opinion/covid-vaccine.html  "Are We Much Too Timid in the Way We Fight Covid-19? The debate among doctors, epidemiologists and economists is still going strong"] (it's NYT, but not gated). Tyler Cowen has an April 1, 2021 Marginal Revolution post titled [https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2021/04/in-praise-of-alex-tabarrok.html "In praise of Alex Tabarrok"]  about his efforts.  The comments to Cowen's blogpost are worth looking at. Some people note that Professor Tabarrok's ideas are not profound or original. That is true, but it's beside the point. What matters is the vigor with which he has advocated for them.
@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 That's what Professor Tabarrok has done. He's kept advocating for good vaccination policy, despite being mostly ignored. And, in the end, some policymakers are listening. Bravo!

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:56, 2 April 2021
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+
		+	==The 2020 Alex Tabarrok Example, with Covid]]
	George Mason economics professor Alexander Tabarrok has vigorously advocated for intelligent covid-19 vaccination policies. His ideas are not profound, but they are startling to simple folk-- things like "Instead of giving 100 people two shots of vaccine, how about giving 200 people one shot each, since 95% effectiveness is not all that much better than 80%?" Ezra Klein wrote a New York Times op-ed about him titled,[https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/01/opinion/covid-vaccine.html "Are We Much Too Timid in the Way We Fight Covid-19? The debate among doctors, epidemiologists and economists is still going strong"] (it's NYT, but not gated). Tyler Cowen has an April 1, 2021 Marginal Revolution post titled [https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2021/04/in-praise-of-alex-tabarrok.html "In praise of Alex Tabarrok"] about his efforts. The comments to Cowen's blogpost are worth looking at. Some people note that Professor Tabarrok's ideas are not profound or original. That is true, but it's beside the point. What matters is the vigor with which he has advocated for them.		George Mason economics professor Alexander Tabarrok has vigorously advocated for intelligent covid-19 vaccination policies. His ideas are not profound, but they are startling to simple folk-- things like "Instead of giving 100 people two shots of vaccine, how about giving 200 people one shot each, since 95% effectiveness is not all that much better than 80%?" Ezra Klein wrote a New York Times op-ed about him titled,[https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/01/opinion/covid-vaccine.html "Are We Much Too Timid in the Way We Fight Covid-19? The debate among doctors, epidemiologists and economists is still going strong"] (it's NYT, but not gated). Tyler Cowen has an April 1, 2021 Marginal Revolution post titled [https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2021/04/in-praise-of-alex-tabarrok.html "In praise of Alex Tabarrok"] about his efforts. The comments to Cowen's blogpost are worth looking at. Some people note that Professor Tabarrok's ideas are not profound or original. That is true, but it's beside the point. What matters is the vigor with which he has advocated for them.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-George Mason economics professor Alexander Tabarrok has vigorously advocated for intelligent covid-19 vaccination policies. His ideas are not profound, but they are startling to simple folk-- things like "Instead of giving 100 people two shots of vaccine, how about giving 200 people one shot each, since 95% effectiveness is not all that much better than 80%?"
+George Mason economics professor Alexander Tabarrok has vigorously advocated for intelligent covid-19 vaccination policies. His ideas are not profound, but they are startling to simple folk-- things like "Instead of giving 100 people two shots of vaccine, how about giving 200 people one shot each, since 95% effectiveness is not all that much better than 80%?"  Ezra Klein wrote a New York Times op-ed about him titled,[https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/01/opinion/covid-vaccine.html  "Are We Much Too Timid in the Way We Fight Covid-19? The debate among doctors, epidemiologists and economists is still going strong"] (it's NYT, but not gated). Tyler Cowen has an April 1, 2021 Marginal Revolution post titled [https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2021/04/in-praise-of-alex-tabarrok.html "In praise of Alex Tabarrok"]  about his efforts.  The comments to Cowen's blogpost are worth looking at. Some people note that Professor Tabarrok's ideas are not profound or original. That is true, but it's beside the point. What matters is the vigor with which he has advocated for them.
 <blockquote style="color: green">
-the leader type. It is no part of his function to “find” or to “create” new possibilities. They are always present, abundantly accumulated by all sorts of people. Often they are also generally known and being discussed by scientific or literary writers. In other cases, there is nothing to discover about them, because they are quite obvious.
+It is no part of his function to “find” or to “create” new possibilities. They are always present, abundantly accumulated by all sorts of people. Often they are also generally known and being discussed by scientific or literary writers. In other cases, there is nothing to discover about them, because they are quite obvious.
 What is to be done in a casual emergency is as a rule quite simple. Most or all people may see it, yet they want someone to speak out, to lead, and to organise. ... It is, therefore, more by will than by intellect that the leaders fulfil their function, more by “authority,” “personal weight,” and so forth than by original ideas.
 Economic leadership in particular must hence be distinguished from “invention.” As long as they are not carried into practice, inventions are economically irrelevant. And to carry any improvement into effect is a task entirely different from the inventing of it, and a task, moreover, requiring entirely different kinds of aptitudes.
 It has none of that glamour which characterises other kinds of leadership. It consists in fulfilling a very special task which only in rare cases appeals to the imagination of the public. For its success, keenness and vigor are not more essential than a certain narrowness which seizes the immediate chance and nothing else.
- </blockquote>
+</blockquote>

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:31, 2 April 2021
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	George Mason economics professor Alexander Tabarrok has vigorously advocated for intelligent covid-19 vaccination policies. His ideas are not profound, but they are startling to simple folk-- things like "Instead of giving 100 people two shots of vaccine, how about giving 200 people one shot each, since 95% effectiveness is not all that much better than 80%?"
		+
		+
	Check here later for thoughts on Alex Tabarrok and Schumpeter and the Policy Entrepreneur.		Check here later for thoughts on Alex Tabarrok and Schumpeter and the Policy Entrepreneur.
	<blockquote style="color: green">		<blockquote style="color: green">

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 Check here later for thoughts on Alex Tabarrok and Schumpeter and the Policy Entrepreneur.
- the leader type. It is no part of his function to “find” or to “create” new possibilities. They are always present, abundantly accumulated by all sorts of people. Often they are also generally known and being discussed by scientific or literary writers. In other cases, there is nothing to discover about them, because they are quite obvious.
+What is to be done in a casual emergency is as a rule quite simple. Most or all people may see it, yet they want someone to speak out, to lead, and to organise. ... It is, therefore, more by will than by intellect that the leaders fulfil their function, more by “authority,” “personal weight,” and so forth than by original ideas.
 Economic leadership in particular must hence be distinguished from “invention.” As long as they are not carried into practice, inventions are economically irrelevant. And to carry any improvement into effect is a task entirely different from the inventing of it, and a task, moreover, requiring entirely different kinds of aptitudes.
- It has none of that glamour which characterises other kinds of leadership. It consists in fulfilling a very special task which only in rare cases appeals to the imagination of the public. For its success, keenness and vigor are not more essential than a certain narrowness which seizes the immediate chance and nothing else.
+It has none of that glamour which characterises other kinds of leadership. It consists in fulfilling a very special task which only in rare cases appeals to the imagination of the public. For its success, keenness and vigor are not more essential than a certain narrowness which seizes the immediate chance and nothing else.

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:20, 2 April 2021
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Check here later for thoughts on Alex Tabarrok and Schumpeter and the Policy Entrepreneur.		Check here later for thoughts on Alex Tabarrok and Schumpeter and the Policy Entrepreneur.
		+
		+	the leader type. It is no part of his function to “find” or to “create” new possibilities. They are always present, abundantly accumulated by all sorts of people. Often they are also generally known and being discussed by scientific or literary writers. In other cases, there is nothing to discover about them, because they are quite obvious. To take an example from political life, it was not at all difficult to see how the social and political conditions of France at the time of Louis XVI could have been improved so as to avoid a breakdown of the ancien regime. Plenty of people as a matter of fact did see it. But nobody was in a position to do it. Now, it is this “doing the thing,” without which possibilities are dead, of which the leader’s function consists. This holds good of all kinds of leadership, ephemeral as well as more enduring ones. The former may serve as an instance. What is to be done in a casual emergency is as a rule quite simple. Most or all people may see it, yet they want someone to speak out, to lead, and to organise. Even leadership which influences merely by example, as artistic or scientific leadership, does not consist simply in finding or creating the new thing but in so impressing the social group with it as to draw it on in its wake. It is, therefore, more by will than by intellect that the leaders fulfil their function, more by “authority,” “personal weight,” and so forth than by original ideas.
		+
		+	Economic leadership in particular must hence be distinguished from “invention.” As long as they are not carried into practice, inventions are economically irrelevant. And to carry any improvement into effect is a task entirely different from the inventing of it, and a task, moreover, requiring entirely different kinds of aptitudes. Although entrepreneurs of course may be inventors just as they may be capitalists, they are inventors not by nature of their function but by coincidence and vice versa. Besides, the innovations which it is the function of entrepreneurs to carry out need not necessarily be any inventions at all. It is, therefore, not advisable, and it may be downright misleading, to stress the element of invention as much as many writers do.
		+
		+	... It has none of that glamour which characterises other kinds of leadership. It consists in fulfilling a very special task which only in rare cases appeals to the imagination of the public. For its success, keenness and vigor are not more essential than a certain narrowness which seizes the immediate chance and nothing else.