How can Ed Glaeser write about 'treating the seller of kidneys with respect' and 'capable of choosing for himself or herself even in difficult circumstances' 150 years after Marx explained all about economic coercion? Would he treat the choice of this girl (scroll to end) with respect, too? It is all very well to value any contract when the valuer has never had to 'enter into an inequitable arrangement out of fear of starvation, or economic ruin', or at least if the inequitableness always stayed small enough. Also check out Eric's comment: The point is that while economics may be in theory non-normative, it often doesn't stay that way in practice.
- Relying on charity, including government charity, does not count as an out from economic coercion if the charity is the Dickensian kind, as is very often the case.
- In contrast to XVII-XIXc. western Europe and Britain, economic coercion was much less acute in America because of easy availability of land to farm, prairie to ranch and forest to fell. This might have blinded American economists to economic coercion.
- won't advance astrophysics on a broad front, instruments not likely to be useful for much else (experiment vs observatory);
- large collaboration culture of fundamental physics experiments will scare away young talent looking to make an original contribution;
- negative impact on astronomy's image as "ambassador of physics" because subject too abstract and removed from everyday experience.
IQ negatively associated with criminality at individual level (review) and at county level. Association "not confounded by a measure of concentrated disadvantage that captures the effects of race, poverty, and other social disadvantages of the county."
This has to be part of the theory of the modern state: a government cutting off communications from fear of public protests produces a strong and public signal that makes protests more likely to occur and to succeed by overcoming protesters' communication problems for them at a stroke.