Just a few more things on my mind.

This mention of growth of the Chinese hat industry sticks out at me, only because I happen to know a guy who heavily invested in hat factories in China, buying up a few factories back in May or June. He must be doing very well, now!

Here's an interesting article pointing out that helping developing countries (in particular, countries to the south of us) is beneficial to the United States, due to positive impacts on trade. It's a point that most people outside of Economics haven't understood, it seems.

While I don't agree with everything the Economic Policy Institute believes, I think their post-election letter, Wall Street rescue plan, and their agenda for "Shared Prosperty" are interesting reads.

For students of Economics

The Economics Help blog poses a question--is Economics irrelevant if there is no scarcity? The answer seems to be yes. It's an interesting thought question, certainly.

And, some links about how a degree in Economics can help you.

2.79 Quintillion.

That's Zimbabwe's inflation rate. Yowza! That's 2,790,000,000,000,000,000%. I didn't even know what came after quadrillion! That's just a ludicrous number. I half expect the Cato Institute to update the page with, "Just kidding!" Oh, and the link goes to a new blog in the econoblogsphere, Crisis Talk. When they linked their source on the 29th, it was 10 quadrillion percent.

The WSJ shows that states in which housing prices have fallen are voting for Obama, and states in which housing prices have risen are voting for McCain. I wonder if the economy as a major issue drove states to vote for Obama, or if states predisposed to voting for McCain have more responsible lenders.

Robert Shiller at the NYT talks about Greenspan's self-admitted mistake. Though Greenspan says that their models did not predict the housing bubble, Shiller points out that people hinted at it, but the warnings were ignored. Contrary views are unpopular, and when you're a policy maker, you are less likely to want to risk your job with contrary views.

Mark Perry at Carpe Diem quotes an energy economist who claims that oil will go down to $20-25. It's around $66 now, and it was $140 not too long ago. I find it difficult to believe it will go down to $20.

Congratulations, Paul Krugman, and Thank You

If you've been paying any attention to the econoblogosphere, or to a number of other news sources, you've heard that Paul Krugman won the Nobel prize. I didn't feel inclined to go out of my way to help break the news on Monday, because it was really everywhere. Though many disagree with his politics--and, he's an easier target than most economists, due to his visibility--it's hard to argue that he's not deserving.

Congratulations, Paul. You've done great work, and you definitely deserve the prize.

A couple links to Marginal Revolution, who give an overview of the decision and work of Paul Krugman, and who explain so-called 'New Trade Theory,' for which Krugman apparently won his prize (though, Krugman has explained that the idea certainly isn't new, he just put it into a workable model--it's also worth noting that he doesn't agree with all of the implications of the model... but there are problems with every model).

Mark Thoma has spent some time showing off some of Paul Krugman's work, recently, including Krugman's defense of macroeconomics (a great read for an economist, I think), and a quote from The Accidental Theorist on how to think about economics (the relevant section is even available as part of the limited preview on Google Books, page 17 of the book, or so).

The Accidental Theorist is actually the first economics book I ever read, and probably contributed heavily to my decision to pursue economics as a profession. I apparently owe much to Paul Krugman. He has written that he never had truly great students like some other professors have had, but he has certainly had an impact on me.

Academics on fixin' the crisis, prizes, realists/fundamentalists, and official statistics.

Academics actually get their voices heard in regards to rescue plans. It took them a while to realize that everyone thinks the focus should be on recapitalization.

Tim Hartford muses on Nobel prizes, and other prizes ('tis the season, after all).

Arnold Kling picks a nit about Paul Romer's piece on economic realists and fundamentalists. The Romer piece seems right on track in theory, but Kling disagrees that realists agree on the bailout plan.

I mentioned, before, the defense of BLS numbers--many people don't seem to believe them, apparently. Shadowstats responds.

Get an education.

Craig Newmark points me to Chris Blattman, who tells us how to get a PhD and save the world, and what kind of degree helps if you want to go into international development. They're old posts by Blattman, but still really useful.

Home ownership and the financial crisis

In the Wall Street Journal, an Australian says that not everyone should own a home, and explains the link between owning a home and the current financial crisis. She brings up a very valid point, and it's certainly worth a read. A lot of economists, in analyzing the financial crisis, having been showing rent-to-own ratios (or whatever term they happen to use) from the housing industry--this is very likely what's at the heart of those graphs. (h/t Mankiw)