Zeitgeist analysis, 12 April 2009

Federal and state are both up about 50 places in this week's economics zeitgeist, with US and government retaining their positions at the top of the charts. Obama has fallen 45 to 110 and administration 177 places to 401. Washington is up 28 to 425, so rather a mixed picture there.

Nearer the top of the charts, market is up one place to 5, with financial and economic down three and two respectively to 8 and 10. Bank and money are each up nine places to 14 and 15. Price is down eight to 18 but prices up ten to 23. So no clear trends at the top either.

Trillion had the rise this week that I'd expected last week, up 47 places to 360; billion and million both up about ten places too.

Top new entries are WAIS, North, Chinese and default, all around the 300-400 mark. Israel, exports and nuclear are new around 400-500 with Smith at 595, zombie at 599 and TARP at 626. The WAIS entries seem to be from the blog of the World Association of International Studies, which has been in the dataset the whole time but is a bit more active this week.

Internationally, China has had a big jump - up 189 places to 146 - with UK up 99 to 426, but Germany, France and EU dropping out of the list and Europe and European both dropping. Country is up 90, countries is down 100, and foreign is up over 200 places to 205 (national and American are also doing well).

If you're looking for indicators of recovery, you won't get clear ones yet - recovery is up 10 places but only to position 279, growth is exactly steady at 81, green is up one to 475 but shoots doesn't show at all and confidence is nowhere to be seen.

Think is up a lot and thought too, with economists and blog also rising strongly. Not enough to make much inference from, but I'll keep an eye on them.

AIG is still falling, so is Geithner but Bernanke is back in (albeit at number 863, just above socialism).

And to finish, a few trends about time. 2009 of course is the best-performing year, up 48 to 48, but 2008 does almost as well, up 38 to 65. 2007 has fallen 88 places to 333, but 2006 has had a mini-resurgence, up 98 places to 779 and even 2005 is up 13 to 865. Meanwhile, nobody wants to think about 2010 which has fallen 299 places to 740.

See you all next week.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is bad news for the Treasury good for the private sector?

An intriguing post from Robert Peston raising the spectre of the Treasury failing to sell all the bonds it wanted to sell yesterday. Is this, as he implies, plain bad news for the government because their funding is getting more expensive? Or is it good news for private lenders - implying that investors are fed up with their "flight to quality" and are now considering private sector investments instead? The answer is dependent on two further questions: is investors' money switching to foreign investments, UK private lending or UK equities? are investors actually running out of money to invest - the infamous savings trap, where people in aggregate try to increase their savings but fail to do so, because the attempt to save reduces total income in the economy and available savings are reduced too? Hopefully we can find out. How could we figure it out? by looking at total UK savings this month - this is not an exact science but we should hopefully be able to see if the tren
Read more

What is the difference between cognitive economics and behavioural finance?

This question was posed in an interesting LinkedIn discussion group (Behavioural Finance: Theory and Practice) by Kerry Pechter. I dashed off a quick answer which ended up being 500 words long. So I thought it might be useful to post on here. Can anyone tell me the difference between cognitive economics and behavioral finance? Cognitive economics is not yet a widely used phrase, though Marco Novarese and I have been using it as a name for a more microfounded version of what's typically called behavioural economics. So I'll answer the question based on how I use the term. The first difference is between "economics" and "finance". Economics is a broader field, including the trading of any kind of goods or services, whereas finance specifically focuses on investment and the value of financial instruments. Indeed I consider economics very broadly to be the study of how resources are allocated (by individuals, and across society). The more fundamental
Read more

Dead rats and dopamine - a new publication

My new paper, coauthored with Yohan John , Dakota McCoy and Oliver Braganza , is out in Behavioral and Brain Sciences. " Dead rats, dopamine, performance metrics and peacock tails " is about the universal emergence of proxy failure. When you measure and incentivise performance by a single metric (a proxy), the proxy will always become a worse measure of performance than it was before you added the incentive. This effect is also known as Goodhart's Law  in economics, and by other names in other fields - but the same underlying process drives the effect across multiple domains. Our paper studies it in management, economics, biology, neuroscience and other areas. Recent concerns about AI alignment are closely related to this phenomenon. The paperclip problem is a good example - if a sufficiently clever AI is given a single goal, to produce as many paperclips as possible, it may eventually destroy all of humanity and take over the whole universe in its efforts to maximise o
Read more