A few upcoming events:
I’ll be at the Warwick Economics Summit February 17-19, speaking on the 18th.
I’ll be speaking at the Adam Smith Institute in London on February 20.
On February 23, I’ll be at the off-Broadway Soho Rep Theater, moderating a panel discussion on “The Economy of Beauty” following a performance of the hot German playwright Marius von Mayenburg‘s new play The Ugly One. My fellow panelists will include the sociologist Ashley Mears, author of Pricing Beauty: The Making of a Fashion Model and a former fashion model herself.
On March 9, I’ll be speaking at the Laboratory for Laser Energetics in beautiful Rochester, New York.
I expect to be speaking at the University of Maryland on a date still to be negotiated in April or May.
And from July 29 through August 3, I’ll be giving four lectures and hobnobbing with the other participants at Cato University. (Yes, I know the link is to last year’s Cato U.; this year’s page seems not to be up yet.)
If you’re in any of those neighborhoods, do join us.
Looking forward to seeing you at Warwick.
Steve, what will you be discussing in Maryland?
Keshav: I’m not sure yet!
Hi Steve L.
Reading your books all the way from Kenya.
Armchair Economist and Unconventional wisdom of economics are our daily experiences.
Good work!
Oh fine. Hang out with your new, cool friends. That’s ok. No, really, just go right ahead. Enjoy yourself. After all, you’re a big shot, don’t need us anymore. Knock yourself out….
But in all that copious free time you’ve got — Sure, you can put off figuring out your Maryland discussion another day! — would you answer a personal question or two?
1. How much did money influence your decision to write The Armchair Economist?
Shooting from the hip, I’d imagine that a creative impulse, a desire for fame and to showcase your writing talents, and perhaps a desire for some political/philosophical proselytizing were stronger motivators than the idea that you’d make a lot of loot.
2. How much does money influence your decision to write the subsequent books?
After all, I could imagine that the novelty of writing a book might wear off. Then again, the uncertainty about writing a book could dissipate, too, making subsequent ones less onerous. And perhaps publishers are more generous once they see that you’re a proven commodity?
Anyway, I’d be interested in hearing if you’d be interested in sharing. Thanks!
nobody.really:
1. How much did money influence your decision to write The Armchair Economist?
…
2. How much does money influence your decision to write the subsequent books?
I actually haven’t the foggiest idea. Nor do I have much insight into which of many factors is decisive in inducing me to get out of bed in the morning.
I feel almost certain that money is not a motivator for most people getting out of bed in the morning. That’s just not humans think about things. We set ultimate goals, like making money and being happy, but in an attempt to achieve those goals we set more immediate goals for ourselves, like going to work on time and not angering your boss too much, and I think it is these lesser goals that motivate us on a day-to-day basis. Sure, if someone confronted you about why you’re in such a hurry to get to work, you might say that you want to keep the job so that you can make money so that you can buy stuff so that you can use the stuff so that you can increase your level of happiness. But that is largely an ex post facto rationalization for your behavior; somewhere in your mind you have the intellectual knowledge that having a job is important in the pursuit of happiness, but at the moment all that’s motivating you is a fear that you may have overslept.
Getting out of bed in the morning? I find my bladder is quite motivating. Maybe this also illuminates something about book writing, but I’m reluctant to generalize without more data….
I find Landburg’s respond cryptic. Some possible interpretations:
1. Landburg is merely expressing skepticism about claims of self-awareness unsupported by data. He may actually have notions about what motivates him, but he doesn’t want to dignify those notions as “insights.”
2. Landsburg thinks that providing a different answer might concede a point that conflicts with his ideological commitments. That is, he’s dissembling.
3. Landsburg sincerely lacks any self-awareness of his own motivations. This possibility intrigues me. I have some economists in my family, and I’ve sometimes wondered if people gifted with an economist’s (or perhaps a libertarian) mindset may gain a kind of systemic facility with insights that elude most others – but also lack a facility with insights that may seem more accessible to others. I’m not merely suggesting that economists have “strengths” and “weaknesses”; I’m suggesting they may tend to have unusual patterns of strengths and weaknesses in common. So evidence of an unusual lack of self-awareness might be an interesting data point. Or it might not. In the meantime, I’ll see what I can tease out of one of my relatives tonight.
4. Landsburg may simply value his privacy on this point. He may not feel like sharing his private thoughts, may not feel like saying so, and may be royally peeved that I’m talking about him as if he were a rat in a maze. If so – uh, sorry, dude! Feel free to delete this whole thing; I’m just musing….
nobody.really: Your point 1 is what I was trying to say.
…killjoy….
Phew! Steve has been ignoring my almost daily assaults on his economic views at my blog. I was worried that maybe my “funny” comments had insulted him.
But now I realize he’s been busy working on an off-Broadway show with a model.
Bob Murphy: I’ve been mostly offline for reasons you won’t discover from this post. But I’m planning to catch up, and you (as always) are among my highest priorities.
If possible can these be recorded and posted on youtube?