Subscribe to our RSS feed
EconLife.com connects economics to everyday life, current events and history.

Tag Archives: Conservatives

Baby Names

Yesterday, I met a 4-year old whose name was Ciela. Her grandmother told me the name, meaning sky or heaven, was selected after a family visit to Spain.

According to 3 University of Chicago researchers, Ciela’s parents wanted to convey a message. Signaling their “cultural capital” to the world, Ciela’s parents are saying that they are educated, creative and cosmopolitan.

If, on the other hand, the little girl’s name was Elizabeth, those researchers would have said her parents were signaling their “economic capital.” Affluent and established, the family is conveying their comfort with simplicity and familiarity.

Looking at names data from California, the Chicago researchers concluded that baby names can reflect a parent’s political bias. Parents who are more liberal could demonstrate their cultural superiority with uncommon names that have obscure significance. For example, they might name their children Franny and Zooey because of J.D. Salinger. They also will select names with a more “feminine feel” and softer sounding letters. However, when conservative parents send their “economic signal,” they use more masculine sounding traditional names with harder consonants and/or fewer syllables.

The perfect example is 4 of (US Vice Presidential Republican candidate) Sarah Palin’s children: Bristol, Piper, Trigg, Track.

By contrast, think of the Obama girls: Sasha and Malia.

In his Theory of the Leisure Class, Thorstein Veblen explains that the upper class signals its power by living extravagantly. Calling expensive purchases conspicuous consumption, he says their primary purpose is a social message. Similarly, the authors of the University of Chicago study believe that baby naming is conspicuous consumption.

Here are some examples:

Liberal

  • Lola
  • Ruby
  • Mia
  • Eliana
  • Thea

(Doesn’t Ciela perfectly fit with the liberal list?)

Conservative

  • Casey
  • McKenzie
  • Jordan
  • Taylor
  • Sarah

 

Sources and Resources:  Hat tip to Freakonomics for their “How Much Does Your Name Matter?” podcast. Covering much more than the University of Chicago study, Dubner and Leavitt also discussed how names affect our ability to get jobs.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

15802_4.26_000006278830XSmall

Moderated by late show host Johnny Carson, there once was a TV show called “Who Do You Trust?” Initially aired during 1957, the quiz show had husbands (interesting–1950s version would have only husbands making the decision) deciding whether they or their wives would answer questions.

With the current debate about the impact of stimulus spending, I thought of the show’s title. Based on “who” we trust, many of us select who we want to answer, “Is the stimulus working?”

For those who trust the Keynesian outlook, Moody’s Mark Zandi and Princeton economist Alan Blinder provide the right answers. In a recent paper, Zandi and Blinder conclude that the financial bailout had the greatest impact. Saying that the Fed’s asset purchases and bank stress tests were critical for the current economic improvement, they point out that stimulus spending alone would not have sufficed. However, they say that the complementary character of both sets of policies tended “to reinforce each other.”

By contrast, those who question the impact of government spending will gravitate toward Stanford economist John Taylor and Harvard’s H. Gregory Mankiw. Commenting on the Blinder/Zandi paper, Dr. Taylor says that they use an old Keynesian model for hypothetical data input. Never, he says, do they use current data on what actually happened–just what was supposed to have occurred.

There is lots more to read on both sides. For the Keynesians’ view, you might want to look at what the Councll of Economic Advisors and Paul Krugman have said. To read more of the market dominated perspective, Arnold Kling, Tyler Cowen, and Russell Roberts have noted their opinions. 

The Economic Lesson

To simplify our market economy, economists like to draw a circular flow model with 2 concentric circles. As shown here, essentially, resources and goods and services move around the outer circle while dollars occupy the inner circle.

The key, though, is that the Keynesians believe that during a recession we have to draw a huge government rectangle to help the other two. By contrast, those who believe the market should function with little outside help will depict the circular flow model with minimal governmental influence.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment