Meaning Cochran on Clark.
If moxie is genetic, most economists must be wrong about human capital formation. Having fewer kids and spending more money on their education has only a modest effect: this must be the case, given slow long-run social mobility. It seems that social status is transmitted within families largely independently of the resources available to parents.
Pointer from Jason Collins.
“Cochran”, not “Cochrane”.
Now, this time I’m really not nitpicking: when we biological AND economist freaks read Cochrane we think “the grumpy economist”, not “the grumpy biologist”.
đŸ˜‰
I’d be interested to know how Gary Becker would respond to this, and Greg Clark’s new book more generally . . .
I’m curious whether Clark’s findings show whether there’s been any change in social mobility over the centuries. With the decline of hereditary aristocracy over the last three hundred years or so, there must have been some increase, right?
Clark would say no change has taken place.
That almost beggars belief. But I haven’t read the book, so I’ll reserve jugement for the present.
But that’s exactly the point. His example of the Samurai made that clear.