The blogger.

I am an Associate Professor in the Department of Economics at the University of Victoria in Victoria, B.C., Canada   My research area is microeconometrics, particularly as pertaining to issues in health and health care economics (some examples).

Click here to find my academic publications on Google Scholar. Click here to download my C.V.

The blog.

The blog presents discussion of current research, current events, econometric methods, debunking of cranks, and assorted narcissistic rambling.

  1. Bill Bell’s avatar

    Maybe it’s just me but I can’t seem to find an RSS feed for this blog except by looking at the HTML.


  2. Chris Auld’s avatar

    Thanks for the feedback Bill. I have added the RSS widget.


  3. Sean South’s avatar

    Interesting site… ‘I am’ what normally would be described as an educationalist i.e. formally trained in education Cert ED (UK). I’m also a member of the Institute of General Semantics and associate of Indergers Epistemological (deliberately not web-based to assure intellectual rigour) . Chris I would love to discuss your views on economics in relation to what might be termed physical ‘referents’. Do you have a view on, or knowledge of; Alfred Korzybski, Samuel Bois or more recently Alvin Toffler?
    I’d find it very entertaining to debate with you!
    Yours expectantly
    Sean South


  4. D S’s avatar

    Hi Chris – I saw your comments on this page about the difference between Cody Ross’ work and Fryer’s. And thought you made a key distinction that was quite helpful for me as a non-expert on data analysis: “The descriptive statistics presented by Fryer are consistent with the analysis in the Ross paper.”

    My thinking is that in all this discussion of police violence, different academic papers (and news headlines) charge different accusations of police bias. As the author said in response to you, these two papers by Ross and Fryer come with opposite But when I crunch the numbers in my own rudimentary (but accurate) way, I get the same results: Saying a “20% more likely to be shot or use of force” with all controls in place still means a difference of 1 time more or less out of 100 instances “on the ground.” I think I’m onto something that hasn’t been reported elsewhere, but I honestly don’t have the statistical aptitude to say with authority, “this is right.”

    If interested in reading more and getting in contact (organic.design(at)gmail.com) let me know. I’m interested in vetting a couple ideas and publishing:


Leave a comment

Copyright © 2018 M. Christopher Auld