Flying saucers and little green men? The idea that extraterrestrials might be visiting earth became popular in the U.S. at least 60 years ago. But over the last several months, a series of U.F.O.-related events, impressive enough to catch even the most hardened skeptic’s attention, have burst onto the scene.

Two days back I noted that happiness inequality today is at much lower levels than in earlier decades, despite rising income inequality. What lies behind these trends?

There is less happiness inequality today than in the 1970’s or 1980’s. And this has occurred despite large increases in income and consumption inequality. Betsey Stevenson and I spell out these facts in a lot more detail in a new paper, “Happiness Inequality in the United States,” forthcoming in the Journal of Legal Studies.

Last week, however, I picked up Good to Great by Jim Collins. This book is an absolute phenomenon in the publishing world. Since it came out in 2001, it has sold millions of copies. It still sells over 300,000 copies a year. It has been so successful that seven years later the book is still in hardcover. I’ve been hearing about it for years and never looked at it. People are always asking me about it. I figured it was about time I took a look.

A speech that Bill Gates gave at Davos (and which Steve Levitt likes) is now being debated in an ongoing blog by an amazing cast of characters — including, to name a few, Lawrence Summers, Richard Posner, Michael Kinsley, Steven Landsburg, Michael Kremer, and Ed Glaeser. They are engaged in a lively discussion about whether corporate capitalism can be reinvented and reoriented with a combination of incentives and recognition to make progress on under-addressed social problems.

The turbulence of the U.S. economy has lots of people railing against capitalism itself, and with good reason: capitalism is inherently turbulent. That’s why the legendary economist Joseph Schumpeter called it “creative destruction.” Not only must eggs be broken to make an omelet, but sometimes people may decide they want their omelets made with no eggs at all.

Let’s say you are convinced that climate change is a huge threat and will have catastrophic consequences for humankind in the foreseeable future. How exactly do you envision that catastrophe playing out?

Elizabeth Royte’s new book is called Bottlemania: How Water Went on Sale and Why We Bought It. I haven’t read it yet, but I gather that it ably summarizes the growing economic and environmental backlash against bottled water.

I love this question. It first requires you to define what a “thinker” is, and also raises the question of what incentives exist in the modern world to be a thinker. Also, is someone a great thinker if they’re never able to communicate their thoughts to a broad audience?

So why are the zealots so happy? Many readers of my last post suggested that there is a tremendous amount of comfort — even happiness — in total certainty. I think this interpretation is right, and applies to fundamentalists of every stripe.