Book Report: A Short History of Nearly Everything

Bill Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything is not so much a policy book. However, I will include it here because it has affected my world view. There are three things that I learned that hit home with me.

First, science is sometimes wrong. This should not be an excuse to dismiss science, but to instill a little bit of humility. The world is a complicated place and we only understand the tip of the iceberg, to use an apt cliche. This is more true in areas where we are developing new information and trying to break new ground.

Second, the world has been around a really long time. We have been around a tiny fraction of that time (if the earth's history were the equivalent of one day, humans would represent 1 minute and 17 seconds and our recorded history just a few seconds). This is just to make you feel a little less significant - to knock you down a peg.

Third, we are here, in this moment, due to a whole lot of luck. The end of the last ice age allowed humans to develop agriculture and thereby expand and we are lucky to not have another one (temperatures would decrease 10F). Too many genetic mutations to count evolved species, which eventually lead to us. I cannot express to you though how random and non-linear that process was. The end of the dinosaurs allowed mammals to flourish. The composition of the earth's crust, with a liquid outer core, produces the magnetic field that likely protects us from otherwise deadly radiation from the sun. And finally, although we suffer from periodic natural disasters, we have been free so far from major disasters that have affected the earth - like meteors or massive volcanoes like the one under Yellowstone Park.

I highly recommend this book. You will learn a lot about science and the history of how we know what we know. And hopefully it will make you even more curious about how scientific knowledge is developing. One thing is for certain though, you will be thoroughly entertained the whole time. Bryson has a dry wit and a good eye for the interesting part of each story.

Drinking the Sand

"People want leadership, Mr. President, and in the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership. They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand." - Michael J. Fox as Lewis Rothschild in The American President

I was watching Meet the Press this morning for the first time in a really long time. I was disappointed in two people. First, I was disappointed in Lindsey Graham who did nothing but spout superficial and erroneous talking points. But I was more disappointed with David Gregory who is not living up to the show that Tim Russert ran and was letting Graham get away with it. There was no depth from Graham and no requirement for depth from Gregory.

However, Lindsey Graham did say at least one thing that was true and I have been thinking about for a while. He said Democrats are not talking about the Health Care bill or the Stimulus bill. He is right and he is especially right when it comes to President Obama. I am getting more disappointed in him by the day and mostly because he is not out there fighting for what he believes in.

Democrats passed a health care bill that even got relative support from Ben Stein. It was marginally unpopular when it was passed and seems to be getting more unpopular as time goes on. Democrats seem scared to talk about this bill because it is unpopular and can be considered a big government expansion. The bill will not go away and will not get more popular unless they stick up for it.

The health care bill, although probably more complicated than it needed to be (I'll get to that another time), did things that are important. It expanded care to people without insurance and will prevent people from being excluded due to pre-existing conditions. I believe these things were worth doing and Democrats apparently did also. If they are worth doing, they are worth defending.

As the quote above shows though, if we aren't talking about it, people will listen to whoever is. Right now, only Republicans are talking about it and they have only negative things to say. Democrats feel that a fight over the right size of government is a losing fight. That is ridiculous. We believe that there are things government can and should do and many of these things the public supports.

The same thing goes for the stimulus. Why is Paul Krugman the only one out there defending Keynesian economics? The public perception is that because the stimulus did not stop the job losses, it did not work and therefore Keynesian policies do not work. President Obama is choosing to take the road that the stimulus is working, but slowly. Unfortunately, no one is buying this. Maybe he doesn't need to go as far as Krugman is, but he needs to defend Keynes and maybe needs to acknowledge that the stimulus was too small, not too big. And there are plenty of economists who will defend him.

I disagree with David Brooks, Obama does not need to avoid the debate over the right size of government. He needs to enter it. He and the rest of the party need to stop letting Republicans set the terms of the debate and need to argue for what we believe in. Short of that, we are likely in for a really ugly November.

Politics Night: The Role of Government

For the second politics night, we discussed the appropriate role of government. We emphasized early on that this would be a normative not positive discussion.

Before I get started, I want to say that I think it is important to undertake this sort of exercise. Conservatives often attack liberals for thinking government should be the solution for every problem. While this charge is overstated, it is true at times. We should do a much better job at seeing a problem, seeing a way for government to make it better, but then also recognizing that maybe government should not get involved in that situation or in that way. In other words, liberals should be better at exercising restraint.

I will add though that conservatives should also be better about thinking of ways government could make things better, instead of reflexively saying government is bad and ignoring the real problems that exist or pretending they will fix themselves.

I think there are three appropriate roles for government. First, government exists to protect and encourage market transactions. It does this by creating laws and a legal system that promote trust among market participants. Without these protections, the economy would likely stagnate. You see in developing countries that without trust and an ability to address grievances of market transactions, small business owners are afraid to expand. I argue that of the reasons I list here, this is the least controversial and the longest lasting role of government. In fact, I think that libertarians would agree with this role for government and only communists might disagree.

Second, government exists to solve specific market failures, like overuse of public goods and negative externalities. This includes public education and environmental protection. Many libertarians seem to disagree with this role for government, which baffles me. If you have a basic understanding of economic theory, you would understand that markets are not perfect. They have flaws, and government should help deal with those flaws. For example, without government and the EPA, companies would be free to pollute - and mostly in areas near low income residents - and not include the costs of remediation in their product.

Third, government exists to provide people with their civil and human rights. The civil rights are identified in the Constitution and its amendments. Human rights though are a more recently proclaimed role of governments. A market system is efficient but not equitable. Government therefore exists to help deal with the inefficiencies. Now, I do not mean to suggest wealth redistribution. Instead I think an advanced society should be able to provide a minimum standard of living - which is a human right - to all of its people, including housing, food, and health care.

There are some things government does that do not neatly fit into one of these categories. For example, the Federal Reserve adjusts interest rates to affect the overall economy and the federal government will provide fiscal stimulus in times of recession. Maybe these could be lumped into the negative externality column, since the collective decisions of individuals can affect the economy as a whole. I am on the fence about whether it fits there or regulating the overall economy is another category entirely.

And there are some things I think I support but definitely to do fit into any of these buckets. Seat belts is the best example of this. I know that seat belts laws save lives. And people would not have worn them without the law. So society was made better because of this law. However, it doesn't sit that well with me since we are restricting an individual's choice in a way that only affects them. The only thing I can think of is consumer protection. This isn't one of my categories. It probably fits within the first one, although I imagine expanding it that much would make that category more controversial. As you can see, I am still working through this one.

I know some will want to debate the order I used for this list. For example, one person said that protecting markets is far less important than protecting human rights and so should be the first category. I don't think we are choosing among the categories - all are necessary roles for government. So order seems less important to me. We can have that discussion, but I think what is far more important is what categories are here and what are missing.