Ralph Nader's (and others') talk about the lack of third parties made me want to spend more time on that notion - on our plurality / winner-take-all / first-past-the-post system as compared to a proportional system*.
As a first, and I think very fun, step, let's consider all the possible different parties that could exist in our system if we were starting from scratch. In my mind, the list of parties might look like the following:
On the Right
- Libertarian party
- Tea Party
- Conservative party
- Christian Coalition party
- Pro-Business / Pro-Growth party
On the Left
- Communist party
- Socialist party
- Liberal party
- Progressive party
- Blue Dog party
In a proportional system, all these parties would be likely to have some level of success getting votes to have membership in the elected body. But we don't have a proportional system. So let's imagine these parties in a winner-takes-all system, which is what we have.
For argument's sake, let's say that one group, the Progressive party, has the most support, if only by a small amount. (My choice wasn't totally random, I chose the Progressives because I think that's where I would vote, but for this exercise it could be any party.) So if the progressive party has the most support, two of the parties on the right would have every incentive to get together to beat out the Progressives.
For example, the Conservative party might link up with the Tea party, seeing that they have a lot in common and would hate to see a party on the left win. Well now that those two parties have linked and are in the lead, the Progressives might decide to link with another party so that a group on the right doesn't win. So they link up with the Liberal party.
This back and forth would continue until there are two parties competing for the one position because each party would rather help create a winning party on their side, even if it means compromise, then allow a party on the other side to win (this simple rationality and strategic decision-making didn't seem to appeal to Ralph Nader).
In a proportional system, you don't face that choice because all parties receive seats based on their votes. The only pressure toward fewer parties that I can see would result if the top vote-getting party gets the first opportunity to create a government. In that case, you might see parties merge to create the biggest party.
But besides that scenario, in a proportional system, the coalition-forming and governing comes after the election. If the above-listed parties were in a proportional system, and the Progressive Party received the most votes, they would have to see if they could create a majority governing coalition with other (likely left-leaning) parties.
What seems clear to me is that in a plurality system, strategic decisions (not corruption) lead to a two-party system. If people in this country want more parties, they should fight for a proportional system. I think they know that will never happen, so instead they resort to charges of corruption.
I also think compromise and incremental policy-making is a natural result in either structure. The difference, to my mind, is that in a plurality system the coalitions form before the elections and in a proportional system the coalitions form after the elections. Either way, those governing need to make decisions that are popular with a majority of the people. Those on the extreme or in the minority never like this, but it is a fact of popular government.
So when you find yourself with a belief that is in the minority, you should bemoan not the type of government or the candidates or the number of parties, but the fact that more people don't agree with you. And then you should try to change their minds. Perhaps by debating with them.
*For the purposes of this post, I am referring specifically to a party-proportional system, like that in Israel.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
A Little History, A Little Lite
I just finished reading EH Gombrich's A Little History of the World. The book has a lot of good things about it, and a few negatives. It is a fast read and an easy general history of the world. And each little piece of history you get can prompt you to do further research to get more in depth.
However, because it is so fast, it is very superficial. And times it is very clear that the summary is less than accurate - or just too superficial to be useful. In those cases - or all cases - further research is probably necessary. (The most clear example is the American Civil War. I wouldn't go to this book for a description of that anyway, but when you see what is lacking in that description, you can imagine what is lacking in other descriptions.)
Granted, this book is meant for children, so the lack of depth should be considered in that context. However, children shouldn't be given inaccurate information just for the sake of brevity.
But probably the biggest deficiency of the book is the western focus. When dealing with other cultures outside of Europe, it recognizes some of their accomplishments, but through omission suggests that there wasn't much of interest going on.
The book hardly talks about Russia before the communist revolution. And its coverage of China and the Middle East is similarly lacking. And Africa and South America aren't even covered except to talk about how they were colonized.
A less western-focused book could have talked more about the other great civilizations including the Inca and the Maya, more of the Chinese dynasties, Muslim culture beyond just the conquests, the major African civilizations, and the native tribes in North America.
Considering the strong deficiencies, I am not sure if I would recommend this book to my child (when old enough to read it). I guess as long as he understands what is lacking and will do further research, I would be okay with it. But here's hoping for another author to complete a similar book that includes non-western cultures more. And finds a better way to be brief but more accurate - or admit where he is being too general.
However, because it is so fast, it is very superficial. And times it is very clear that the summary is less than accurate - or just too superficial to be useful. In those cases - or all cases - further research is probably necessary. (The most clear example is the American Civil War. I wouldn't go to this book for a description of that anyway, but when you see what is lacking in that description, you can imagine what is lacking in other descriptions.)
Granted, this book is meant for children, so the lack of depth should be considered in that context. However, children shouldn't be given inaccurate information just for the sake of brevity.
But probably the biggest deficiency of the book is the western focus. When dealing with other cultures outside of Europe, it recognizes some of their accomplishments, but through omission suggests that there wasn't much of interest going on.
The book hardly talks about Russia before the communist revolution. And its coverage of China and the Middle East is similarly lacking. And Africa and South America aren't even covered except to talk about how they were colonized.
A less western-focused book could have talked more about the other great civilizations including the Inca and the Maya, more of the Chinese dynasties, Muslim culture beyond just the conquests, the major African civilizations, and the native tribes in North America.
Considering the strong deficiencies, I am not sure if I would recommend this book to my child (when old enough to read it). I guess as long as he understands what is lacking and will do further research, I would be okay with it. But here's hoping for another author to complete a similar book that includes non-western cultures more. And finds a better way to be brief but more accurate - or admit where he is being too general.
Friday, May 20, 2011
Inside Job: A Review
This year's Oscar for Best Documentary went to Inside Job. Since I read (although didn't quite finish) Sorkin's Too Big to Fail, which is about the financial collapse, I thought I would like the movie even more. I didn't.
The movie tells a one-sided story about the financial collapse, blaming it all on Wall Street. Since Paul Krugman has actually blamed a global savings glut for the bubble and the recession, I have to accept that the documentary is not telling the full truth.
But I do believe that the financial industry along with moderate and conservative politicians and many economists, bear significant blame for the size of the recession and the need for a bailout. So I am only slightly offended that the movie beat up on those parties that called for deregulation.
What really bothered me about the movie though was that the interviewer was not very good at asking good tough questions. His questions were too broad and vague and he often allowed people to simply disagree without any explanation. He probably thinks this made the respondents just look stupid when you compare their answers to the evidence. But I think it doesn't give the interviewees a fair shake and at the same time it missed an opportunity to really get the interviewees.
For example, when talking about executive compensation, he asks if it is excessive. The industry lobbyist was able to simply say, "no". Instead he should have asked whether the compensation rewarded bad behavior by rewarding short term profit without punishing long term risk and loss.
Similarly, he asked about conflicts of interest among economists. The economists would just say no and were never pushed. Instead of asking whether it impacted objectivity when an economist was writing about complex derivatives but also being paid by companies that made a lot of money on derivatives, the interviewer just asked where the economist got his compensation from.
The whole movie had the feel of wanting to beat up on the guilty parties instead of having a real dialogue with them. It seemed to actually try to avoid conversation and using tricks to tell the viewer to hate the person on screen. In fact, most people it wanted to portray negatively refused to appear on screen, which seemed to work fine for those making the movie since they made it seem like those how refused were trying to hide something. But it would have made a better movie had they been able to convince those people that they would have had a real conversation.
As for how it won an Oscar, I wonder if Hollywood was overjoyed to see a movie that made other really rich people look like monsters and made the Hollywood-types - also very rich - feel superior. Just a hunch.
The one thing I hadn't known or thought about before seeing the movie was the issue of conflicts of interest among economists. I think it is a serious issue, but it is one that permeates so many other industries that need to be regulated (conflicts in the pharmaceutical industry has been getting attention lately, but we know that revolving door issues affect many government programs' effectiveness). An across the board - for all industries - conflicts of interest policy is much needed.
The movie tells a one-sided story about the financial collapse, blaming it all on Wall Street. Since Paul Krugman has actually blamed a global savings glut for the bubble and the recession, I have to accept that the documentary is not telling the full truth.
But I do believe that the financial industry along with moderate and conservative politicians and many economists, bear significant blame for the size of the recession and the need for a bailout. So I am only slightly offended that the movie beat up on those parties that called for deregulation.
What really bothered me about the movie though was that the interviewer was not very good at asking good tough questions. His questions were too broad and vague and he often allowed people to simply disagree without any explanation. He probably thinks this made the respondents just look stupid when you compare their answers to the evidence. But I think it doesn't give the interviewees a fair shake and at the same time it missed an opportunity to really get the interviewees.
For example, when talking about executive compensation, he asks if it is excessive. The industry lobbyist was able to simply say, "no". Instead he should have asked whether the compensation rewarded bad behavior by rewarding short term profit without punishing long term risk and loss.
Similarly, he asked about conflicts of interest among economists. The economists would just say no and were never pushed. Instead of asking whether it impacted objectivity when an economist was writing about complex derivatives but also being paid by companies that made a lot of money on derivatives, the interviewer just asked where the economist got his compensation from.
The whole movie had the feel of wanting to beat up on the guilty parties instead of having a real dialogue with them. It seemed to actually try to avoid conversation and using tricks to tell the viewer to hate the person on screen. In fact, most people it wanted to portray negatively refused to appear on screen, which seemed to work fine for those making the movie since they made it seem like those how refused were trying to hide something. But it would have made a better movie had they been able to convince those people that they would have had a real conversation.
As for how it won an Oscar, I wonder if Hollywood was overjoyed to see a movie that made other really rich people look like monsters and made the Hollywood-types - also very rich - feel superior. Just a hunch.
The one thing I hadn't known or thought about before seeing the movie was the issue of conflicts of interest among economists. I think it is a serious issue, but it is one that permeates so many other industries that need to be regulated (conflicts in the pharmaceutical industry has been getting attention lately, but we know that revolving door issues affect many government programs' effectiveness). An across the board - for all industries - conflicts of interest policy is much needed.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
On Truman
I finished watching the American Experience documentary on Harry Truman and I have to say that I am thoroughly unimpressed. Maybe if I read McCullough's book I'll understand why people seem to love Truman, but I doubt it. Let's look at his record.
The Good
It seems Truman deserves a good deal of respect for his position on civil rights. He was ahead of his time and so took a pro-civil rights position at great political risk. He integrated the military and supported anti-lynching laws. Though his position was the right one, he wasn't wildly successful.
The Marshall Plan is probably Truman's proudest accomplishment. American aid helped get western Europe through the post-war years and prevented what might have been a move to communism. However Truman, wisely and rightly, gave credit to Secretary of State John Marshall.
Truman is also famous for the saying, "The Buck Stops Here." Accountability is a great thing, but shouldn't be considered a major feat or accomplishment.
The Bad
I already talked about the atomic bomb and how he could have and should have had it dropped on military targets first instead of two large cities leading to the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians.
He was also seemingly anti-union in practice. After the end of the war, there were battles between businesses and unions. Business wanted an end to price controls and unions wanted higher wages. It seemed that Truman hated when unions went on strike. In fact, he proposed - illegally - to draft railroad union members if they went on strike. I'm sure conservatives like this, but I don't.
His conduct during the Korean War was terrible. His decision to advance beyond the 38th parallel when China made it clear they would intervene if the UN / US force did so was appalling. He seemed to blame that situation on MacArthur. Granted, MacArthur was amazingly insubordinate, but the blame for the tens of thousands of American deaths that resulted from the advance beyond the 38th parallel lays entirely with Truman. There was no reason to advance and every reason to think it would be a grave mistake.
Truman was also the first president to have to deal with the communist threat, and he used scare tactics that would persist for decades to achieve his foreign policy goals. But those same tactics boxed him in domestically where he required federal employees to take loyalty oaths. And this same rhetoric arguably gave rise to to Senator Joseph McCarthy. A more wise and able president could have presented the threat to communism in a way that didn't allow for people on the far left - ones who had no desire to overthrow the government - to have their lives ruined.
Maybe it is unfair, but there are other small examples that leave me with a low impression of him. His own draft speech against unions, portrayed in the documentary, was amateurish and extreme. Even more so was his letter to the journalist that attacked his daughter's signing.
And I can't get over his relationship with his wife. She seemed to treat him badly and maybe didn't even respect him. Yet he always seemed to grovel and flatter her. Sure, patience is a virtue, but being a doormat is not.
Conclusion
Overall, I don't see enough good from President Truman to have a high opinion of him. In fact, I get every impression that he was in over his head - which he himself thought at times. Although he originally was elevated to president after Roosevelt died, he ran for his own term in 1948.
I have long thought that President Bush was in over his head and should not have ran for president. Even more so with Sarah Palin. The "everyman" should not be president. Only extraordinary men and women should be president. This doesn't mean ivy league, but it does mean people that are smart and well-educated and well-informed on history and current events.
After watching this movie, I have to think that Truman was in over his head, as was Bush. And neither should have put the country at risk by running for president when they felt - or should have felt - under-qualified.
The Good
It seems Truman deserves a good deal of respect for his position on civil rights. He was ahead of his time and so took a pro-civil rights position at great political risk. He integrated the military and supported anti-lynching laws. Though his position was the right one, he wasn't wildly successful.
The Marshall Plan is probably Truman's proudest accomplishment. American aid helped get western Europe through the post-war years and prevented what might have been a move to communism. However Truman, wisely and rightly, gave credit to Secretary of State John Marshall.
Truman is also famous for the saying, "The Buck Stops Here." Accountability is a great thing, but shouldn't be considered a major feat or accomplishment.
The Bad
I already talked about the atomic bomb and how he could have and should have had it dropped on military targets first instead of two large cities leading to the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians.
He was also seemingly anti-union in practice. After the end of the war, there were battles between businesses and unions. Business wanted an end to price controls and unions wanted higher wages. It seemed that Truman hated when unions went on strike. In fact, he proposed - illegally - to draft railroad union members if they went on strike. I'm sure conservatives like this, but I don't.
His conduct during the Korean War was terrible. His decision to advance beyond the 38th parallel when China made it clear they would intervene if the UN / US force did so was appalling. He seemed to blame that situation on MacArthur. Granted, MacArthur was amazingly insubordinate, but the blame for the tens of thousands of American deaths that resulted from the advance beyond the 38th parallel lays entirely with Truman. There was no reason to advance and every reason to think it would be a grave mistake.
Truman was also the first president to have to deal with the communist threat, and he used scare tactics that would persist for decades to achieve his foreign policy goals. But those same tactics boxed him in domestically where he required federal employees to take loyalty oaths. And this same rhetoric arguably gave rise to to Senator Joseph McCarthy. A more wise and able president could have presented the threat to communism in a way that didn't allow for people on the far left - ones who had no desire to overthrow the government - to have their lives ruined.
Maybe it is unfair, but there are other small examples that leave me with a low impression of him. His own draft speech against unions, portrayed in the documentary, was amateurish and extreme. Even more so was his letter to the journalist that attacked his daughter's signing.
And I can't get over his relationship with his wife. She seemed to treat him badly and maybe didn't even respect him. Yet he always seemed to grovel and flatter her. Sure, patience is a virtue, but being a doormat is not.
Conclusion
Overall, I don't see enough good from President Truman to have a high opinion of him. In fact, I get every impression that he was in over his head - which he himself thought at times. Although he originally was elevated to president after Roosevelt died, he ran for his own term in 1948.
I have long thought that President Bush was in over his head and should not have ran for president. Even more so with Sarah Palin. The "everyman" should not be president. Only extraordinary men and women should be president. This doesn't mean ivy league, but it does mean people that are smart and well-educated and well-informed on history and current events.
After watching this movie, I have to think that Truman was in over his head, as was Bush. And neither should have put the country at risk by running for president when they felt - or should have felt - under-qualified.
Friday, May 06, 2011
Dear Conservative: Stimuls or What? Update
Dear Conservative, (Update)
(This was a crappy post and so I want to re-write it.)
I am baffled by the Republican (your) response to this recession. The economic data tells us that fiscal stimulus is the only solution. We are up against the zero bound for interest rates, rendering monetary fixes useless (unless we change inflation expectations, which isn't going to happen and why QE2 was so ineffective).
So explain to me why another stimulus is a bad idea. Either you don't think government should do anything (which puts you farther right than Greenspan and Bernake) or you only support monetary policy and so are okay with ineffective policy and ultimately a lasting recession.
Maybe you don’t feel quite prepared to talk about this; that you aren’t that well versed on economics - specifically liquidity traps - and so for now you trust your party. Fine. Let’s do this. We’ll read two books. One by liberal Paul Krugman. The other by Fed Chairman (appointed by George W. Bush) Ben Bernake. Deal?
(This was a crappy post and so I want to re-write it.)
I am baffled by the Republican (your) response to this recession. The economic data tells us that fiscal stimulus is the only solution. We are up against the zero bound for interest rates, rendering monetary fixes useless (unless we change inflation expectations, which isn't going to happen and why QE2 was so ineffective).
So explain to me why another stimulus is a bad idea. Either you don't think government should do anything (which puts you farther right than Greenspan and Bernake) or you only support monetary policy and so are okay with ineffective policy and ultimately a lasting recession.
Maybe you don’t feel quite prepared to talk about this; that you aren’t that well versed on economics - specifically liquidity traps - and so for now you trust your party. Fine. Let’s do this. We’ll read two books. One by liberal Paul Krugman. The other by Fed Chairman (appointed by George W. Bush) Ben Bernake. Deal?
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Deja Vu
As you might guess, I have less time to read the news and blog these days. But one place I still check in on is Paul Krugman's blog. When it comes to economics, budget, and spending issues - including health care - he has the most clear writing and the best analysis.
Yet it seems to me he spends a lot of time repeating himself. I don't blame him of course. I think it stems from the fact that he makes obvious points that fail to make any traction. Take a recent post explaining that federal spending as a percent of GDP has increased recently in large part because GDP growth has slowed so much and because spending on the safety net increased to deal with the recession. I swear I have read this at least a few times. (It is also true that much of the budget debt we have is due to Bush policies - and Krugman has made this point as well.)
In another post, Krugman makes the point that the health care plan we have is as conservative as it can be if we want to have something close to universal coverage. I am sure Krugman has made this point before as well.
It is a shame that Krugman, and those making similar points, are not being heard.
Yet it seems to me he spends a lot of time repeating himself. I don't blame him of course. I think it stems from the fact that he makes obvious points that fail to make any traction. Take a recent post explaining that federal spending as a percent of GDP has increased recently in large part because GDP growth has slowed so much and because spending on the safety net increased to deal with the recession. I swear I have read this at least a few times. (It is also true that much of the budget debt we have is due to Bush policies - and Krugman has made this point as well.)
In another post, Krugman makes the point that the health care plan we have is as conservative as it can be if we want to have something close to universal coverage. I am sure Krugman has made this point before as well.
It is a shame that Krugman, and those making similar points, are not being heard.
Friday, April 15, 2011
Welcome Back Mr. President
This is the president I voted for! This is what I want from him. He lays out a clear vision of the government he wants and he attacks the Republican (Paul Ryan) plan.
Maybe I misjudged him. Maybe he was right to keep quiet and get the small compromise victories of the tax deal and the 2011 budget and save the big government discussion for the real big compromise. And maybe this compromise would not have happened had he been as vocal as I would have liked. Maybe.
Let's hope though that Obama doesn't let this be the one time he speaks about his vision. He needs to keep hammering home what a deficit plan should look like. Not everyone will read this speech. But if he talks enough about it, people will know what he wants and may be convinced he is right. But they can only do that if they hear him often.
Maybe I misjudged him. Maybe he was right to keep quiet and get the small compromise victories of the tax deal and the 2011 budget and save the big government discussion for the real big compromise. And maybe this compromise would not have happened had he been as vocal as I would have liked. Maybe.
Let's hope though that Obama doesn't let this be the one time he speaks about his vision. He needs to keep hammering home what a deficit plan should look like. Not everyone will read this speech. But if he talks enough about it, people will know what he wants and may be convinced he is right. But they can only do that if they hear him often.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Mandate and Overreach
If I have learned anything from Obama's election followed by Republican victories in the mid-terms, it is that both sides are bound to misinterpret their victories. Barack Obama, and the Democratic Party, saw the election as a mandate on liberal policies (as opposed to short term correction from bad Bush policies and a victory over an inferior candidate). So they went big and they went hard. They passed a health care reform that was complicated and let Republicans define it as excessively liberal and an overreach.
Looking back, I think Democrats should have focused entirely on the financial crisis, the economy and financial reform. And they could have also made small improvements on health reform.
Republicans though seem to similarly think that there is a huge mandate to reform government. They are talking about drastic cuts to current spending and major changes to entitlement programs and government regulation like EPA. John Boehner seems to be playing it smart and not overreaching on his election. He reached a decent compromise (one I am not happy about, but was good for him), instead of allowing for a government shut-down. There was a lot of talk about how Republicans would be blamed for a shut-down - talk I found nauseating, but probably true. I don't think the 2010 elections were a signal that the public wants serious cuts in programs.
That being said, we'll see if the Republicans can maintain discipline. There is a fight coming up around the debt ceiling, and there is a good chance they will overreach and draw a backlash. (There is also a good chance that the opposite happens; that they extract major concessions from the craven Democrats.)
My basic point is that rarely does public opinion change so much to warrant major policy changes. Those rare examples usually come from major upheavals like the Great Depression - and as bad as this financial crisis has been, it doesn't seem to be having the same widespread impact, thankfully. Politicians should instead realize that the public is often ready for incremental change. If you want to go bigger, you can, but be prepared for a backlash and hope that your changes withstand it.
Looking back, I think Democrats should have focused entirely on the financial crisis, the economy and financial reform. And they could have also made small improvements on health reform.
Republicans though seem to similarly think that there is a huge mandate to reform government. They are talking about drastic cuts to current spending and major changes to entitlement programs and government regulation like EPA. John Boehner seems to be playing it smart and not overreaching on his election. He reached a decent compromise (one I am not happy about, but was good for him), instead of allowing for a government shut-down. There was a lot of talk about how Republicans would be blamed for a shut-down - talk I found nauseating, but probably true. I don't think the 2010 elections were a signal that the public wants serious cuts in programs.
That being said, we'll see if the Republicans can maintain discipline. There is a fight coming up around the debt ceiling, and there is a good chance they will overreach and draw a backlash. (There is also a good chance that the opposite happens; that they extract major concessions from the craven Democrats.)
My basic point is that rarely does public opinion change so much to warrant major policy changes. Those rare examples usually come from major upheavals like the Great Depression - and as bad as this financial crisis has been, it doesn't seem to be having the same widespread impact, thankfully. Politicians should instead realize that the public is often ready for incremental change. If you want to go bigger, you can, but be prepared for a backlash and hope that your changes withstand it.
Budget Deal: When Bipartisanship Sucks
I like to think of myself as a moderate - or at least as a reasonable person supportive of compromise and happy when compromise happens. However, the recent budget deal does not make me happy - and for two reasons.
First, to the extent that we have a debt problem that needs to be addressed, it is a long term problem. Our current spending levels are unsustainable only in the long term considering the trends we see in our entitlement programs, especially Medicare and Medicaid. But there is no evidence of short term problems; bond markets are not signifying that they are worried about American debt.
And yet, if you listen to our dialogue, you would think the problems are short term and immediate. Republicans have done a great job at framing the issue about something that has to be addressed now.
Whether or not deficit spending is dangerous right now is especially important since we are in a recession where monetary policy is largely ineffective (as we are up against the zero bound). Since deficit spending is not a problem, the ideal policy, if we were actually smart and objective, would be to deficit spend (fiscal stimulus) right now to help get the economy going while addressing the long term problems.
We are of course doing the opposite. We are cutting spending now, when we need it most, and not addressing future issues at all. And Paul Ryan's plan, which pretends to be addressing those issues, cuts taxes as much as revenues, leaving us in the same place long term we are now (the plan also uses unbelievable forecasts about employment and discretionary spending).
The second reason this budget deal depresses me is that Democrats, especially the President, have not been standing up for Democratic causes and they have not been making the case I made above. Instead, they have ceded the issue, accepting that we need to make cuts. And Democrats have refused to point out that as Republicans talk about making sacrifices, they are really asking the poor and middle class to make sacrifices while pushing for the rich to get rewards.
I would feel much better about compromise if Democrats were at least defending their position before accepting a deal. There is a real argument for why cuts shouldn't happen now, and nobody in government is making them.
First, to the extent that we have a debt problem that needs to be addressed, it is a long term problem. Our current spending levels are unsustainable only in the long term considering the trends we see in our entitlement programs, especially Medicare and Medicaid. But there is no evidence of short term problems; bond markets are not signifying that they are worried about American debt.
And yet, if you listen to our dialogue, you would think the problems are short term and immediate. Republicans have done a great job at framing the issue about something that has to be addressed now.
Whether or not deficit spending is dangerous right now is especially important since we are in a recession where monetary policy is largely ineffective (as we are up against the zero bound). Since deficit spending is not a problem, the ideal policy, if we were actually smart and objective, would be to deficit spend (fiscal stimulus) right now to help get the economy going while addressing the long term problems.
We are of course doing the opposite. We are cutting spending now, when we need it most, and not addressing future issues at all. And Paul Ryan's plan, which pretends to be addressing those issues, cuts taxes as much as revenues, leaving us in the same place long term we are now (the plan also uses unbelievable forecasts about employment and discretionary spending).
The second reason this budget deal depresses me is that Democrats, especially the President, have not been standing up for Democratic causes and they have not been making the case I made above. Instead, they have ceded the issue, accepting that we need to make cuts. And Democrats have refused to point out that as Republicans talk about making sacrifices, they are really asking the poor and middle class to make sacrifices while pushing for the rich to get rewards.
I would feel much better about compromise if Democrats were at least defending their position before accepting a deal. There is a real argument for why cuts shouldn't happen now, and nobody in government is making them.
Saturday, April 02, 2011
At Least It Will Be Published
In the NY Times today, there is a sad story about an author that has passed away days before his book - his magnum opus they say - is to be published. It is sad because it is supposed to be the new definitive book on Malcom X and the author won't be able to see how it is received. He also was looking forward to promoting and defending his work.
If there is any consolation, it is that the book is finished and the world will be able to read it and learn from it - as I intend to do. The book is supposed to be thorough (using new sources including documents from the FBI), and more objective and accurate than Alex Haley's Autobiography of Malcom X. It is better for the world that Manning Marable completed his work, as it is expected to help the world to better understand a very controversial figure. I'll definitely be adding the book to my to-read list.
If there is any consolation, it is that the book is finished and the world will be able to read it and learn from it - as I intend to do. The book is supposed to be thorough (using new sources including documents from the FBI), and more objective and accurate than Alex Haley's Autobiography of Malcom X. It is better for the world that Manning Marable completed his work, as it is expected to help the world to better understand a very controversial figure. I'll definitely be adding the book to my to-read list.
Economy: Question for Business
Paul Krugman believes (and I am convinced) that the reason we are still in a recession is because of depressed demand. Consumers have stopped borrowing and slowed spending and so there is excess supply of consumer goods and excess business capacity. He therefore believes that we need expansionary policy. Monetary policy won't work because we are up against the zero bound on interest rates. So we need fiscal stimulus - which is hopeless since Democrats aren't even making that pitch.
As we see the from recent job numbers, small gains get a positive reaction. It frustrates me that we could do so much better if there was some urgency. Instead, getting below 8 percent unemployment by 2013 seems acceptable. Way too often government and the public accept suffering of segments of our society - more often less visible segments.
But my real question is this: if the problem facing businesses really is excess supply and unused capacity, why are businesses okay with Republican calls for austerity and budget cuts? Krugman believes that we need government to expand to make up for the cuts in consumer spending and to help consumers spend. Republicans are saying the real problem is taxes - or at least tax uncertainty.
On its face, the Republican point seems absurd. There is almost no talk of tax increases, so that can't be the reason businesses are not hiring.
But if Republicans are wrong and Krugman is right, why aren't businesses calling for fiscal expansion? Reports from the Chamber of Commerce say the biggest problem is excess supply. Are the businesses acting against their interest in support of ideology? Or is Krugman (and me) wrong? Or are businesses content with the meager growth if it means smaller government?
As we see the from recent job numbers, small gains get a positive reaction. It frustrates me that we could do so much better if there was some urgency. Instead, getting below 8 percent unemployment by 2013 seems acceptable. Way too often government and the public accept suffering of segments of our society - more often less visible segments.
But my real question is this: if the problem facing businesses really is excess supply and unused capacity, why are businesses okay with Republican calls for austerity and budget cuts? Krugman believes that we need government to expand to make up for the cuts in consumer spending and to help consumers spend. Republicans are saying the real problem is taxes - or at least tax uncertainty.
On its face, the Republican point seems absurd. There is almost no talk of tax increases, so that can't be the reason businesses are not hiring.
But if Republicans are wrong and Krugman is right, why aren't businesses calling for fiscal expansion? Reports from the Chamber of Commerce say the biggest problem is excess supply. Are the businesses acting against their interest in support of ideology? Or is Krugman (and me) wrong? Or are businesses content with the meager growth if it means smaller government?
Trump and Palin
I for one completely agree with Steve Kornacki at Salon: Donald Trump is not really running for president. It is all a publicity stunt - just as it has been in the past.
But I have to hand it to him, no one is better at manipulating the media for free publicity. Consider this, the man is only the 420 richest person in the world, and only number 27 in New York. Yet he is more well known than most people ahead of him. He is like the Anna Kournikova of rich people; he is more popular than he should be given his position in his industry. Although where Kournikova did it through her looks, Trump does it through media manipulation.
He fully embodies the maxim that there is no such thing as bad press, and it works for him. Developers pay him to put his name on their buildings; he didn't actually build many of the Trump buildings you see. He is shameless, but that is what keeps him in the spotlight. He is paid for his brand because of his ability to stay in the news - for things like supporting the birthers and being on bad reality shows - not in spite of it.
His strategy makes me feel dirty. But it is brilliant. If we had a media that covered the middle of the debate instead of the extremes, Trump would probably have to work a little harder for his publicity.
Another potential but unlikely Republican presidential candidate that gets out-sized media coverage is Sarah Palin. Sometimes I wonder why she gets so much coverage; the media seems to hand on her every word. Then I realize it's because the public eats up all the stories - myself included.
When I asked myself why I read all the stories, I realized it's because I keep thinking that this story, this comment, will finally be the one that shows the world that she is a complete moron. Saying she has a superficial understanding of the major issues is generous. And she has not demonstrated an interest in really understanding them.
While I keep thinking it will be one comment that will finally convince everyone, it seems instead that people are slowly getting it, even Republicans. She is good at avoiding major gaffes, but the sum of her statements is turning people off. They are seeing that she is self-involved and superficial.
At first, when she attacked the press, it came off like she was attacking a liberal media bias. But now it is clear to most people that she is attacking their coverage of her. And when she weighed in on the Gifford's shooting, she didn't defend conservatives or conservative issues, she defended herself. Her self-involvement and victimization are turning off her own base. If it takes constant media coverage to make that point, then so be it.
But I have to hand it to him, no one is better at manipulating the media for free publicity. Consider this, the man is only the 420 richest person in the world, and only number 27 in New York. Yet he is more well known than most people ahead of him. He is like the Anna Kournikova of rich people; he is more popular than he should be given his position in his industry. Although where Kournikova did it through her looks, Trump does it through media manipulation.
He fully embodies the maxim that there is no such thing as bad press, and it works for him. Developers pay him to put his name on their buildings; he didn't actually build many of the Trump buildings you see. He is shameless, but that is what keeps him in the spotlight. He is paid for his brand because of his ability to stay in the news - for things like supporting the birthers and being on bad reality shows - not in spite of it.
His strategy makes me feel dirty. But it is brilliant. If we had a media that covered the middle of the debate instead of the extremes, Trump would probably have to work a little harder for his publicity.
Another potential but unlikely Republican presidential candidate that gets out-sized media coverage is Sarah Palin. Sometimes I wonder why she gets so much coverage; the media seems to hand on her every word. Then I realize it's because the public eats up all the stories - myself included.
When I asked myself why I read all the stories, I realized it's because I keep thinking that this story, this comment, will finally be the one that shows the world that she is a complete moron. Saying she has a superficial understanding of the major issues is generous. And she has not demonstrated an interest in really understanding them.
While I keep thinking it will be one comment that will finally convince everyone, it seems instead that people are slowly getting it, even Republicans. She is good at avoiding major gaffes, but the sum of her statements is turning people off. They are seeing that she is self-involved and superficial.
At first, when she attacked the press, it came off like she was attacking a liberal media bias. But now it is clear to most people that she is attacking their coverage of her. And when she weighed in on the Gifford's shooting, she didn't defend conservatives or conservative issues, she defended herself. Her self-involvement and victimization are turning off her own base. If it takes constant media coverage to make that point, then so be it.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Economy: Invisible Unemployed
Right now the unemployed are just a number - not a vocal group of affected people. In effect, it is the worst of both worlds. Conditions are bad and will hurt Obama in 2012, but not bad enough to cause urgency of action and therefore give him room to do what really needs to be done (fiscal stimulus since monetary policy has been ineffective).
The best we can hope for is that the lack of urgency means Obama won’t be punished that much. But it means our economy doesn't improve. The picture seems bleak to say the least.
The best we can hope for is that the lack of urgency means Obama won’t be punished that much. But it means our economy doesn't improve. The picture seems bleak to say the least.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Five Retirement Myths from the WSJ
I just thought this was a helpful article from the Journal. Note: all of these are untrue.
Retirement Myths
1. $1 Million Will Be Enough
2. You'll Spend Less When You're Older (some expenses go down, others go up)
3. Older People Need More Bonds
4. Your Money Lasts Longer if You Move (states with no income tax make up for it with sales taxes)
5. Uncle Sam Has Got Your Back (retirees often need to supplement Medicare)
Retirement Myths
1. $1 Million Will Be Enough
2. You'll Spend Less When You're Older (some expenses go down, others go up)
3. Older People Need More Bonds
4. Your Money Lasts Longer if You Move (states with no income tax make up for it with sales taxes)
5. Uncle Sam Has Got Your Back (retirees often need to supplement Medicare)
Book Report: 1984
I read 1984 a few years ago, but a friend was shocked to learn that I didn't like it. So here is my review.
Let me start by saying that my review, coming so many years after the book was written, should be taken with a grain of salt. I can't speak to its originality, since I have experienced all that has come since. I can believe that it was original and ground-breaking, but I can't experience that.
So while I can't say first-hand what impact the book had, I can speak to is whether the book still holds up. And it doesn't. It's ideas might stay with us - like thought crime, newspeak, etc. While those concepts can still teach us, the story does not. And therefore the book no longer needs to be read.
The biggest problem is that as a dystopian novel, it doesn't show us anything particularly new or extra scary, nor does it enlighten us in any way. The only thing 1984 teaches us is how bad dictatorships are, which we know just by reading the news. To the extent that it tries to show us how much worse dictatorships can be with new technologies, it fails.
One of the ideas that Orwell seems most proud of is Newspeak, which is just a form of propaganda. But that doesn't seem any different than propaganda one would find in North Korea or Iran.
Thought crime and actually the level of control of the government is more total than you would find in modern dictatorships, but I would say only marginally so. Maybe the technology prevents you from even writing in a journal, but how much worse is that than other dictatorships which don't allow you to say what you think. Not being allowed to express yourself publicly is horrible; not being able to express yourself privately seems only marginally worse.
My point is that I never got the sense from the book that the author is presenting something significantly more horrible or unique than we see in our world. The world of 1984 isn't much scarier than what we see in North Korea, China, or Iran.
A dystopia is supposed to show a horrible and scary world - something unrecognizable from our own. But 1984 doesn't do that. It shows us a more futuristic version, marginally worse, of a dictatorship. If it isn't much worse than what we know exists, than what is Orwell's book teaching us? I would say not very much.
Let me start by saying that my review, coming so many years after the book was written, should be taken with a grain of salt. I can't speak to its originality, since I have experienced all that has come since. I can believe that it was original and ground-breaking, but I can't experience that.
So while I can't say first-hand what impact the book had, I can speak to is whether the book still holds up. And it doesn't. It's ideas might stay with us - like thought crime, newspeak, etc. While those concepts can still teach us, the story does not. And therefore the book no longer needs to be read.
The biggest problem is that as a dystopian novel, it doesn't show us anything particularly new or extra scary, nor does it enlighten us in any way. The only thing 1984 teaches us is how bad dictatorships are, which we know just by reading the news. To the extent that it tries to show us how much worse dictatorships can be with new technologies, it fails.
One of the ideas that Orwell seems most proud of is Newspeak, which is just a form of propaganda. But that doesn't seem any different than propaganda one would find in North Korea or Iran.
Thought crime and actually the level of control of the government is more total than you would find in modern dictatorships, but I would say only marginally so. Maybe the technology prevents you from even writing in a journal, but how much worse is that than other dictatorships which don't allow you to say what you think. Not being allowed to express yourself publicly is horrible; not being able to express yourself privately seems only marginally worse.
My point is that I never got the sense from the book that the author is presenting something significantly more horrible or unique than we see in our world. The world of 1984 isn't much scarier than what we see in North Korea, China, or Iran.
A dystopia is supposed to show a horrible and scary world - something unrecognizable from our own. But 1984 doesn't do that. It shows us a more futuristic version, marginally worse, of a dictatorship. If it isn't much worse than what we know exists, than what is Orwell's book teaching us? I would say not very much.
Monday, March 14, 2011
Obama on Gun Control
President Obama finally weighed in on gun control. He didn't talk about assault rifles or the large magazines, and that is a shame. But what he does talk about is important - namely improved and consistent background checks. And he tries to make it clear that we can have some gun control without people being afraid we are taking away the second amendment. In other words he is advocating for a common sense solution.
Unfortunately, I am afraid he might have lost the moment. Will there be any momentum behind this - either natural or created by the administration? I'm not optimistic.
Unfortunately, I am afraid he might have lost the moment. Will there be any momentum behind this - either natural or created by the administration? I'm not optimistic.
Nuclear Japan
I must admit that I have been paying more attention to the drama around Japan's nuclear reactors than to the number of deaths from the earthquake and tsunami (1,800 last count). I have learned a lot about nuclear reactors during all of this - relying on Physics for Future Presidents (by Richard Muller), the New York Times, and especially the Wall Street Journal.
Throughout all of this, I still think nuclear power can be a very useful energy source. And I think the danger is overrated (while the negative aspects of other fuel sources underrated). In Muller's book, he says that the number of excess cancer deaths* from cancer at Chernobyl is 4,000. Note that Chernobyl is the only full nuclear meltdown. The number of excess cancer deaths from Three Mile Island is 1. Compare that to Bhopal's chemical plant leak which killed 5,000 people instantly and may total 20,000 deaths.
I could be wrong, but from reading the news accounts, it doesn't seem like anyone will die immediately - either from explosions or radiation poisoning. And since a full meltdown (ie nuclear fuel melting through the containment structures) still seems unlikely, I think estimated deaths from cancer due to exposure will also be very low.
The bottom line to me is that we can make these technologies safer - and I think that will be the ultimate change that happens as a result of these partial meltdowns. I think we'll systems with much better back-ups, like longer battery power in the case that diesel generators fail and cannot be brought back online.
* Muller used the linear hypothesis when estimating excess cancer deaths.
Throughout all of this, I still think nuclear power can be a very useful energy source. And I think the danger is overrated (while the negative aspects of other fuel sources underrated). In Muller's book, he says that the number of excess cancer deaths* from cancer at Chernobyl is 4,000. Note that Chernobyl is the only full nuclear meltdown. The number of excess cancer deaths from Three Mile Island is 1. Compare that to Bhopal's chemical plant leak which killed 5,000 people instantly and may total 20,000 deaths.
I could be wrong, but from reading the news accounts, it doesn't seem like anyone will die immediately - either from explosions or radiation poisoning. And since a full meltdown (ie nuclear fuel melting through the containment structures) still seems unlikely, I think estimated deaths from cancer due to exposure will also be very low.
The bottom line to me is that we can make these technologies safer - and I think that will be the ultimate change that happens as a result of these partial meltdowns. I think we'll systems with much better back-ups, like longer battery power in the case that diesel generators fail and cannot be brought back online.
* Muller used the linear hypothesis when estimating excess cancer deaths.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Charlie Sheen / The Disposable Woman
This column in the NY Times is pretty powerful. It points out the difference between how Chris Brown was treated when he assaulted Rhianna (his girlfriend at the time) and how Charlie Sheen has been treated after assaulting his various wives and girlfriends.
The author suggests that the difference is in how society sees the women. Rhianna of course is a talented musician. In Sheen's case, his women are less sympathetic and therefore almost deserving of the abuse.
Either way, we should be focusing much more on his behavior towards women - as we should have all along - and less on his absurd rants and drinks of tiger juice.
The author suggests that the difference is in how society sees the women. Rhianna of course is a talented musician. In Sheen's case, his women are less sympathetic and therefore almost deserving of the abuse.
But there’s something else at work here: the seeming imperfection of Mr. Sheen’s numerous accusers. The women are of a type, which is to say, highly unsympathetic. Some are sex workers — pornographic film stars and escorts — whose compliance with churlish conduct is assumed to be part of the deal. (For the record: It is not.)The only other reason for the difference in treatment is just as appalling: the difference in race between him and Chris Brown.
Others, namely Ms. Richards and Ms. Mueller, are less-famous starlets or former “nobodies” whose relationships with Mr. Sheen have been disparaged as purely sexual and transactional. The women reside on a continuum in which injuries are assumed and insults are expected.
[Edit]
It’s these sorts of explicit and implicit value judgments that underscore our contempt for women who are assumed to be trading on their sexuality. A woman’s active embrace of the fame monster or participation in the sex industry, we seem to say, means that she compromises her right not to be assaulted, let alone humiliated, insulted or degraded; it’s part of the deal. The promise of a modern Cinderella ending — attention, fame, the love and savings account of a rich man — is always the assumed goal.
Either way, we should be focusing much more on his behavior towards women - as we should have all along - and less on his absurd rants and drinks of tiger juice.
McCain's Grudges
I have no idea if this is true - that McCain's politics can be explained by his grudges. True, he did move to the center after losing the primary to Bush II in 2000. And now he has moved far to the right after losing to Obama in 2008 (granted he started that move during the election).
So it seems perfectly plausible. But then again, we should remind ourselves that correlation does not imply causation. Either way, it is interesting to think about.
So it seems perfectly plausible. But then again, we should remind ourselves that correlation does not imply causation. Either way, it is interesting to think about.
Huckabee on Single Moms
Huckabee has had some bad press lately - after having some good press. I don't feel the need to talk about his Kenya comments - they are ridiculous and speak for themselves. But I do want to talk about his comments about single moms.
Actually, first, let me say I don't care that much about his insult (whether it was or not) of Natalie Portman. I think she is a great actress and seems to be a decent person. But if she was offended, she can take care of herself.
What concerns me more is what his comments about single moms say about the policies he supports. He recognizes that single mothers receive, and he says rightly so, government subsidy because without it they might not be able to feed themselves and their kids. But his solution to this dependency is judgment and a strong wish for them not to have babies.
Let's be clear, there are many reasons why women are having babies before or without getting married, but I can bet it isn't because they think they are, or want to be like, Natalie Portman. In fact, I would say that the reason many women are not married has to do with social conditions facing the men in their world like lack of jobs and over-incarceration for minor drug offenses.
Huckabee would rather these women not have kids. I would rather there were jobs for everyone in their community; I would rather there were better education services; I would rather we didn't penalize people of color for dealing drugs to rich people and addicts. I would rather they lived in a world where they could have kids and raise them in a happy and healthy environment.
Having said that, I do recognize that there are people that have kids that clearly cannot care for them. The city has a whole (very expensive but still underfunded) agency to deal with that - the Administration for Children's Services. But that isn't what Huckabee is talking about. He is referring to parents receiving public assistance. I would rather that the parents that abuse or neglect their kids would not have kids. But I don't know how to stop that.
The bottom line is that I don't think poor people should have to forgo the beauty and joy of having kids just because we are failing to serve them. Huckabee seems to think differently.
Actually, first, let me say I don't care that much about his insult (whether it was or not) of Natalie Portman. I think she is a great actress and seems to be a decent person. But if she was offended, she can take care of herself.
What concerns me more is what his comments about single moms say about the policies he supports. He recognizes that single mothers receive, and he says rightly so, government subsidy because without it they might not be able to feed themselves and their kids. But his solution to this dependency is judgment and a strong wish for them not to have babies.
Let's be clear, there are many reasons why women are having babies before or without getting married, but I can bet it isn't because they think they are, or want to be like, Natalie Portman. In fact, I would say that the reason many women are not married has to do with social conditions facing the men in their world like lack of jobs and over-incarceration for minor drug offenses.
Huckabee would rather these women not have kids. I would rather there were jobs for everyone in their community; I would rather there were better education services; I would rather we didn't penalize people of color for dealing drugs to rich people and addicts. I would rather they lived in a world where they could have kids and raise them in a happy and healthy environment.
Having said that, I do recognize that there are people that have kids that clearly cannot care for them. The city has a whole (very expensive but still underfunded) agency to deal with that - the Administration for Children's Services. But that isn't what Huckabee is talking about. He is referring to parents receiving public assistance. I would rather that the parents that abuse or neglect their kids would not have kids. But I don't know how to stop that.
The bottom line is that I don't think poor people should have to forgo the beauty and joy of having kids just because we are failing to serve them. Huckabee seems to think differently.
Brooks: Two Good Columns
David Brooks wrote two good columns recently that I want to touch on. Here is a quote from the first one:
I will say though that I don't completely agree with his comment to cuts for the old. I think the only humane policy will support both the young and the old. But maybe it is his tone that strikes me more than his actual proposal. Tweaking pension payouts can make sense, and if that is what he is saying, than I can agree. Although I don't know if we can make a dent with the future cuts through tweaking.
Here are quotes from his second column that I liked:
A second austerity principle is this: Trim from the old to invest in the young. We should adjust pension promises and reduce the amount of money spent on health care during the last months of life so we can preserve programs for those who are growing and learning the most.I think he is absolutely right that it is terrible policy to disinvest in education and our future. Republicans are portraying it as taking money from overpaid and greedy teachers, which we all know is absurd. We can tweak salary and benefits for teachers, but the real cuts that are coming to education are coming to staffing levels.
So far, this principle is being trampled. Seniors vote. Taxpayers revolt. Public employees occupy capitol buildings to protect their bargaining power for future benefits negotiations. As a result, seniors are being protected while children are getting pummeled. If you look across the country, you see education financing getting sliced — often in the most thoughtless and destructive ways. The future has no union.”
I will say though that I don't completely agree with his comment to cuts for the old. I think the only humane policy will support both the young and the old. But maybe it is his tone that strikes me more than his actual proposal. Tweaking pension payouts can make sense, and if that is what he is saying, than I can agree. Although I don't know if we can make a dent with the future cuts through tweaking.
Here are quotes from his second column that I liked:
In retrospect, I’d say that Huntington committed the Fundamental Attribution Error. That is, he ascribed to traits qualities that are actually determined by context.I like this, and I like that it is coming from a relative conservative. I think many people overplay culture when talking about peoples' demand for democracy (ie China and Confucius, Muslims, etc). But culture plays a role, especially in what form democracy can take. So yes, we are unique, yet shaped by our culture, but also share many things with others in the human race. And all people want freedom and self-rule.
He argued that people in Arab lands are intrinsically not nationalistic. He argued that they do not hunger for pluralism and democracy in the way these things are understood in the West. But it now appears as though they were simply living in circumstances that did not allow that patriotism or those spiritual hungers to come to the surface.
It now appears that people in these nations, like people in all nations, have multiple authentic selves. In some circumstances, one set of identities manifests itself, but when those circumstances change, other equally authentic identities and desires get activated.
[Edit]
In some ways, each of us is like every person on earth; in some ways, each of us is like the members of our culture and group; and, in some ways, each of us is unique. Huntington minimized the power of universal political values and exaggerated the influence of distinct cultural values. It’s easy to see why he did this. He was arguing against global elites who sometimes refuse to acknowledge the power of culture at all.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Obama and the Economy
I agree with this post by Robert Reich. But I think Obama needs to be less moderate on budget cuts for policy as well as political reasons. Instead, Obama has decided to go moderate on the budget and the economy and I think could lose because of it.
I don’t get why businesses aren’t more vocal about the need for government spending. Or do they not believe that cuts in government jobs will decrease consumer spending (or prevent increases in government spending)?
Also - Obama seems just as quiet as during the health care debate. There are real debates going on right now and he is largely silent. Filling the void are Scott Walker in WI and Chris Christie in NJ - both attacking unions - and Congressional Republicans cutting necessary programs.
I will say this again: President Obama, we need leadership. You have so much power over the agenda yet I don't feel like you use it. And this means no one is articulating the other side, my side, our side. We lost the health care debate. Now we are going to lose the government funding debate. For someone that gives such good speeches, you don't seem to do it often enough.
Be more than a great speech-giver. Be a great communicator. Like Reagan - but for the right side.
I don’t get why businesses aren’t more vocal about the need for government spending. Or do they not believe that cuts in government jobs will decrease consumer spending (or prevent increases in government spending)?
Also - Obama seems just as quiet as during the health care debate. There are real debates going on right now and he is largely silent. Filling the void are Scott Walker in WI and Chris Christie in NJ - both attacking unions - and Congressional Republicans cutting necessary programs.
I will say this again: President Obama, we need leadership. You have so much power over the agenda yet I don't feel like you use it. And this means no one is articulating the other side, my side, our side. We lost the health care debate. Now we are going to lose the government funding debate. For someone that gives such good speeches, you don't seem to do it often enough.
Be more than a great speech-giver. Be a great communicator. Like Reagan - but for the right side.
On the Muslim Brotherhood
I know this is late, but I don’t think the Brotherhood will stay out of the news. Juan Cole describes the Muslim Brotherhood.
Monday, March 07, 2011
Dear Conservative: Compassion
Dear Conservative,
I bet you wonder sometimes why I am a liberal. Maybe you think about how I was raised and wonder where things went wrong.
If you do think that, I would actually argue that things are the other way around; my liberalism fits perfectly with the way I was raised. Your conservatism however does not.
Let's look at the recent battles that conservatives have decided to pick. Since December, Republicans have said that people making $250,000 are not that rich and need protection (ie lower taxes), teachers making $50,000 make way too much money, and social programs for the poor are too generous. In other words, they protect the rich and attack the poor.
I would argue that my upbringing, which included lessons about sharing, selflessness and helping those in need, and not passing judgment has lead me to oppose conservatives.
Believing in sharing and selflessness means that I am not overly greedy about my money; taxes are necessary as long as they are fair. Since I was taught to helping those in need, I support funding for social programs. And having an attitude that is non-judgmental means I don't judge or blame poor people for their condition but instead want to help.
So after reading this, how do you feel about your party? Your party argues that rich people are victims and the low and middle class people have more than they need. It seems to me you have two possible responses: that I shouldn't have been taught so much about sharing and helping, or that you should follow those teachings and be a better advocate for poverty programs.
I bet you wonder sometimes why I am a liberal. Maybe you think about how I was raised and wonder where things went wrong.
If you do think that, I would actually argue that things are the other way around; my liberalism fits perfectly with the way I was raised. Your conservatism however does not.
Let's look at the recent battles that conservatives have decided to pick. Since December, Republicans have said that people making $250,000 are not that rich and need protection (ie lower taxes), teachers making $50,000 make way too much money, and social programs for the poor are too generous. In other words, they protect the rich and attack the poor.
I would argue that my upbringing, which included lessons about sharing, selflessness and helping those in need, and not passing judgment has lead me to oppose conservatives.
Believing in sharing and selflessness means that I am not overly greedy about my money; taxes are necessary as long as they are fair. Since I was taught to helping those in need, I support funding for social programs. And having an attitude that is non-judgmental means I don't judge or blame poor people for their condition but instead want to help.
So after reading this, how do you feel about your party? Your party argues that rich people are victims and the low and middle class people have more than they need. It seems to me you have two possible responses: that I shouldn't have been taught so much about sharing and helping, or that you should follow those teachings and be a better advocate for poverty programs.
Saturday, March 05, 2011
About Jon Stewart
I just realized that I have never actually posted about Jon Stewart and the Daily Show. I just want to go on the record with what I think his value is.
First, and probably most importantly, Jon Stewart's satire against the media is amazing. While a lot of his ire is directed at Fox News, a lot is also directed at CNN and related cable news. He is great at bashing fluffy, unreasonable, or contradictory stories. And his take-down of CNBC was great.
Second, Stewart is great at showing the hypocrisy of politicians on both sides. It seems that at least once a week Stewart is able to show politicians railing against political ploys, legislative methods, or public statements that they themselves employed or supported at a different time. Congressman Anthony Weiner (former Stewart roommate) thinks this creates negative impressions of legislators. I strongly disagree. Being hypocritical makes politicians look bad. Showing it just makes sure people are aware of it so they cannot get away with it.
Third, Stewart conducts great interviews - especially with conservatives daring enough to come on his show. Like the John Yoo debates, they are often respectful and honest.
Finally, I like Stewart just for the humor. Politics can so easily cause frustration and burnout. Jon Stewart helps us laugh at it so we can bear it another day.
First, and probably most importantly, Jon Stewart's satire against the media is amazing. While a lot of his ire is directed at Fox News, a lot is also directed at CNN and related cable news. He is great at bashing fluffy, unreasonable, or contradictory stories. And his take-down of CNBC was great.
Second, Stewart is great at showing the hypocrisy of politicians on both sides. It seems that at least once a week Stewart is able to show politicians railing against political ploys, legislative methods, or public statements that they themselves employed or supported at a different time. Congressman Anthony Weiner (former Stewart roommate) thinks this creates negative impressions of legislators. I strongly disagree. Being hypocritical makes politicians look bad. Showing it just makes sure people are aware of it so they cannot get away with it.
Third, Stewart conducts great interviews - especially with conservatives daring enough to come on his show. Like the John Yoo debates, they are often respectful and honest.
Finally, I like Stewart just for the humor. Politics can so easily cause frustration and burnout. Jon Stewart helps us laugh at it so we can bear it another day.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
How to Improve Schools - the Moderate Way
In too many situations, the extremes dominate the debate and make everything seem like a binary world. Education reform is one of them. On one side we have the people that blame teachers and think we can make drastic improvements if we weaken the teachers unions. On the other side we have people who think teacher reforms will do nothing and more funding is the only solution.
Who represents the reasonable middle (or slightly left of middle)? I think unions should give ground. I think tenure is unnecessary and keeps ineffective teachers in the classroom. And I kind of think teacher pay should be more flexible than simple arithmetic based on experience (although experience is definitely important).
But I also think you get what you pay for. If we want big gains in education, we need to spend more money. We need to decrease class sizes and spend more on extras (art, music, drama, second languages, etc), after school programs, and teacher development.
Unfortunately, it seems that neither side is giving ground. And worse, the side that is winning is blaming teachers (and maybe getting some contract changes - maybe) while allowing budgets to get cut. I worry for our future.
Who represents the reasonable middle (or slightly left of middle)? I think unions should give ground. I think tenure is unnecessary and keeps ineffective teachers in the classroom. And I kind of think teacher pay should be more flexible than simple arithmetic based on experience (although experience is definitely important).
But I also think you get what you pay for. If we want big gains in education, we need to spend more money. We need to decrease class sizes and spend more on extras (art, music, drama, second languages, etc), after school programs, and teacher development.
Unfortunately, it seems that neither side is giving ground. And worse, the side that is winning is blaming teachers (and maybe getting some contract changes - maybe) while allowing budgets to get cut. I worry for our future.
More Abortion Nonsense
There is a billboard in New York City that says, "The most dangerous place for an African-American is in the womb." There are so many things wrong with this it is hard to know where to start.
But let's start with the most obvious. The groups that sponsor and support this add care little for the safety or well-being for African-Americans. If they did, they would have adds that call attention to gun violence, increased and smarter police patrols, incarceration rates, food insecurity, educational needs, foster care, housing and the need for more jobs in low income neighborhoods people of color.
Instead, these groups care about the fetus but not the child, teenager or adult. Fortunately I think most reasonable people recognize this hypocrisy.
Related to that, the group doesn't even bother think about why abortions might be higher among lower income women in general and lower income women of color. In fact, if they really were concerned, they could strongly advocate for programs that would make raising a child easier for low income mothers and therefore make it less likely that women would feel the need to abort a pregnancy.
If they didn't want to do that, they could at the very least support family planning - even non-abortion family planning like sex education and increased availability of birth control options.
These groups are not interested in any of that. Instead, they want to use people of color as pawns in their righteous message.
The message is also appalling because of where it places the blame. While it tries to highlight the black fetuses as victims, it is also implying that black mothers are the killers. With abortion, you can't have one without the other (at least from the pro-life side). In other words, the group is telling the public that abortion is more often carried out by evil black mothers.
This may not be eugenics but it certainly seems to be saying that black people are more evil. Either that, or they would agree with my earlier point that low income people need more support than they currently receive - not just counseling, but financial support.
I hope the backlash is strong enough that they learn in the future not to blithely trade on racial issues for reasons that benefit themselves and their agenda. And if they want to help communities of color, they should start working there and ask the people what they want and need. This hypocrisy, blame and condescension is appalling.
But let's start with the most obvious. The groups that sponsor and support this add care little for the safety or well-being for African-Americans. If they did, they would have adds that call attention to gun violence, increased and smarter police patrols, incarceration rates, food insecurity, educational needs, foster care, housing and the need for more jobs in low income neighborhoods people of color.
Instead, these groups care about the fetus but not the child, teenager or adult. Fortunately I think most reasonable people recognize this hypocrisy.
Related to that, the group doesn't even bother think about why abortions might be higher among lower income women in general and lower income women of color. In fact, if they really were concerned, they could strongly advocate for programs that would make raising a child easier for low income mothers and therefore make it less likely that women would feel the need to abort a pregnancy.
If they didn't want to do that, they could at the very least support family planning - even non-abortion family planning like sex education and increased availability of birth control options.
These groups are not interested in any of that. Instead, they want to use people of color as pawns in their righteous message.
The message is also appalling because of where it places the blame. While it tries to highlight the black fetuses as victims, it is also implying that black mothers are the killers. With abortion, you can't have one without the other (at least from the pro-life side). In other words, the group is telling the public that abortion is more often carried out by evil black mothers.
This may not be eugenics but it certainly seems to be saying that black people are more evil. Either that, or they would agree with my earlier point that low income people need more support than they currently receive - not just counseling, but financial support.
I hope the backlash is strong enough that they learn in the future not to blithely trade on racial issues for reasons that benefit themselves and their agenda. And if they want to help communities of color, they should start working there and ask the people what they want and need. This hypocrisy, blame and condescension is appalling.
Party Like It's 1848
So the conventional wisdom of the moment seems to be that the unrest in the Middle East right now is most similar to the revolutions / protests of 1848*. If so, our expectation should be that the revolutions won't be successful in the short term but in a couple decades will lead to more stability for these countries.
I am partial to this analysis because it fits my more long term view of things. Stable democracies don't happen overnight. If you look at our own history, we needed two attempts to create a decent constitution and form of government and we had a major civil war 84 years after our independence.
In fact, this Foreign Policy post shows why the color revolutions from a few years ago have not shown immediate results and have even regressed. However, I think these will also have long term successes.
Basically, I think we should be prepared for the fact that some of these revolutions will regress (assuming they are successful in getting rid of their leaders). But we cannot and should not lose hope and we shouldn't give up on democracy. I just fear that if our hopes are too high and then we are inevitably let down, next time we'll think that the country isn't ready for democracy and we'll be unwilling to support it.
This fear is especially acute in situations when supporting democracy might be less appealing - like another Egypt. If our bar is too high, next time we might not support an Egypt. We must keep faith that democracy works in the long term and at every step we need to support it. In the long term, we'll be rewarded.
*Quite a surprise to me that there was actually a smart and useful Slate post.
I am partial to this analysis because it fits my more long term view of things. Stable democracies don't happen overnight. If you look at our own history, we needed two attempts to create a decent constitution and form of government and we had a major civil war 84 years after our independence.
In fact, this Foreign Policy post shows why the color revolutions from a few years ago have not shown immediate results and have even regressed. However, I think these will also have long term successes.
Basically, I think we should be prepared for the fact that some of these revolutions will regress (assuming they are successful in getting rid of their leaders). But we cannot and should not lose hope and we shouldn't give up on democracy. I just fear that if our hopes are too high and then we are inevitably let down, next time we'll think that the country isn't ready for democracy and we'll be unwilling to support it.
This fear is especially acute in situations when supporting democracy might be less appealing - like another Egypt. If our bar is too high, next time we might not support an Egypt. We must keep faith that democracy works in the long term and at every step we need to support it. In the long term, we'll be rewarded.
*Quite a surprise to me that there was actually a smart and useful Slate post.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Sophistry from Huckabee
So Mike Huckabee thinks abortion is slavery. Let me tell you why that is a stupid analogy.
Let's start with the source of the major disagreement between pro-life and pro-choice folks - the moment that life begins. The pro-lifers believe that life begins at conception - that when the sperm fertilizes the egg, God inserts a soul into the zygote. After this amazing act, God then disappears and allows that zygote to develop into a person that might lead a happy life or might die a horrible death from famine, war or genocide.
Pro-choice folks on the other hand might not have a bright line for when life begins, but feel that it is not right at conception. Maybe it is after the first trimester or maybe it is later and at the point when the fetus could sustain itself outside the womb.
So if we take the pro-life position as the starting point, then we can determine an accurate analogy. If life begins at conception, then terminating a pregnancy is ending a life. In other words it is murder. In fact, that is what pro-lifers have been saying for a long time.
Mike Huckabee wants us to believe that it isn't murder but slavery. If I understand slavery right, it is the imprisonment of another person for the purposes of free labor. It seems to me that giving birth to a child then putting it to work might be slavery. But killing the fetus denies it the ability to do work - force or unforced.
So why is Mike Huckabee moving away from calling it murder and saying it is slavery? I have some thoughts. First, I think he realizes that equating it to murder hasn't won the argument (because most people don't agree that life begins at conception).
So if the murder argument isn't working, Huckabee must have decided that he needs another more provocative analogy, even if the logic is insanely tortured and the new comparison is less appalling than murder.
Second, maybe he thinks some people of color, maybe those that are religious, will buy this argument. In other words, he thinks this seemingly clever turn of words will bring new people who have a history with slavery to support the pro-life cause.
Third, he probably thinks it is a clever trap for liberals. For so long liberals have been trying to make southern conservatives feel guilty about slavery. If he can convince people that abortion is slavery, liberals have to either say slavery isn't that bad, or that abortion is wrong.
No matter his reasons, his argument is clearly sophistry. But that isn't Huckabee's biggest problem with this abortion argument.
Huckabee's real problem is that he is looking for an easy win (with obviously flawed logic) instead of putting in the hard work on this issue to change minds. No matter what you call abortion (slavery or murder), the only way people will come to the pro-life side is if they believe that life begins at conception.
That of course is a tremendous challenge (because it goes against science and what feels like common sense). And it is a challenge Huckabee doesn't seem up to.
Let's start with the source of the major disagreement between pro-life and pro-choice folks - the moment that life begins. The pro-lifers believe that life begins at conception - that when the sperm fertilizes the egg, God inserts a soul into the zygote. After this amazing act, God then disappears and allows that zygote to develop into a person that might lead a happy life or might die a horrible death from famine, war or genocide.
Pro-choice folks on the other hand might not have a bright line for when life begins, but feel that it is not right at conception. Maybe it is after the first trimester or maybe it is later and at the point when the fetus could sustain itself outside the womb.
So if we take the pro-life position as the starting point, then we can determine an accurate analogy. If life begins at conception, then terminating a pregnancy is ending a life. In other words it is murder. In fact, that is what pro-lifers have been saying for a long time.
Mike Huckabee wants us to believe that it isn't murder but slavery. If I understand slavery right, it is the imprisonment of another person for the purposes of free labor. It seems to me that giving birth to a child then putting it to work might be slavery. But killing the fetus denies it the ability to do work - force or unforced.
So why is Mike Huckabee moving away from calling it murder and saying it is slavery? I have some thoughts. First, I think he realizes that equating it to murder hasn't won the argument (because most people don't agree that life begins at conception).
So if the murder argument isn't working, Huckabee must have decided that he needs another more provocative analogy, even if the logic is insanely tortured and the new comparison is less appalling than murder.
Second, maybe he thinks some people of color, maybe those that are religious, will buy this argument. In other words, he thinks this seemingly clever turn of words will bring new people who have a history with slavery to support the pro-life cause.
Third, he probably thinks it is a clever trap for liberals. For so long liberals have been trying to make southern conservatives feel guilty about slavery. If he can convince people that abortion is slavery, liberals have to either say slavery isn't that bad, or that abortion is wrong.
No matter his reasons, his argument is clearly sophistry. But that isn't Huckabee's biggest problem with this abortion argument.
Huckabee's real problem is that he is looking for an easy win (with obviously flawed logic) instead of putting in the hard work on this issue to change minds. No matter what you call abortion (slavery or murder), the only way people will come to the pro-life side is if they believe that life begins at conception.
That of course is a tremendous challenge (because it goes against science and what feels like common sense). And it is a challenge Huckabee doesn't seem up to.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Is the Mandate Unconstitutional?
The answer is a resounding no according to David Cole. You should read the whole argument, but let me see if I can summarize correctly.
First, although the people that oppose health reform, and the mandate particularly, seem to do so form a libertarian perspective, there is nothing in the constitution that guarantees the freedom these people want. Instead, their only hope is to appeal to state's rights. In fact, the states themselves clearly have the right to have an individual mandate.
So does state's rights argument work? No. The necessary and proper clause, as it has been interpreted since the New Deal allows Congress to pass such a mandate, as does the interstate commerce clause. The courts have found that the federal government has the ability to regulate individual interactions if they affect bigger interstate interactions. Marijuana laws and laws restricting growing of wheat for individual consumption show that the federal government can regulate people who are not ingaging in the market.
Cole goes on to say that the federal judge that struck down the law did so using jurisprudence that is no longer in use. He therefore thinks the law will be upheld and not by a close vote.
While I am convinced by Cole's argument, I am only moderately reassured. What seems like clear cut legal reasoning, the Supreme Court, especially one as conservative as this one is, is capable of finding arguments for political decisions. My gut is that this decision comes down 5-4, hopefully with Kennedy deciding in favor of the law. Anything more than that is too much to expect.
First, although the people that oppose health reform, and the mandate particularly, seem to do so form a libertarian perspective, there is nothing in the constitution that guarantees the freedom these people want. Instead, their only hope is to appeal to state's rights. In fact, the states themselves clearly have the right to have an individual mandate.
So does state's rights argument work? No. The necessary and proper clause, as it has been interpreted since the New Deal allows Congress to pass such a mandate, as does the interstate commerce clause. The courts have found that the federal government has the ability to regulate individual interactions if they affect bigger interstate interactions. Marijuana laws and laws restricting growing of wheat for individual consumption show that the federal government can regulate people who are not ingaging in the market.
Cole goes on to say that the federal judge that struck down the law did so using jurisprudence that is no longer in use. He therefore thinks the law will be upheld and not by a close vote.
While I am convinced by Cole's argument, I am only moderately reassured. What seems like clear cut legal reasoning, the Supreme Court, especially one as conservative as this one is, is capable of finding arguments for political decisions. My gut is that this decision comes down 5-4, hopefully with Kennedy deciding in favor of the law. Anything more than that is too much to expect.
Glenn Beck is not Harmless
For a long time I thought Glenn Beck was just harmless fool making poor arguments about the evils of liberals. He would boil liberalism to its most crazy state, then oversimplify something evil in a way that made it seem the same as liberalism. But I wasn't worried or that annoyed because painting all liberals with a crazy brush wasn't dangerous.
But I am starting to feel differently now. I don't pay enough attention to Glenn Beck to know whether he has changed or whether I have just learned more about him. Either way, his conspiracy theories now feel pretty dangerous.
Lately, I have heard him proclaiming a number of crazy conspiracies. First, he said that George Soros is plotting to take over the United States government. Second, he has said that a communist academic wants to cause capitalism to collapse and has called for violent protests. Third, he has said that Shiite Muslims want to bring back the 12th Iman, who he says is actually the anti-Christ.
In the first two scenarios, he is suggesting that a person is a grave threat to our government. In the last, he is saying a broad religious group worships the devil and wants to bring about the end of days. In all cases, he is saying that the group is dangerous and implying that we might need to use violence against these people.
Let's compare this to Sarah Palin and the earlier discussion this country was having over rhetoric. Palin's crosshairs map raised a lot of eyebrows (mostly after the fact). However, Palin did not intend, nor would a reasonable person think she intended, to suggest that those people should be killed or were any sort of threat.
However, Glenn Beck is saying that these people are a threat. That is explicitly what he is saying. The only way this isn't dangerous is if we assume that most people will understand that he is stupid and crazy and therefore won't believe what he is saying. And part of me thinks this is true.
But I don't know if we should take this for granted. And the fact that some of his targets have received death threats means there are at least some people that believe Glenn Beck and think these people represent a threat.
Above anyone else on TV, Glenn Beck's rhetoric and conspiracy theories might actually be dangerous. It should be stopped. Instead, I think our only hope is that he continue to lost viewers as people realize that he is a big bucket of crazy and stupid.
But I am starting to feel differently now. I don't pay enough attention to Glenn Beck to know whether he has changed or whether I have just learned more about him. Either way, his conspiracy theories now feel pretty dangerous.
Lately, I have heard him proclaiming a number of crazy conspiracies. First, he said that George Soros is plotting to take over the United States government. Second, he has said that a communist academic wants to cause capitalism to collapse and has called for violent protests. Third, he has said that Shiite Muslims want to bring back the 12th Iman, who he says is actually the anti-Christ.
In the first two scenarios, he is suggesting that a person is a grave threat to our government. In the last, he is saying a broad religious group worships the devil and wants to bring about the end of days. In all cases, he is saying that the group is dangerous and implying that we might need to use violence against these people.
Let's compare this to Sarah Palin and the earlier discussion this country was having over rhetoric. Palin's crosshairs map raised a lot of eyebrows (mostly after the fact). However, Palin did not intend, nor would a reasonable person think she intended, to suggest that those people should be killed or were any sort of threat.
However, Glenn Beck is saying that these people are a threat. That is explicitly what he is saying. The only way this isn't dangerous is if we assume that most people will understand that he is stupid and crazy and therefore won't believe what he is saying. And part of me thinks this is true.
But I don't know if we should take this for granted. And the fact that some of his targets have received death threats means there are at least some people that believe Glenn Beck and think these people represent a threat.
Above anyone else on TV, Glenn Beck's rhetoric and conspiracy theories might actually be dangerous. It should be stopped. Instead, I think our only hope is that he continue to lost viewers as people realize that he is a big bucket of crazy and stupid.
Wednesday, February 02, 2011
Yacoubian Building and Egypt
I want to write about Egypt, but am a bit under the weather. In the meantime, if you want some fiction from Egypt that is well written and can give you a sense of the culture there - read The Yacoubian Building.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Book Report: The Fires, Part I
I am about halfway through The Fires: How a Computer Formula, Big Ideas, and the Best of Intentions Burned Down New York City-and Determined the Future of Cities by Joe Flood. The book is about New York City mayor John Lindsay and his work with the RAND corporation to make the FDNY more efficient. Of course those efforts had disastrous consequences for housing in the Bronx.
Before I get to his story about RAND and the FDNY (Part II of this book report), I want to start with two other things that the author uses as background. First, he does a good job talking about the differences between Democrats and Republicans during the machine / progressive eras. He is clearly on one side, but it is interesting to think about the differences in respect to today's policy decisions. Second, he has a specific narrative about why the Bronx declined as much as it did during the 1960s and 1970s.
Progressive v. Machine
According to Flood, the main difference in methods between machine Democrats and progressive Republicans was the approach to decision-making. The machines received information from the community, through local ward leaders, about problems and then seemingly used trial and error to find solutions. This approach was often clumsy and responsive (and included a fair bit of graft), but according to the author was less prone to overreach and major mistakes of hubris.
Progressives on the other hand believed that data and science could explain everything and all decisions could be objective. Policy solutions would be clear based on the evidence, and government could identify and solve problems broadly and proactively. Flood will explain how often this method lead to bad policy because data is often misread or misunderstood or people don't see negative side effects until its too late.
Decline of the Bronx Explained
Flood's narrative of the decline of the Bronx comes down clearly on one side of this; he blames the decline predominantly on all types of central planning / urban planning / root approaches to policy.
He blames urban planning for driving industry out of the city, chasing hundreds of thousands of jobs out of the city just when African-American and Puerto Rican populations were entering the city. Flood is very critical of the belief that we can / should try centrally to create an ideal city. The urban planners thought we could drive industry out and create a clean and beautiful city. Unfortunately that had disastrous consequences for jobs.
Central planners also created redlining, where the federal government identified neighborhoods (often low income and minority) that were bad risks and therefore should be ineligible for bank loans. This left good building owners in those neighborhoods with no ability to get financing, which left them to sell to slumlords who would milk as much money out of the property as possible and spend as little as possible on the buildings.
Joe Flood also talks about slum clearance. Following the work of Jacob Riis to highlight the living conditions of the poor immigrants in the lower east side, city officials apparently cleared the slums to build new housing. Of course, this likely only shifted the problem and since they didn't create enough to match how much they knocked down, it increased homelessness.
Finally, Flood talks about everyone's favorite urban planner, Robert Moses and his destruction of poor neighborhoods either to create new highways without concern for the effects or for slum clearance to build public housing.
Lessons for the Future
As you can see from his examples, Flood comes down very negatively against the progressive movement and central planning. I think we'll see that the FDNY / RAND example will be the ultimate example against central planning / root approach.
In his narrative, and therefore lessons for current policy, I wonder if he exaggerates the effects of central planners. I don't think we can blame urban planning for the loss of industrial jobs in the city. And while redlining was appalling, I wonder how easy it was to get a loan in those neighborhoods before that. And I would argue that Robert Moses' projects had serious consequences only on some individual neighborhoods. As for slum clearance - I don't think there is an ideal solution for housing - either at the root or branch level - that doesn't involve more money than we are willing to spend or greater tolerance for dangerous conditions.
Either with the branch or root approach, policy makers make bad decisions. Sometimes the exacerbate already troubling trends, or marginally roll back good trends, but I just doubt how much effect they really have over broader trends that are often out of our control.
Basically, despite a compelling story, I am convinced that neither the bottom-up nor the top-down approaches are ideal by themselves. We can and should use data to inform our decisions and have broad solutions for problems. But we also need to have key involvement from people at the local level as a check against hubris, which can lead to very bad decisions. In other words, as is often the case, the answer is somewhere in the middle.
Before I get to his story about RAND and the FDNY (Part II of this book report), I want to start with two other things that the author uses as background. First, he does a good job talking about the differences between Democrats and Republicans during the machine / progressive eras. He is clearly on one side, but it is interesting to think about the differences in respect to today's policy decisions. Second, he has a specific narrative about why the Bronx declined as much as it did during the 1960s and 1970s.
Progressive v. Machine
According to Flood, the main difference in methods between machine Democrats and progressive Republicans was the approach to decision-making. The machines received information from the community, through local ward leaders, about problems and then seemingly used trial and error to find solutions. This approach was often clumsy and responsive (and included a fair bit of graft), but according to the author was less prone to overreach and major mistakes of hubris.
Progressives on the other hand believed that data and science could explain everything and all decisions could be objective. Policy solutions would be clear based on the evidence, and government could identify and solve problems broadly and proactively. Flood will explain how often this method lead to bad policy because data is often misread or misunderstood or people don't see negative side effects until its too late.
Decline of the Bronx Explained
Flood's narrative of the decline of the Bronx comes down clearly on one side of this; he blames the decline predominantly on all types of central planning / urban planning / root approaches to policy.
He blames urban planning for driving industry out of the city, chasing hundreds of thousands of jobs out of the city just when African-American and Puerto Rican populations were entering the city. Flood is very critical of the belief that we can / should try centrally to create an ideal city. The urban planners thought we could drive industry out and create a clean and beautiful city. Unfortunately that had disastrous consequences for jobs.
Central planners also created redlining, where the federal government identified neighborhoods (often low income and minority) that were bad risks and therefore should be ineligible for bank loans. This left good building owners in those neighborhoods with no ability to get financing, which left them to sell to slumlords who would milk as much money out of the property as possible and spend as little as possible on the buildings.
Joe Flood also talks about slum clearance. Following the work of Jacob Riis to highlight the living conditions of the poor immigrants in the lower east side, city officials apparently cleared the slums to build new housing. Of course, this likely only shifted the problem and since they didn't create enough to match how much they knocked down, it increased homelessness.
Finally, Flood talks about everyone's favorite urban planner, Robert Moses and his destruction of poor neighborhoods either to create new highways without concern for the effects or for slum clearance to build public housing.
Lessons for the Future
As you can see from his examples, Flood comes down very negatively against the progressive movement and central planning. I think we'll see that the FDNY / RAND example will be the ultimate example against central planning / root approach.
In his narrative, and therefore lessons for current policy, I wonder if he exaggerates the effects of central planners. I don't think we can blame urban planning for the loss of industrial jobs in the city. And while redlining was appalling, I wonder how easy it was to get a loan in those neighborhoods before that. And I would argue that Robert Moses' projects had serious consequences only on some individual neighborhoods. As for slum clearance - I don't think there is an ideal solution for housing - either at the root or branch level - that doesn't involve more money than we are willing to spend or greater tolerance for dangerous conditions.
Either with the branch or root approach, policy makers make bad decisions. Sometimes the exacerbate already troubling trends, or marginally roll back good trends, but I just doubt how much effect they really have over broader trends that are often out of our control.
Basically, despite a compelling story, I am convinced that neither the bottom-up nor the top-down approaches are ideal by themselves. We can and should use data to inform our decisions and have broad solutions for problems. But we also need to have key involvement from people at the local level as a check against hubris, which can lead to very bad decisions. In other words, as is often the case, the answer is somewhere in the middle.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Congressional Shooting: One Week Late(r)
I am a week late on this, but I feel the need to post anyway. For the record, my opinion hasn't changed since I first found out about the shooting. Of course the shooting is tragic - and a little scary for those of us that work for elected officials. But in the press the shooting was seen through the lens of a few different issues, which I will give my comments on.
Political Discourse
I think Jon Stewart handled this better than almost anyone (Obama's speech was pretty good, too, but his was more inspiring while Stewart was more honest and without pretense). Basically, I don't think there is any evidence that the shooter was inspired by over-the-top conservative rhetoric, and even if he claimed he was, I maintain that most people know that the commentary is nothing by hyperbole.
At the same time, I think our political rhetoric, while maybe not that unusual throughout our history, is ill-informed and hysterical. I think both sides are guilty. However - and feel free to take this with a grain of salt - I do think Republicans are worse and more hysterical. Or at least there are more lies and fake conspiracy theories than I remember coming from Democrats during the Bush Jr. years.
The point is that I would love it if we could have intelligent and honest debates about the issues. I don't intend to suggest that they should be dispassionate. They can be aggressive as long as they are not personal. It would be great if we lived in a world where we could fight political battles during the day and laugh about it over dinner and drinks at night.
Guns
I don't think guns are the big issue here. Granted, I support background checks and bans on assault weapons. But at some point, you won't be able to stop crazy people from getting a gun.
My bigger concern though is that most gun violence is not perpetrated by people with legal guns but by people with illegal guns. I don't care about guns in Starbucks or concealed weapons laws. I would much rather deal with laws to prevent people from getting guns on the black market.
This is a significant challenge though. Look around at activities that we have tried to ban and see if we have been successful. From prostitution to drugs to guns we are unable to stop market transactions that people want to engage in. This doesn't mean we should give up, but we need to realize that this is the challenge and is one that is far more difficult than our discourse suggests.
Congressman King's legislation is completely absurd and amazingly the rest of the GOP sees that. He wants to ban someone from taking a gun within 1000 feet of a judge or elected official. So King clearly wants to protect himself and people like him from guns, but seems uninterested in the hard fight to protect those that are actually dying from gun-related deaths - poor minorities in urban areas.
I still think that one of the best strategies for dealing with this would be to create a new gun rights group that protects rights of individuals that have passed basic background checks but is really tough on assault weapons and the black market. The NRA seems unwilling to help on that front - especially since the gun manufacturers don't care who buys their guns as long as they make money.
Sarah Palin, et al
Two quick things: Why do we respond and make a big deal about what the crazies say? Why are we obsessed with Sarah Palin's idiotic tweets? Why do we care about Glen Beck's absurd conspiracy theories? And why do we go crazy when Limbaugh makes another racist statement or bold-faced lie?
It's like training a dolphin - if you want it to stop misbehaving, ignore the bad behavior. Trying to condemn the bad behavior only gives it attention, which is what it really wants afterall.
Second - Palin's video after the shooting made it crystal clear to almost everyone that she cares most about herself. She wasn't confronting the issue. Instead she was playing the victim at a time when dozens of actual victims were dealing with a real nightmare.
Political Discourse
I think Jon Stewart handled this better than almost anyone (Obama's speech was pretty good, too, but his was more inspiring while Stewart was more honest and without pretense). Basically, I don't think there is any evidence that the shooter was inspired by over-the-top conservative rhetoric, and even if he claimed he was, I maintain that most people know that the commentary is nothing by hyperbole.
At the same time, I think our political rhetoric, while maybe not that unusual throughout our history, is ill-informed and hysterical. I think both sides are guilty. However - and feel free to take this with a grain of salt - I do think Republicans are worse and more hysterical. Or at least there are more lies and fake conspiracy theories than I remember coming from Democrats during the Bush Jr. years.
The point is that I would love it if we could have intelligent and honest debates about the issues. I don't intend to suggest that they should be dispassionate. They can be aggressive as long as they are not personal. It would be great if we lived in a world where we could fight political battles during the day and laugh about it over dinner and drinks at night.
Guns
I don't think guns are the big issue here. Granted, I support background checks and bans on assault weapons. But at some point, you won't be able to stop crazy people from getting a gun.
My bigger concern though is that most gun violence is not perpetrated by people with legal guns but by people with illegal guns. I don't care about guns in Starbucks or concealed weapons laws. I would much rather deal with laws to prevent people from getting guns on the black market.
This is a significant challenge though. Look around at activities that we have tried to ban and see if we have been successful. From prostitution to drugs to guns we are unable to stop market transactions that people want to engage in. This doesn't mean we should give up, but we need to realize that this is the challenge and is one that is far more difficult than our discourse suggests.
Congressman King's legislation is completely absurd and amazingly the rest of the GOP sees that. He wants to ban someone from taking a gun within 1000 feet of a judge or elected official. So King clearly wants to protect himself and people like him from guns, but seems uninterested in the hard fight to protect those that are actually dying from gun-related deaths - poor minorities in urban areas.
I still think that one of the best strategies for dealing with this would be to create a new gun rights group that protects rights of individuals that have passed basic background checks but is really tough on assault weapons and the black market. The NRA seems unwilling to help on that front - especially since the gun manufacturers don't care who buys their guns as long as they make money.
Sarah Palin, et al
Two quick things: Why do we respond and make a big deal about what the crazies say? Why are we obsessed with Sarah Palin's idiotic tweets? Why do we care about Glen Beck's absurd conspiracy theories? And why do we go crazy when Limbaugh makes another racist statement or bold-faced lie?
It's like training a dolphin - if you want it to stop misbehaving, ignore the bad behavior. Trying to condemn the bad behavior only gives it attention, which is what it really wants afterall.
Second - Palin's video after the shooting made it crystal clear to almost everyone that she cares most about herself. She wasn't confronting the issue. Instead she was playing the victim at a time when dozens of actual victims were dealing with a real nightmare.
Dear Conservative: Homeless
Dear Conservative,
It has been a while since I last addressed a post to you. But I feel I have an issue to raise: government spending - specifically social services spending.
Let me start by saying that I mostly understand the desire to reign in government spending. After all, being fiscally responsible is necessary in any facet of life. The problem though is how that desire is actually carried out.
First of all, when fiscal conservatives like yourself call for less government spending, rarely are you talking about the parts of government that are clearly public services - police, fire, transportation, water and sewer, or even military. Sure, in those areas you want to eliminate waste, and stick it to the unions sometimes, but you aren't really looking for deep cuts there. And let's be honest, both parties want to eliminate waste, which is why both parties employ budget analysts.
Instead, you are more often after services that don't benefit everyone but instead benefit those that need assistance. I gather that this feeling comes from two places. First, you think free money is a disincentive to work.
Let me comment on that briefly. I will acknowledge that people respond to incentives and so free benefits can be a disincentive to work. I imagine you would also concede though that some people want to work for its own sake but cannot find work (if not, I'd love to introduce you to the real world sometime).
If we accept both premises, than we accept that a policy that provides no help will hurt people that want to work but cannot and a policy that helps everyone will help some people avoid work. In this case, I would rather help those that might be undeserving than not help those that we would both agree are deserving. We'll never have a perfect policy - but ask yourself which way would you rather be wrong?
I would also say that you probably underestimate how many people want to work but cannot - I assume most people want to work even if they can stay home and make the same amount of money. Almost everyone values a job for its own sake - just like you and I do.
The second reason you want to see cuts in social services is that you think we are too generous in our services and could cut back while still providing basic services. That is the position of yours that I want to address because it is the most flawed.
Let me give you one example where we are not too generous and instead are far too stingy. Close your eyes and take an imaginary trip with me on the streets or subways of New York City. While we are walking, let's look for (as opposed to our usual habit of ignoring) the street homeless.
Okay, have you found a homeless individual yet? Let's see if we can describe him or her. Among other things, I assume you'll notice that the person's mental state is in some way troubled. You might in fact use the word crazy, although I would suggest the term mental illness*.
A quick survey of the research suggests that 25 percent of the homeless single adult population suffers from a severe and persistent mental illness. I think the number is higher among the chronically homeless in New York City. But let's focus on that 25 percent. Right now, those individuals are living on the street not because they are lazy or somehow value the freedom of the street, but because they need medical help. Unfortunately, we do not provide enough funding for the housing and health services they require.
I hope you see the point I am trying to make. The fact is that once you really look at the world around you - or maybe the world not around you - you will see how many people are in terrible situations that are not of their choosing. I am pointing to chronically homeless individuals, but we could also look at the foster care system, public assistance, affordable and safe housing, juvenile detention, and education. In each of these areas, more funding would help people that even you would agree are deserving and in need of help.
See, I am writing this to you because I know you share my values. I know that you are inspired to help those that are in need. I call it social justice but maybe you respond more to Jesus, who said that those that have helped the least among us have helped Jesus, and to them await the rewards of heaven. There are so many people in this world that need a hand - that need food, clothing, shelter or health support. Government is not always the solution, but when nothing else is working, we need to pool our collective resources and help.
*What if on your imaginary tour you came across someone that did not seem to have a mental illness? I would argue that the other 75 percent are unable to afford a place to live and are meanwhile choosing to avoid the shelters due to perceived or actual danger.
It has been a while since I last addressed a post to you. But I feel I have an issue to raise: government spending - specifically social services spending.
Let me start by saying that I mostly understand the desire to reign in government spending. After all, being fiscally responsible is necessary in any facet of life. The problem though is how that desire is actually carried out.
First of all, when fiscal conservatives like yourself call for less government spending, rarely are you talking about the parts of government that are clearly public services - police, fire, transportation, water and sewer, or even military. Sure, in those areas you want to eliminate waste, and stick it to the unions sometimes, but you aren't really looking for deep cuts there. And let's be honest, both parties want to eliminate waste, which is why both parties employ budget analysts.
Instead, you are more often after services that don't benefit everyone but instead benefit those that need assistance. I gather that this feeling comes from two places. First, you think free money is a disincentive to work.
Let me comment on that briefly. I will acknowledge that people respond to incentives and so free benefits can be a disincentive to work. I imagine you would also concede though that some people want to work for its own sake but cannot find work (if not, I'd love to introduce you to the real world sometime).
If we accept both premises, than we accept that a policy that provides no help will hurt people that want to work but cannot and a policy that helps everyone will help some people avoid work. In this case, I would rather help those that might be undeserving than not help those that we would both agree are deserving. We'll never have a perfect policy - but ask yourself which way would you rather be wrong?
I would also say that you probably underestimate how many people want to work but cannot - I assume most people want to work even if they can stay home and make the same amount of money. Almost everyone values a job for its own sake - just like you and I do.
The second reason you want to see cuts in social services is that you think we are too generous in our services and could cut back while still providing basic services. That is the position of yours that I want to address because it is the most flawed.
Let me give you one example where we are not too generous and instead are far too stingy. Close your eyes and take an imaginary trip with me on the streets or subways of New York City. While we are walking, let's look for (as opposed to our usual habit of ignoring) the street homeless.
Okay, have you found a homeless individual yet? Let's see if we can describe him or her. Among other things, I assume you'll notice that the person's mental state is in some way troubled. You might in fact use the word crazy, although I would suggest the term mental illness*.
A quick survey of the research suggests that 25 percent of the homeless single adult population suffers from a severe and persistent mental illness. I think the number is higher among the chronically homeless in New York City. But let's focus on that 25 percent. Right now, those individuals are living on the street not because they are lazy or somehow value the freedom of the street, but because they need medical help. Unfortunately, we do not provide enough funding for the housing and health services they require.
I hope you see the point I am trying to make. The fact is that once you really look at the world around you - or maybe the world not around you - you will see how many people are in terrible situations that are not of their choosing. I am pointing to chronically homeless individuals, but we could also look at the foster care system, public assistance, affordable and safe housing, juvenile detention, and education. In each of these areas, more funding would help people that even you would agree are deserving and in need of help.
See, I am writing this to you because I know you share my values. I know that you are inspired to help those that are in need. I call it social justice but maybe you respond more to Jesus, who said that those that have helped the least among us have helped Jesus, and to them await the rewards of heaven. There are so many people in this world that need a hand - that need food, clothing, shelter or health support. Government is not always the solution, but when nothing else is working, we need to pool our collective resources and help.
*What if on your imaginary tour you came across someone that did not seem to have a mental illness? I would argue that the other 75 percent are unable to afford a place to live and are meanwhile choosing to avoid the shelters due to perceived or actual danger.
Wednesday, January 05, 2011
Steriods and the Hall of Fame
I have written a lot about baseball, steroids, and the Hall of Fame and I am not sure I have been consistent. But here is my current thinking (in response to this NY Times piece).
If we were going to be consistent about how we select people for the Hall of Fame, we would either prevent everyone who used from selection into the Hall of Fame, or we would ignore whether they used or not and vote strictly on performance. The former strategy is impossible and the later, while consistent, feels unsatisfying - like there must be a more just approach.
So if we shoot for something more satisfying, we might decide not to vote for people we know used steroids. This strategy will affect Mark McGwire, Raphael Palmeiro, and Barry Bonds. But many journalists are also guessing, which can affect someone like Jeff Bagwell that may or may not have used.
The great struggle with this issue is that each option is imperfect; every choice seems to be an injustice to someone. Voting strictly on performance is an injustice to the players that did not use and are therefore likely being overlooked (as they were likely outperformed by their peers that did use). Punishing those that did use, depending on how strict your standards of evidence are, will either avoid punishing some that have escaped detection or punish some that are accused but did not use - or both.
Out of those three options, none feels much better than the others. But I think I lean towards punishing those where there is good evidence that they used. We have to accept that some got away with it. There is nothing we can do about it. Considering that though, I would hope that voters keep their standards of evidence pretty strict. I would rather not punish someone that used than punish someone that did not.
This means not voting for Bonds, McGwire, Palmeiro, Sosa and Clemens. Most others should probably get considered.
I also think that this would be a less contentious issue if the baseball writers that vote were not so publicly sanctimonious after so obviously missing the issue.
If we were going to be consistent about how we select people for the Hall of Fame, we would either prevent everyone who used from selection into the Hall of Fame, or we would ignore whether they used or not and vote strictly on performance. The former strategy is impossible and the later, while consistent, feels unsatisfying - like there must be a more just approach.
So if we shoot for something more satisfying, we might decide not to vote for people we know used steroids. This strategy will affect Mark McGwire, Raphael Palmeiro, and Barry Bonds. But many journalists are also guessing, which can affect someone like Jeff Bagwell that may or may not have used.
The great struggle with this issue is that each option is imperfect; every choice seems to be an injustice to someone. Voting strictly on performance is an injustice to the players that did not use and are therefore likely being overlooked (as they were likely outperformed by their peers that did use). Punishing those that did use, depending on how strict your standards of evidence are, will either avoid punishing some that have escaped detection or punish some that are accused but did not use - or both.
Out of those three options, none feels much better than the others. But I think I lean towards punishing those where there is good evidence that they used. We have to accept that some got away with it. There is nothing we can do about it. Considering that though, I would hope that voters keep their standards of evidence pretty strict. I would rather not punish someone that used than punish someone that did not.
This means not voting for Bonds, McGwire, Palmeiro, Sosa and Clemens. Most others should probably get considered.
I also think that this would be a less contentious issue if the baseball writers that vote were not so publicly sanctimonious after so obviously missing the issue.
Sunday, January 02, 2011
DADT
I have been absent for a while; I apologize. I will say that I am happy with the lame duck compromises / legislative victories. And none more so than DADT repeal. And I have to say, I have new faith in Joe Lieberman thanks to his fight for this issue. Somehow, it didn't seem political or calculated; it seemed like he just wanted it. I could be wrong of course, but that is my initial read.
Thursday, December 09, 2010
These are the Values Voters?
So let me get this straight - Republicans think that tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans is so important that we don't need to identify savings to offset it. But a bill to support people that worked at the World Trade Center following the collapse is not that important and instead, for that, we need to know how we will pay for it. To put it even more simply: tax cuts for wealthy is important, health care for 9/11 responders, not that important. Nice values.
Monday, December 06, 2010
I Don't Hate It
So the Times is reporting an agreement between Obama and GOP on extending the Bush tax cuts - all of them - and aid to lower income Americans including further tax breaks. I think it is a fine compromise and a sign that maybe our government will not completely shut down during the next two years.
However, Obama has been too silent for too long. I completely agree with Frank Rich that Obama needs to articulate his positions, and do it frequently, even if the public is likely to disagree with him. Instead, we have no idea where he stands - or only a vague idea. I envision for him a moment similar to the end of The American President, when President Shepard finally takes a principled stand.
But in reality, Obama should be in front of cameras all the time - so much that we get sick of him. For someone in an office with significant control over the agenda, he seems to cede it to the Republicans. I see myself returning to this theme frequently over the next two years.
But coming back to this issue, Obama and Democrats need some message discipline and they need to repeat over and over again that Republicans went into this negotiation looking to protect the richest Americans and Democrats went in looking to protect middle and lower class Americans and Americans that are out of work. They need to hammer that home the way Republicans managed to hammer every one of their messages home over the last year.
If I weren't so tired, I would be screaming this message. Instead, you'll have to trust me when I say how frustrated I am that this isn't happening.
However, Obama has been too silent for too long. I completely agree with Frank Rich that Obama needs to articulate his positions, and do it frequently, even if the public is likely to disagree with him. Instead, we have no idea where he stands - or only a vague idea. I envision for him a moment similar to the end of The American President, when President Shepard finally takes a principled stand.
But in reality, Obama should be in front of cameras all the time - so much that we get sick of him. For someone in an office with significant control over the agenda, he seems to cede it to the Republicans. I see myself returning to this theme frequently over the next two years.
But coming back to this issue, Obama and Democrats need some message discipline and they need to repeat over and over again that Republicans went into this negotiation looking to protect the richest Americans and Democrats went in looking to protect middle and lower class Americans and Americans that are out of work. They need to hammer that home the way Republicans managed to hammer every one of their messages home over the last year.
If I weren't so tired, I would be screaming this message. Instead, you'll have to trust me when I say how frustrated I am that this isn't happening.
Friday, December 03, 2010
Politics Night: Wikileaks
We had our third politics night on Tuesday (11/30/2010). We discussed Wikileaks. I will summarize my position. Others can add theirs in the comments if they so choose.
Let me start by saying two things about state secrets that do not directly relate to Wikileaks. First, I think people in government abuse state secrets privileges (see my post on Claim of Privilege). So I am not a zealot on protecting classified documents. And related to that, I think there can be really important instances when leaked documents tell the public what they need to know but the government has been hiding from them.
Now, as to Wikileaks, I don't think that this last release was necessary nor has it been helpful at all. As many commentators have already said, the release was gossip and nothing more. And that gossip hasn't told the public anything useful, but it has potentially hurt our ability to work with partners like Russia, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia.
Governments should be able to talk privately. Of course, in the end, their decisions, and the information that went into making those decisions should be made public. But we don't need to know all private conversations.
I don't remember the previous releases too well, except that in general they didn't say a whole lot that we didn't already know. I think there were certain events that we didn't know about, but overall, there didn't seem to be a message that the government was hiding that came out in the releases.
I believe that the reason the Wikileaks information hasn't been that helpful in general stems from Julian Assange's motives. If we are to believe him, his goal is to make everything government does public. If we are to believe others, he just wants to embarrass the US. Either way, these intentions have lead, and will continue to lead to, unedited information dumps that are mostly useless but sometimes harmful.
When someone's intention is to highlight wrongdoing or bad decision-making, then we are likely to get information that furthers those goals. But when one's motives come from an absurd notion about democracy, or just a hatred of the US, then we will get a lot of information that is not helpful for the public to know and in some cases is harmful.
Update:
One of the Politics Night faithful pointed me to a debate between Glenn Greenwald and Steven Aftergood on Democracy Now. Also, so that Julian Assange can speak for himself, here is a link to some of the interviews with him recently.
Let me start by saying two things about state secrets that do not directly relate to Wikileaks. First, I think people in government abuse state secrets privileges (see my post on Claim of Privilege). So I am not a zealot on protecting classified documents. And related to that, I think there can be really important instances when leaked documents tell the public what they need to know but the government has been hiding from them.
Now, as to Wikileaks, I don't think that this last release was necessary nor has it been helpful at all. As many commentators have already said, the release was gossip and nothing more. And that gossip hasn't told the public anything useful, but it has potentially hurt our ability to work with partners like Russia, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia.
Governments should be able to talk privately. Of course, in the end, their decisions, and the information that went into making those decisions should be made public. But we don't need to know all private conversations.
I don't remember the previous releases too well, except that in general they didn't say a whole lot that we didn't already know. I think there were certain events that we didn't know about, but overall, there didn't seem to be a message that the government was hiding that came out in the releases.
I believe that the reason the Wikileaks information hasn't been that helpful in general stems from Julian Assange's motives. If we are to believe him, his goal is to make everything government does public. If we are to believe others, he just wants to embarrass the US. Either way, these intentions have lead, and will continue to lead to, unedited information dumps that are mostly useless but sometimes harmful.
When someone's intention is to highlight wrongdoing or bad decision-making, then we are likely to get information that furthers those goals. But when one's motives come from an absurd notion about democracy, or just a hatred of the US, then we will get a lot of information that is not helpful for the public to know and in some cases is harmful.
Update:
One of the Politics Night faithful pointed me to a debate between Glenn Greenwald and Steven Aftergood on Democracy Now. Also, so that Julian Assange can speak for himself, here is a link to some of the interviews with him recently.
Thursday, December 02, 2010
Shame HuffPo
While I mostly blame cable news for ruining constructive debate in our country, there are definitely on-line news sources that are doing their part. I have seen Huffington Post a number of times, and it always enrages me, present a headline and even a description of someone's talking points that is incorrect and needlessly inflamatory.
In this example, HuffPo says that Juan Williams is saying unemployment benefits weaken regular work values. But in watching the video, I don't see Williams saying that at all. He says that when a person chooses to stay home instead of work, it erodes their work values. And while he might acknowledge that some people are incentivized against working by the extension of unemployment benefits, I don't see him accepting that argument at large.
I know that as Democrats we like to think that only Fox News distorts what people say. But clearly, that isn't the case.
In this example, HuffPo says that Juan Williams is saying unemployment benefits weaken regular work values. But in watching the video, I don't see Williams saying that at all. He says that when a person chooses to stay home instead of work, it erodes their work values. And while he might acknowledge that some people are incentivized against working by the extension of unemployment benefits, I don't see him accepting that argument at large.
I know that as Democrats we like to think that only Fox News distorts what people say. But clearly, that isn't the case.
Does the Punishment Fit the Crime?
Tom Delay
I’m not sure how I feel about the Delay conviction. In fact, I think I agree with parts of this Wall Street Journal editorial.
Tom Delay certainly seems to have violated the spirit of the campaign finance rules. But it seems like he found a way around them so that he couldn't be convicted of actually violating them.
But I am not convinced that he is guilty of money laundering; at least I don’t think his crime fits in with the purpose (or spirit) of the money laundering law. But if there are experience lawyers out there that feel otherwise, feel free to convince me.
On a related note, I discovered a really good blog on New York State politics the day it shut down. Oh well. Here is a really good post on Joe Bruno's legal issues.
Charles Rangel
I think the Rangel case is interesting if not a little frustrating. I agree with the people that say his crimes don't seem to fit with previous censures. However, his crimes seem worse than behavior that received reprimands.
And as bad as Rangel's actions were, I can't believe for one minute that he is the only one of the 535 members that have used their stationary for private fund-raising or forgotten to count rental income from second or third houses in their taxes. (The rent stabilized apartments situation is probably unique to New Yorkers.)
Basically, I feel that the House is making an example out of Rangel - Democrats to pretend they are tough on ethics violations and Republicans to make a Democrat look bad. But really, there are probably other examples of similar bad behavior that are missed or ignored. In other words, censure only seems strong because of how bad they probably are in cracking down on all violators.
To conclude, to the extent that justice was served in these two examples, it was imperfect justice. Maybe that is all we can hope for.
I’m not sure how I feel about the Delay conviction. In fact, I think I agree with parts of this Wall Street Journal editorial.
Tom Delay certainly seems to have violated the spirit of the campaign finance rules. But it seems like he found a way around them so that he couldn't be convicted of actually violating them.
But I am not convinced that he is guilty of money laundering; at least I don’t think his crime fits in with the purpose (or spirit) of the money laundering law. But if there are experience lawyers out there that feel otherwise, feel free to convince me.
On a related note, I discovered a really good blog on New York State politics the day it shut down. Oh well. Here is a really good post on Joe Bruno's legal issues.
Charles Rangel
I think the Rangel case is interesting if not a little frustrating. I agree with the people that say his crimes don't seem to fit with previous censures. However, his crimes seem worse than behavior that received reprimands.
And as bad as Rangel's actions were, I can't believe for one minute that he is the only one of the 535 members that have used their stationary for private fund-raising or forgotten to count rental income from second or third houses in their taxes. (The rent stabilized apartments situation is probably unique to New Yorkers.)
Basically, I feel that the House is making an example out of Rangel - Democrats to pretend they are tough on ethics violations and Republicans to make a Democrat look bad. But really, there are probably other examples of similar bad behavior that are missed or ignored. In other words, censure only seems strong because of how bad they probably are in cracking down on all violators.
To conclude, to the extent that justice was served in these two examples, it was imperfect justice. Maybe that is all we can hope for.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
If I were President: Budget Deficit
I played the NY Times' Budget Puzzle. Here is my first attempt. I fixed the deficit with 43% tax increases and 57% spending cuts. Again, this was just a first cut. I basically went through and checked things I could live with. But I didn't do a great job of comparing all of the options and only choosing the least painful ones. I was surprised how easy it was. Of course, capping Medicare really helped (saving $562 billion!).
It is also surprising how many reasonable things I did not do, which shows that there is wiggle room. I did not choose to decrease the size of the Navy nor reduce Iraq and Afghanistan troop levels to 60,000 or (gasp) 30,000. I did not increase the Medicare eligibility age or the Social Security retirement age. I choose a moderate estate tax proposal (Obama's instead of Kyl's or Clinton's). But since I did choose the millionaire's tax, some of the things listed above could offset that if it is unreasonable.
It is also surprising how many reasonable things I did not do, which shows that there is wiggle room. I did not choose to decrease the size of the Navy nor reduce Iraq and Afghanistan troop levels to 60,000 or (gasp) 30,000. I did not increase the Medicare eligibility age or the Social Security retirement age. I choose a moderate estate tax proposal (Obama's instead of Kyl's or Clinton's). But since I did choose the millionaire's tax, some of the things listed above could offset that if it is unreasonable.
CEO Pay
A colleague and I were debating about CEO compensation. We were actually talking about the music industry and my colleague suggested that the decrease in revenues could be mitigated if the CEO took a pay cut.
My response, and I am confident that I am right about this, was that a cut in the CEO's salary would have little effect on any companies' overall profit picture. I offered him, and now I offer you dear reader, this challenge: Find me a CEO that makes in salary more than 0.1% of the companies' revenue.
In fact, I'll even give you a head start. This page on the AFL/CIO website lists CEO salaries. Once you have that, you can find the companies' revenue by searching the company name and "annual report".
I am willing to bet though that all CEO salaries will be well below the 0.1% of revenue. In fact, I looked at one random company today and found that the CEO was making 0.03% of revenue.
With salaries this low as a percentage of revenue, cuts to their salaries will not help with budget problems. If the company sees a decrease in revenue of 3%, having the CEO work for free will only cover 1% of that gap. Therefore, even that big cut will only be symbolic.
Now, that isn't to say that symbolic gestures are meaningless. I do believe that symbols can be very important. A salary that is 0.03% of revenue can still be considered obscene and a big cut can send an important message. So I am not suggesting that it shouldn't happen in a company in difficult times. I am just saying that it will do very little for the companies fiscal problems.
My response, and I am confident that I am right about this, was that a cut in the CEO's salary would have little effect on any companies' overall profit picture. I offered him, and now I offer you dear reader, this challenge: Find me a CEO that makes in salary more than 0.1% of the companies' revenue.
In fact, I'll even give you a head start. This page on the AFL/CIO website lists CEO salaries. Once you have that, you can find the companies' revenue by searching the company name and "annual report".
I am willing to bet though that all CEO salaries will be well below the 0.1% of revenue. In fact, I looked at one random company today and found that the CEO was making 0.03% of revenue.
With salaries this low as a percentage of revenue, cuts to their salaries will not help with budget problems. If the company sees a decrease in revenue of 3%, having the CEO work for free will only cover 1% of that gap. Therefore, even that big cut will only be symbolic.
Now, that isn't to say that symbolic gestures are meaningless. I do believe that symbols can be very important. A salary that is 0.03% of revenue can still be considered obscene and a big cut can send an important message. So I am not suggesting that it shouldn't happen in a company in difficult times. I am just saying that it will do very little for the companies fiscal problems.
Some Music and Some Econ 101
This weekend, I had a pleasant debate about the music industry and downloading of music for free. My overall point was that downloading music is and should be illegal and the government should work to increase enforcement. While I do think the record industry has been slow to evolve with new technology, I don't think stealing music is a good (moral or effective) way to force the industry to change.
Although I do like to recap arguments on my blog sometimes - with the intention of synthesizing my thoughts, not to get the last word - this is not the point of this post. As I was falling asleep last night thinking about the debate, I realized a way to better show a fear I have with the illegal downloading of music - through a supply and demand graph!
One of the points I made was that in the market place, consumers have the choice to show their dissatisfaction with a product by refusing to purchase it. I argued that it gives the consumer an unfair advantage in the marketplace if they can get the product without paying for it (fairness within a transaction is necessary for a well-functioning market system - I can explain further if anyone wants me to). This will drive the price down to an unsustainable level.
Here is where the economics comes in. For a given product, consumers are willing to pay a certain price to have that product as opposed to not having it. That price is shown by the original equilibrium, P1, Q1. When a consumer can choose to have the product without paying for it, or have the product and pay for it, their price is no longer the value of the product, but the value of feeling good about how they obtained the product. Clearly that price will be much less than the previous price.
What you see in this scenario is a shift in the demand curve from D1 to D2. And when the demand curve shifts back, you see a lower equilibrium price, but more importantly, a lower quantity. This means that in this scenario, prices decrease and less music is produced. And I don't think anyone wants that.
A colleague of mine theorized that getting free music mitigates - possibly completely - this shift in the demand curve. He thinks that getting free music leads the consumer to purchase new music. I think this argument is weak and an attempt at justification. Consumers are not so irrational that they spend the same amount of money for the same quantity of music whether there is the option to steal music or not. And if it mitigates but not completely, then all we are talking about is magnitude - but the direction of the effect is still the same.
I also think a musician should have the ability to choose to make that investment instead of consumers forcing that situation on them.
Anyway, enjoy the flash back to Econ 101. And feel free to challenge my model or my assumptions.
Although I do like to recap arguments on my blog sometimes - with the intention of synthesizing my thoughts, not to get the last word - this is not the point of this post. As I was falling asleep last night thinking about the debate, I realized a way to better show a fear I have with the illegal downloading of music - through a supply and demand graph!
One of the points I made was that in the market place, consumers have the choice to show their dissatisfaction with a product by refusing to purchase it. I argued that it gives the consumer an unfair advantage in the marketplace if they can get the product without paying for it (fairness within a transaction is necessary for a well-functioning market system - I can explain further if anyone wants me to). This will drive the price down to an unsustainable level.
Here is where the economics comes in. For a given product, consumers are willing to pay a certain price to have that product as opposed to not having it. That price is shown by the original equilibrium, P1, Q1. When a consumer can choose to have the product without paying for it, or have the product and pay for it, their price is no longer the value of the product, but the value of feeling good about how they obtained the product. Clearly that price will be much less than the previous price.What you see in this scenario is a shift in the demand curve from D1 to D2. And when the demand curve shifts back, you see a lower equilibrium price, but more importantly, a lower quantity. This means that in this scenario, prices decrease and less music is produced. And I don't think anyone wants that.
A colleague of mine theorized that getting free music mitigates - possibly completely - this shift in the demand curve. He thinks that getting free music leads the consumer to purchase new music. I think this argument is weak and an attempt at justification. Consumers are not so irrational that they spend the same amount of money for the same quantity of music whether there is the option to steal music or not. And if it mitigates but not completely, then all we are talking about is magnitude - but the direction of the effect is still the same.
I also think a musician should have the ability to choose to make that investment instead of consumers forcing that situation on them.
Anyway, enjoy the flash back to Econ 101. And feel free to challenge my model or my assumptions.
Monday, November 29, 2010
My Ignorance of Historians
In my post on Definitive Biographies, I remarked that I was skeptical of Jon Meacham's book on Andrew Jackson because he is a journalist and not a historian. I am embarrassed about my ignorance. I was right that he is not a historian but I had no idea how many of the great popular history writers are also not historians.
I only recently learned this fact that many of my favorite / respected authors of history do not have PhD's in history. David McCollough only has a BA in English Literature. Ron Chernow also has only a bachelor's degree (granted, I haven't read his stuff, but his book on Alexander Hamilton is on the top of my history list). Robert Caro has a degree in English. And Doris Kearns Goodwin has a PhD but in Government.
This article in the New York Review of Books, which by the way is a glowing review of Chernow's George Washington biography, explains this development over the last 50 years or so. It seems that historians are busy specializing in very specific issues and are mostly debating each other. While this is valuable for debates in history, it is usually not very accessible to a non-historian audience.
So Jon Meacham, I owe you an apology. And when I make time to read more biographies, I'll be sure to check out your book American Lion.
I only recently learned this fact that many of my favorite / respected authors of history do not have PhD's in history. David McCollough only has a BA in English Literature. Ron Chernow also has only a bachelor's degree (granted, I haven't read his stuff, but his book on Alexander Hamilton is on the top of my history list). Robert Caro has a degree in English. And Doris Kearns Goodwin has a PhD but in Government.
This article in the New York Review of Books, which by the way is a glowing review of Chernow's George Washington biography, explains this development over the last 50 years or so. It seems that historians are busy specializing in very specific issues and are mostly debating each other. While this is valuable for debates in history, it is usually not very accessible to a non-historian audience.
So Jon Meacham, I owe you an apology. And when I make time to read more biographies, I'll be sure to check out your book American Lion.
What A Liberal Would Have Done
I saw this post by James Galbraith on what Obama should have done to stem the financial crisis.
The solution so far has been to be easy on banks, lest they fail. But while Obama is going easy, state and local governments - and homeowners and tenants - are paying the price. All so that we didn't have to take over the banks and be accused of being socialists. Except that happened anyway.
Law, policy and politics all pointed in one direction: turn the systemically dangerous banks over to Sheila Bair and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Insure the depositors, replace the management, fire the lobbyists, audit the books, prosecute the frauds, and restructure and downsize the institutions. The financial system would have been cleaned up. And the big bankers would have been beaten as a political force.Maybe it wouldn't have been as easy as it sounds here, but the fact is that the bail-out plan was not successful and has not gotten us out of the woods. One of the reasons banks are able to report profits again is because much of their balance sheets are not properly valued. We see this with single-family mortgages, and we definitely see it with the multifamily stock.
Team Obama did none of these things. Instead they announced "stress tests," plainly designed so as to obscure the banks' true condition. They pressured the Federal Accounting Standards Board to permit the banks to ignore the market value of their toxic assets. Management stayed in place. They prosecuted no one. The Fed cut the cost of funds to zero. The President justified all this by repeating, many times, that the goal of policy was "to get credit flowing again."
The banks threw a party. Reported profits soared, as did bonuses. With free funds, the banks could make money with no risk, by lending back to the Treasury. They could boom the stock market. They could make a mint on proprietary trading. Their losses on mortgages were concealed -- until the fact came out that they'd so neglected basic mortgage paperwork, as to be unable to foreclose in many cases, without the help of forged documents and perjured affidavits.
The solution so far has been to be easy on banks, lest they fail. But while Obama is going easy, state and local governments - and homeowners and tenants - are paying the price. All so that we didn't have to take over the banks and be accused of being socialists. Except that happened anyway.
What Kind of Teacher?
This post is going to focus on how we recruit the best teachers. President Bush thought all we needed to do was make prospective teachers get degrees and certifications and take tests. This might require decent training and prevent some bad teachers, but it does not in itself recruit good teachers. Instead, we need to focus on incentives that would attract and retain more of the best and the brightest. Teaching can be an exciting and rewarding endeavor. But for public schools, we would need to change some things first.
Salary
Of course salary is a big issue. Granted, teachers, after a couple decades of service, do pretty well. However, I do think it is less than other occupations where workers have similar credentials. I also think though that salary isn't the only thing.
Flexibility
I am confident that most of us highly value flexibility in our jobs. We don't want rote tasks dictated to us from on high. Having direction is good. But no flexibility is bad. With teaching, the more strict curricula become, the less likely people are going to be to want to teach. Teachers should be told generally what the students are expected to learn, and they should be free to operate within that. We lose central control, but we would recruit better teachers. This is one of the reasons talented teachers choose independent / private schools; they have flexibility over curriculum.
Responsibility
With flexibility should come responsibility. A fairly recent David Brooks column has this quote that I agree with:
Grow and Learn New Things
There are two other things people value in a job: the ability to gain new responsibilities and the ability to learn new things. For the former, there are some opportunities for teachers - move to administration or become a team leader / mentor. But that is about it. So if we want to attract and retain smart people in teaching, we should be heavy on the later. Staff development for teachers is not only good to keep teachers' knowledge up to date, but serves to recruit people to teaching that want to be lifelong learners. We should be prepared to spend a lot more on staff development.
What We Have Now
Instead of the above benefits, we have a system whose main attractions are summer vacations and job security. And when those are the main benefits, you don't attract the best and brightest.
The point isn't to disparage teachers. I do think that most of our teachers are capable, smart, and dedicated. The goal though is to replace the ones at the bottom of the curve with more people at the top of the curve. We can only do this by changing the incentives on the margins.
Many really smart people work in jobs where there is little security because they are confident in their ability and believe that they will have a boss will be reasonable and make the right decision in most cases. Teaching could be the same way. As for summers off - I would not argue that teachers do not deserve it. I just think that right now, absent incentives for more really good teachers, it attracts people to teaching for the wrong reasons.
I will say, and I think I have said it before, that the unions are a serious impediment. In other occupations as well, they go out of their way to protect people from management at all costs. But this means you are not rewarded for good performance and not punished for poor performance. Everyone moves along in a uniform system. This protects everyone, but does nothing to attract the best we can have.
Salary
Of course salary is a big issue. Granted, teachers, after a couple decades of service, do pretty well. However, I do think it is less than other occupations where workers have similar credentials. I also think though that salary isn't the only thing.
Flexibility
I am confident that most of us highly value flexibility in our jobs. We don't want rote tasks dictated to us from on high. Having direction is good. But no flexibility is bad. With teaching, the more strict curricula become, the less likely people are going to be to want to teach. Teachers should be told generally what the students are expected to learn, and they should be free to operate within that. We lose central control, but we would recruit better teachers. This is one of the reasons talented teachers choose independent / private schools; they have flexibility over curriculum.
Responsibility
With flexibility should come responsibility. A fairly recent David Brooks column has this quote that I agree with:
"What’s needed, Howard argues, is a great streamlining. He’s not calling for deregulation. It’s about giving teachers, doctors and officials the power to actually make decisions and then holding them accountable. Some of their choices will be wrong, Howard acknowledges, but it is better to live in an imperfect world of individual responsibility than it is to live within a dehumanizing legal thicket that seeks to eliminate risk through a tangle of micromanaging statutes."For teachers, this specifically means eliminating tenure and using test scores and a lot of other measures to evaluate a teachers effectiveness.
Grow and Learn New Things
There are two other things people value in a job: the ability to gain new responsibilities and the ability to learn new things. For the former, there are some opportunities for teachers - move to administration or become a team leader / mentor. But that is about it. So if we want to attract and retain smart people in teaching, we should be heavy on the later. Staff development for teachers is not only good to keep teachers' knowledge up to date, but serves to recruit people to teaching that want to be lifelong learners. We should be prepared to spend a lot more on staff development.
What We Have Now
Instead of the above benefits, we have a system whose main attractions are summer vacations and job security. And when those are the main benefits, you don't attract the best and brightest.
The point isn't to disparage teachers. I do think that most of our teachers are capable, smart, and dedicated. The goal though is to replace the ones at the bottom of the curve with more people at the top of the curve. We can only do this by changing the incentives on the margins.
Many really smart people work in jobs where there is little security because they are confident in their ability and believe that they will have a boss will be reasonable and make the right decision in most cases. Teaching could be the same way. As for summers off - I would not argue that teachers do not deserve it. I just think that right now, absent incentives for more really good teachers, it attracts people to teaching for the wrong reasons.
I will say, and I think I have said it before, that the unions are a serious impediment. In other occupations as well, they go out of their way to protect people from management at all costs. But this means you are not rewarded for good performance and not punished for poor performance. Everyone moves along in a uniform system. This protects everyone, but does nothing to attract the best we can have.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)