Thursday, December 20, 2007
Tis the Season for Vote Buying
Gee, I wonder whose money she figures to use for all those "presents"?
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Laws of Nature
This is an excellent little article on some of the players / issues in the cosmology discussions in physics.
The ending is super. This article is closely related to this:
The ending is super. This article is closely related to this:
Maybe both alternatives — Plato’s eternal stone tablet and Dr. Wheeler’s higgledy-piggledy process — will somehow turn out to be true. The dichotomy between forever and emergent might turn out to be as false eventually as the dichotomy between waves and particles as a description of light. Who knows?
The law of no law, of course, is still a law.
When I was young and still had all my brain cells I was a bridge fan, and one hand I once read about in the newspaper bridge column has stuck with me as a good metaphor for the plight of the scientist, or of the citizen cosmologist. The winning bidder had overbid his hand. When the dummy cards were laid, he realized that his only chance of making his contract was if his opponents’ cards were distributed just so.
He could have played defensively, to minimize his losses. Instead he played as if the cards were where they had to be. And he won.
We don’t know, and might never know, if science has overbid its hand. When in doubt, confronted with the complexities of the world, scientists have no choice but to play their cards as if they can win, as if the universe is indeed comprehensible. That is what they have been doing for more than 2,000 years, and they are still winning
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
HW "Nixes" Clinton Trip Idea
I love the way the MSM portrays it as HW being bad ...
How out of touch is it for the supposedly "feel your pain sensitive" Slick Willie to suggest that a Father would be willing to sign on to such a horribly cheap shot at his Son? Yes, Yes, we know that Slick and Hillary would certainly throw poor Chelsea under the bus if that would gain them votes, but one would have thought that they were more aware of the "weakness" of their opposition. They like to exploit the fact that Republican's love their children and have principles, but I thought they had more understanding of the "other side" than this displays.
People that have values and care about things like family are going to support those that they love when they are doing right, no matter how unpopular that right may be. I know that is something that is completely foreign to the Clinton's and their ilk, but they were alive during Reagan, they ought to at least realize that decency actually does exist! We won't even go into the facts of the Surge working and many world leaders working closer with Bush as a result. Even most of the spineless generally react well to success, "The Stain" is just an exception.
If Hillary sinks any lower in the polls, Chelsea better watch her back. I suspect Hillary could fake another half-human looking tear over something untoward happening to poor Chelsea. Gore, Edwards, the Kennedy's-they all seem to have a closet full of maudlin stories that are are supposed to "make folks love them" when they drag them out. The fact that they are so willing to USE those stories and apparently have so little understanding of the concept of loyalty shows that their "heart" makes the unrepentant Grinch look like a Saint!
We know Bush Sr lacked the kind of character and character judgment that Reagan had, or he would have never broken his taxes pledge appointed Souter to the Supreme Court, or allowed The Great Fornicator to use him as "a buddy". I'd like to see HW stand up with a little more force on this one,but at least he exhibited basic decency, which is WAY more than one can ever expect from Hill-Billy.
How out of touch is it for the supposedly "feel your pain sensitive" Slick Willie to suggest that a Father would be willing to sign on to such a horribly cheap shot at his Son? Yes, Yes, we know that Slick and Hillary would certainly throw poor Chelsea under the bus if that would gain them votes, but one would have thought that they were more aware of the "weakness" of their opposition. They like to exploit the fact that Republican's love their children and have principles, but I thought they had more understanding of the "other side" than this displays.
People that have values and care about things like family are going to support those that they love when they are doing right, no matter how unpopular that right may be. I know that is something that is completely foreign to the Clinton's and their ilk, but they were alive during Reagan, they ought to at least realize that decency actually does exist! We won't even go into the facts of the Surge working and many world leaders working closer with Bush as a result. Even most of the spineless generally react well to success, "The Stain" is just an exception.
If Hillary sinks any lower in the polls, Chelsea better watch her back. I suspect Hillary could fake another half-human looking tear over something untoward happening to poor Chelsea. Gore, Edwards, the Kennedy's-they all seem to have a closet full of maudlin stories that are are supposed to "make folks love them" when they drag them out. The fact that they are so willing to USE those stories and apparently have so little understanding of the concept of loyalty shows that their "heart" makes the unrepentant Grinch look like a Saint!
We know Bush Sr lacked the kind of character and character judgment that Reagan had, or he would have never broken his taxes pledge appointed Souter to the Supreme Court, or allowed The Great Fornicator to use him as "a buddy". I'd like to see HW stand up with a little more force on this one,but at least he exhibited basic decency, which is WAY more than one can ever expect from Hill-Billy.
The Forgotten Man
https://www.amazon.com/Forgotten-Man-History-Great-Depression/dp/0060936428
I must admit that the combination of this book by Amity Shales with "The Myth of the Rational Voter" gives me some pause for future prospects. The ability of the left to ignore known information, especially in the areas of economics and business, while catering to natural class biases and fears of "the common man" is significant. Both are however excellent books which very much deserve to be read rather than just just the cliff note version.
The short version of "The Forgotten Man" (TFM) is that Hoover and others started the policies that would cause the depression in the late '20s by trying to reduce the money supply, raise taxes pass tariffs (Smoot Hawley), and increase Government control and projects (eg. Hoover Dam). Hoover and the Republicans started the descent, but FDR and the Democrats weakened and prolonged it by pushing the failed policies harder, and most damaging, actually attacking business and criminalizing individual business practices. In some cases, the rules were completely irrational, as in the NRA insistence on "straight killing" of chickens disallowing customer selection and differential pricing that went all the way to the Supreme Court in Schechter. When FDR and the New Dealers lost, he was furious and embarked on his "packing the court" attempt to circumvent the Constitution.
The degree to which the Democrats, the schools, and the MSM have propagandized the "New Deal", The Depression" and especially FDR himself is incredible. The spectacle of a very rich man "going after the rich" while sailing on his yacht may be the poster child case for "consistency is not an issue". By raising taxes, criminalizing business behavior after the fact and moving the Government into new areas (utilities, unions, pricing, etc), he managed to simultaneously reduce the prospective return for risk taken (by tax rate increases) while drastically INCREASING the risk on both the business front (regulation, government takeover, unions), but also add in the prospects of CRIMINAL PROSECUTION, even if the act was not "illegal" at the time it was done. An amazing combination of horrible policy, no wonder he managed to prolong the Depression until WWII forced him to change his policies so business could get busy and win the war.
A core of the book is this quote:
FDR took if farther than that and tried to claim that X was the "forgotten man", and established the idea of buying the votes of X with the money of C. The producers that make the sacrifices and take the risks were expected to keep producing and to even increase production for less and less benefit as FDR and company tinkered with the economy at will and constantly demonized the very "rich" whom they depended on to power their redistribution schemes.
In a campaign speech at Madison Square Garden for his 2nd term FDR said:
After FDR went too far for even his lefty supporters, and some of them started to criticize him, one of his cronies, Harold Ickes wrote the following in his diary that is a pretty good (though unintended) peek into the soul of the modern liberal:
The book is excellent, but scary. There are so many parallels to what we likely face going into '09. Bush mistakenly attempted to tack back to the middle like Slick Willie had done before him with the predictable result of derision from the middle to left and abandonment by the right. Now we will likely ride into a full Democrat controlled administration with everyone primed so that any disaster created can be "blamed on Bush" for a least the first two, and likely full four years of the first term.
I must admit that the combination of this book by Amity Shales with "The Myth of the Rational Voter" gives me some pause for future prospects. The ability of the left to ignore known information, especially in the areas of economics and business, while catering to natural class biases and fears of "the common man" is significant. Both are however excellent books which very much deserve to be read rather than just just the cliff note version.
The short version of "The Forgotten Man" (TFM) is that Hoover and others started the policies that would cause the depression in the late '20s by trying to reduce the money supply, raise taxes pass tariffs (Smoot Hawley), and increase Government control and projects (eg. Hoover Dam). Hoover and the Republicans started the descent, but FDR and the Democrats weakened and prolonged it by pushing the failed policies harder, and most damaging, actually attacking business and criminalizing individual business practices. In some cases, the rules were completely irrational, as in the NRA insistence on "straight killing" of chickens disallowing customer selection and differential pricing that went all the way to the Supreme Court in Schechter. When FDR and the New Dealers lost, he was furious and embarked on his "packing the court" attempt to circumvent the Constitution.
The degree to which the Democrats, the schools, and the MSM have propagandized the "New Deal", The Depression" and especially FDR himself is incredible. The spectacle of a very rich man "going after the rich" while sailing on his yacht may be the poster child case for "consistency is not an issue". By raising taxes, criminalizing business behavior after the fact and moving the Government into new areas (utilities, unions, pricing, etc), he managed to simultaneously reduce the prospective return for risk taken (by tax rate increases) while drastically INCREASING the risk on both the business front (regulation, government takeover, unions), but also add in the prospects of CRIMINAL PROSECUTION, even if the act was not "illegal" at the time it was done. An amazing combination of horrible policy, no wonder he managed to prolong the Depression until WWII forced him to change his policies so business could get busy and win the war.
A core of the book is this quote:
"As soon as A observes something which seems to him to be wrong, from which X is suffering. A talks it over with B and A and B propose to get a law passed to to remedy the evil and help X. There law always proposes what A, B, AND C will do to help X. But what about C? There was nothing wrong with A and B helping X. What was wrong was the law and the indenturing of C to the cause. C is the forgotten man, the man who paid, the man who is never thought of."
FDR took if farther than that and tried to claim that X was the "forgotten man", and established the idea of buying the votes of X with the money of C. The producers that make the sacrifices and take the risks were expected to keep producing and to even increase production for less and less benefit as FDR and company tinkered with the economy at will and constantly demonized the very "rich" whom they depended on to power their redistribution schemes.
In a campaign speech at Madison Square Garden for his 2nd term FDR said:
"I should like to have it said of my first administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my 2nd administration that in it these forces met their master."Not a lot of hubris in that is there? One gets a little glimpse of why God decided that man needed to be made mortal, no matter how impishly they might like to hold their cigarette. If FDR was such a "master", how come he's dead? One NEVER heard Ronald Reagan make such claims, yet his policies actually worked!
After FDR went too far for even his lefty supporters, and some of them started to criticize him, one of his cronies, Harold Ickes wrote the following in his diary that is a pretty good (though unintended) peek into the soul of the modern liberal:
"I often think that the definition of a liberal is a man who wants what is unattainable or who wants to reach his objective by methods that are so impracticable as to be self-defeating. So many liberals want merely to be in opposition. They do not want to advance from objective to objective."So true, and one might add "Thank God"! If they went that extra little step of FDR and Ickes and completely ignored the Constitution, packed the court and took even more power, we would have no democracy left at all by now, only Government.
"Roosevelt also set out to prove that the intention of taxpayers who failed to complete complex returns correctly was malign: Where there was ambiguity, taxpayers ought to be presumed guilty. This was especially disingenuous of the president, for Roosevelt himself would submit an ambiguous tax return for the year 1937 ... with the note attached: "as this is a problem of higher mathematics, may I ask that they Bureau let me know the balance due?..."How consistent. A liberal never expects his rules to apply to him, only to others.
The book is excellent, but scary. There are so many parallels to what we likely face going into '09. Bush mistakenly attempted to tack back to the middle like Slick Willie had done before him with the predictable result of derision from the middle to left and abandonment by the right. Now we will likely ride into a full Democrat controlled administration with everyone primed so that any disaster created can be "blamed on Bush" for a least the first two, and likely full four years of the first term.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Not Dirty Tricks
In a classic example of grade-school level logic, a Clinton campaign staffer points out how:
Of course the CLINTON's are completely above such things, and the Democrats nor their buddies in the MSM would ever engage in anything even remotely "dirty". If pointing out that a guy released by a Presidential candidate on a furlough program that he was in favor of murdered, or that others that had served with equal and greater honor didn't have the right to question a candidates flaunting 3 purple hearts for which he never spent a night in the hospital was actually "dirty".
From the reverse side, the "bad guys" in the case of pointing out that Dan Rather was using fake documents to smear Bush over 40 year old potential issues are "the pajama media", the evil bloggers that brought the facts to light. In the "good old days" when the ONLY media was the Democrat controlled MSM, they never had to worry about such things.
"The Republicans are not going to give up without a fight ... and one of the things they're certainly going to jump on is his drug use," Shaheen said. "It'll be, 'When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?' There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It's hard to overcome."Oh yes, "Republican dirty tricks", there are no other kind, right? They even have multiple names; "Willie Horton", "Swift Boating".
Of course the CLINTON's are completely above such things, and the Democrats nor their buddies in the MSM would ever engage in anything even remotely "dirty". If pointing out that a guy released by a Presidential candidate on a furlough program that he was in favor of murdered, or that others that had served with equal and greater honor didn't have the right to question a candidates flaunting 3 purple hearts for which he never spent a night in the hospital was actually "dirty".
From the reverse side, the "bad guys" in the case of pointing out that Dan Rather was using fake documents to smear Bush over 40 year old potential issues are "the pajama media", the evil bloggers that brought the facts to light. In the "good old days" when the ONLY media was the Democrat controlled MSM, they never had to worry about such things.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Bi-Partisan Wishes
To All My Democrat Friends:
Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all.
I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2007, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great. Not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country nor the only America in the Western Hemisphere.
Also, this wish is made without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wishee.
To My Republican Friends:
Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all.
I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2007, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great. Not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country nor the only America in the Western Hemisphere.
Also, this wish is made without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wishee.
To My Republican Friends:
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Gore Attempts to Reduce House Energy Use
CNN proudly proclaims that Gore is actually trying to get his mansion to be less of an environmental hog. It is nice to see that he isn't so much of a potentate that he at least "reacts" to criticism even while dismissing it. Sort of seems on one had that it is POSSIBLE to get even the most hard core environmental offenders to take action with enough public criticism? Naturally, it is "unfair" for the Nobel Prize Winning "Goreacle" to receive criticism. We all know how he avoids casting any stones at others.
He was also in the news this week from Bali, where he traveled for a global conference on the environment. NPR had a nice segment on him apologizing for the USA, it sounded like he was embarrassed for the country that he once had the honor of being Vice President for. I wonder if they selected Bali as the place fly to in their private jets to out of "minimal carbon impact"?
I suppose the life of zero personal responsibility while receiving accolades for being such an "environmentalist" is fun for those that have no need for any consistency. From the article, it is pretty clear that even AFTER all the high priced changes he makes his massive mansion will STILL be hugely more of an energy hog than George Bush's modest home which the media seems quite capable of completely ignoring.
He was also in the news this week from Bali, where he traveled for a global conference on the environment. NPR had a nice segment on him apologizing for the USA, it sounded like he was embarrassed for the country that he once had the honor of being Vice President for. I wonder if they selected Bali as the place fly to in their private jets to out of "minimal carbon impact"?
I suppose the life of zero personal responsibility while receiving accolades for being such an "environmentalist" is fun for those that have no need for any consistency. From the article, it is pretty clear that even AFTER all the high priced changes he makes his massive mansion will STILL be hugely more of an energy hog than George Bush's modest home which the media seems quite capable of completely ignoring.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Ray of Hope for '08?
Part of the reason that the outlook for '08 looks so dreary for Republicans is because the MSM is keeping a pretty solid lid on anything that could be seen as good news. However, a couple strongly Republican districts staying Republican isn't earthshaking either--Just means that the House and Senate won't be 100% Democrat.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Golden Compass
I had heard rumors of this, but it sounds like it is a fact. The Golden Compass is a "teaser" to bring youth into the atheist faith. It is a free country, I don't have an objection to atheists trying to increase their numbers, BUT, it seems that a bit of "truth in advertising" might be something that an "unbiased MSM" would be interested in?
What if a movie was trying to soft-pedal racism or was anti-Muslim? Do you suspect that the MSM would be as quiet about that undertone?
Snopes on Golden Compass
What if a movie was trying to soft-pedal racism or was anti-Muslim? Do you suspect that the MSM would be as quiet about that undertone?
Snopes on Golden Compass
Monday, December 10, 2007
Four Types of People
Quoted from Wikipedia and oh so true!
A practical observation on the risks of stupidity was made by the German General Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord in Truppenführung, 1933: "I divide my officers into four classes; the clever, the lazy, the industrious, and the stupid. Each officer possesses at least two of these qualities. Those who are clever and industrious are fitted for the highest staff appointments. Use can be made of those who are stupid and lazy. The man who is clever and lazy however is for the very highest command; he has the temperament and nerves to deal with all situations. But whoever is stupid and industrious is a menace and must be removed immediately!"
Sunday, December 09, 2007
The Myth of the Rational Voter
This book by Bryan Caplan subtitled "Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies" is groundbreaking and has an easy to understand thesis with a lot of supporting data that is not quite so easy to understand, but quite convincing. Even if it ISN'T convincing, the data is laid out with such rigor, that if it can be disproved, that will move knowledge forward as well.
The thesis is that the real cost to a voter of a single vote is zero so voters "rationally decide to vote irrationally". Since the cost of a vote for a policy that we may suspect to be irrational (eg. protectionism), but makes us "feel like we did something good" (eg. protected American jobs) is zero, we are incented to vote irrationally.
The book opens with "In a Dictatorship; government policy is often appalling, but rarely baffling. The building of the Berlin Wall sparked worldwide outcry, but few wondered, "What are the leaders of East Germany thinking?" That part was pretty clear; their people were fleeing and they wanted to keep them.
On the other hand, protectionism is universally known and proven to be harmful to economies, it was one of the cornerstone causes of the great depression, and the unanimity of professional economists on the subject makes Global Warming look positively outlandish. However; "Even when countries negotiate free trade agreements, the subtext is not, "Trade is mutually beneficial", but, "We'll do you the favor of buying your imports if you do us the favor of buying ours". Admittedly, this is less appalling than the Berlin Wall, yet is is more BAFFLING." The book is about "why does this happen, and what does it mean".
There are no doubt a longer list of biases than are covered here, but this book is written by an economist so that is where the focus is, here is the list of the main ones:
Antimarket Bias - "The public has severe doubts about how much it can count on profit seeking business to produce socially beneficial outcomes. They focus on the motives of business, and neglect the discipline imposed by competition." Unlike a commonly accepted idea like say "global warming", even though we have many solid comparisons of how well markets work next to non-markets (USSR/USA, W Germany/E Germany, Hong Kong and Taiwan vs Communist China, Communist China after adopting markets vs Communist China prior to markets).
The cases where markets have been "shown not to work", as in the Great Depression have turned out to actually be other cases where Government messed things up (inadequate money supply, protectionist trade regulation, raising taxes into the face of a faltering economy, a myriad of switches in direction that caused business to have no idea of what direction to go, attacks on business by government as scapegoating that added to the desire to avoid risk when the only way to move forward is always to take risks).
Anti foreign Bias - "The Law of Comparitive Advantage, one of the most facinating theorems in economics, shows that mutually beneficial international trade is possible even when one nation is less productive in every way. Suppose an American can make 10 cars or 5 bushels of wheat, and a Mexican can make one car or two bushels of wheat. Though the Americans are better at both tasks, specialization and trade increase production. If one American switches from wheat to cars, and three Mexicans switch from cars to wheat, world output goes up by two cars plus one bushel of wheat.
People are biased against foreigners, and even then only SPECIFIC foreigners. In the 1980s it was against Japan, now it is against China. During anti-Japan hysteria of the 1980's, British direct investment in the US always exceeded that of the Japanese by at least 50%, BUT, it was "the Japanese that were buying America".
If you factor out anti-foreign bias, there is no difference in your "balance of trade" with Wal-Mart and the US balance of trade with China. If you believe that to be false and the law of comparative advantage to be false, then simply grow/produce all your own food and see how much "cheaper" it is.
Make-Work Bias - "The public often literally believes that labor is better use than conserve. Saving labor, producing more goods with with fewer man hours, is widely perceived not as progress, but as a danger." ... "No solitary man would ever conclude that, in order to make sure that is own labor had something to occupy it, he should break the tools that save him labor, neutralize the fertility of the soil, or return to the sea the goods that it may have brought him. He would understand, in short, that saving in labor is nothing else than progress."
Pessimistic Bias - "Two more generations should saturate the world with population, and should exhaust the mines. When that moment comes, economical decay, or the decay of economical civilization, should set in" (Henry Adams, 1898) It is never very hard to find people to explain to you how the past was better, the present is going downhill and the future is going to be awful. Humans tend to confuse their own life cycle with that of the world.
David Hume said; "The humour of blaming the present and admiring the past, is strongly rooted in human nature, and has an influence on even on persons endued with the profoundest judgment and most extensive learning". It isn't hard to imagine what many of the average voters with below average judgment and learning think.
In order to show what the public thinks, the book leans heavily on the Harvard "Survey of Americans and Economists on the Economy" or SAEE. This part of the book gets a little dry, but the bottom line is that people that have earned money money to improve their economic position (not those born rich, not those that win the lottery) and people with college degrees are much closer to understanding economics.
So after a lot of statistics and other analysis, he concludes that since the cost of each vote is effectively zero, people would much rather vote their biases because those make them feel better, so Democracy is irrational at least for economics. Worse, we seem to keep wanting to move to a more popular vote posture and adding in regular polls to make the "public view" more widely felt, and thus encourage more irrational behavior.
For me the scariest thing was that a lot of what appears to be malevolent behaviour on the part of politicians and the MSM can be explained by simple stupidity. Once again, Heinlein's axiom is proven; "NEVER attribute that to malice that can be explained by simple stupidity".
The book is very entertaining on balance, but a bit frightening. "Should my book push you toward democratic pessimism? Yes. Above all I emphasize that voters are irrational. But I also accept two views common among democratic enthusiasts: That voters are largely unselfish and politicians usually comply with public opinion. Counter-intuitively; this threefold combination - irrational cognition, selfless motivation, and modest slack is "as bad as it gets".
"What economists currently see as the optimal balance between markets and government rests upon an overestimate of the virtues of democracy. In many cases, economists should embrace the free market in spite of it's defects, because it still outshines the democratic alternative."
The book is WELL worth reading in it's entirety, although not much is lost if one wants to skim the supporting statistical and survey information. There is MUCH more covered than I comment on here, and I'm not really sure that I covered all the high points.
The thesis is that the real cost to a voter of a single vote is zero so voters "rationally decide to vote irrationally". Since the cost of a vote for a policy that we may suspect to be irrational (eg. protectionism), but makes us "feel like we did something good" (eg. protected American jobs) is zero, we are incented to vote irrationally.
The book opens with "In a Dictatorship; government policy is often appalling, but rarely baffling. The building of the Berlin Wall sparked worldwide outcry, but few wondered, "What are the leaders of East Germany thinking?" That part was pretty clear; their people were fleeing and they wanted to keep them.
On the other hand, protectionism is universally known and proven to be harmful to economies, it was one of the cornerstone causes of the great depression, and the unanimity of professional economists on the subject makes Global Warming look positively outlandish. However; "Even when countries negotiate free trade agreements, the subtext is not, "Trade is mutually beneficial", but, "We'll do you the favor of buying your imports if you do us the favor of buying ours". Admittedly, this is less appalling than the Berlin Wall, yet is is more BAFFLING." The book is about "why does this happen, and what does it mean".
There are no doubt a longer list of biases than are covered here, but this book is written by an economist so that is where the focus is, here is the list of the main ones:
Antimarket Bias - "The public has severe doubts about how much it can count on profit seeking business to produce socially beneficial outcomes. They focus on the motives of business, and neglect the discipline imposed by competition." Unlike a commonly accepted idea like say "global warming", even though we have many solid comparisons of how well markets work next to non-markets (USSR/USA, W Germany/E Germany, Hong Kong and Taiwan vs Communist China, Communist China after adopting markets vs Communist China prior to markets).
The cases where markets have been "shown not to work", as in the Great Depression have turned out to actually be other cases where Government messed things up (inadequate money supply, protectionist trade regulation, raising taxes into the face of a faltering economy, a myriad of switches in direction that caused business to have no idea of what direction to go, attacks on business by government as scapegoating that added to the desire to avoid risk when the only way to move forward is always to take risks).
Anti foreign Bias - "The Law of Comparitive Advantage, one of the most facinating theorems in economics, shows that mutually beneficial international trade is possible even when one nation is less productive in every way. Suppose an American can make 10 cars or 5 bushels of wheat, and a Mexican can make one car or two bushels of wheat. Though the Americans are better at both tasks, specialization and trade increase production. If one American switches from wheat to cars, and three Mexicans switch from cars to wheat, world output goes up by two cars plus one bushel of wheat.
People are biased against foreigners, and even then only SPECIFIC foreigners. In the 1980s it was against Japan, now it is against China. During anti-Japan hysteria of the 1980's, British direct investment in the US always exceeded that of the Japanese by at least 50%, BUT, it was "the Japanese that were buying America".
If you factor out anti-foreign bias, there is no difference in your "balance of trade" with Wal-Mart and the US balance of trade with China. If you believe that to be false and the law of comparative advantage to be false, then simply grow/produce all your own food and see how much "cheaper" it is.
Make-Work Bias - "The public often literally believes that labor is better use than conserve. Saving labor, producing more goods with with fewer man hours, is widely perceived not as progress, but as a danger." ... "No solitary man would ever conclude that, in order to make sure that is own labor had something to occupy it, he should break the tools that save him labor, neutralize the fertility of the soil, or return to the sea the goods that it may have brought him. He would understand, in short, that saving in labor is nothing else than progress."
Pessimistic Bias - "Two more generations should saturate the world with population, and should exhaust the mines. When that moment comes, economical decay, or the decay of economical civilization, should set in" (Henry Adams, 1898) It is never very hard to find people to explain to you how the past was better, the present is going downhill and the future is going to be awful. Humans tend to confuse their own life cycle with that of the world.
David Hume said; "The humour of blaming the present and admiring the past, is strongly rooted in human nature, and has an influence on even on persons endued with the profoundest judgment and most extensive learning". It isn't hard to imagine what many of the average voters with below average judgment and learning think.
In order to show what the public thinks, the book leans heavily on the Harvard "Survey of Americans and Economists on the Economy" or SAEE. This part of the book gets a little dry, but the bottom line is that people that have earned money money to improve their economic position (not those born rich, not those that win the lottery) and people with college degrees are much closer to understanding economics.
So after a lot of statistics and other analysis, he concludes that since the cost of each vote is effectively zero, people would much rather vote their biases because those make them feel better, so Democracy is irrational at least for economics. Worse, we seem to keep wanting to move to a more popular vote posture and adding in regular polls to make the "public view" more widely felt, and thus encourage more irrational behavior.
For me the scariest thing was that a lot of what appears to be malevolent behaviour on the part of politicians and the MSM can be explained by simple stupidity. Once again, Heinlein's axiom is proven; "NEVER attribute that to malice that can be explained by simple stupidity".
The book is very entertaining on balance, but a bit frightening. "Should my book push you toward democratic pessimism? Yes. Above all I emphasize that voters are irrational. But I also accept two views common among democratic enthusiasts: That voters are largely unselfish and politicians usually comply with public opinion. Counter-intuitively; this threefold combination - irrational cognition, selfless motivation, and modest slack is "as bad as it gets".
"What economists currently see as the optimal balance between markets and government rests upon an overestimate of the virtues of democracy. In many cases, economists should embrace the free market in spite of it's defects, because it still outshines the democratic alternative."
The book is WELL worth reading in it's entirety, although not much is lost if one wants to skim the supporting statistical and survey information. There is MUCH more covered than I comment on here, and I'm not really sure that I covered all the high points.
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Believing What You Like
On the way home tonight, NPR continued it's attack on the Bush Administration because the CIA has "proved them wrong". Daniel Schorr seemed to have his nose even higher in the air than normal and his pronouncements more arrogant than normal if such a thing is possible. The Bush Administration is just not "reality based" according to ancient Daniel.
I think we have another "liberal fundamental here". The "National Intelligence Estimate" (NIE) prior to the Iraq war called WMD in Iraq a "slam dunk". While I might be far more prone to think that "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" than Daniel, I assume his assessment is that the pre-Iraq war NIE was "100% wrong".
In 2005, the NIE on Iran gave the same level of confidence that Iran had an active and aggressive nuclear weapons development program. Now, in 2007, they have done a complete 180 and concluded the opposite with the same level of certainty. Only THIS TIME, Daniel and the left seems 100% willing to accept their conclusions. Apparently in no small part because they feel this is is "bad news for Bush", but hopefully in at least a bit because it is hard to not consider this "good news"-but for the "reality based", I'd argue with the IMPORTANT caveat "if it is correct".
Conservatives tend to believe in individual responsibility, the need to make the best choices we can, and generally that "what we do makes a difference". We tend to do stuff like build things, invest in things, stick with jobs, educate ourselves; "lasting things"-at least on an earthy scale. We tend to believe that consistency IS an issue, but realize that any sort of "intelligence", even the kind that seems "most certain" is at best "an indication".
All human action must be taken with FAR less than the whole picture in view. Pronouncements like Daniel's about "reality" say a lot more about the pronouncer than any corner of what is real. Any person that invests in markets has put their money where their prognosticating mouth is and been proved wrong-and usually right as well. They understand that "predicting the future" is an imprecise activity, but one that millions of people have been able to do to at least their financial benefit for many many decades.
When consistency is no issue and emotion is more important than reason, it is MUCH easier to "believe what you want to believe". If you like to ignore the recent track record of NIEs and bite into this one, you know that you can take the opposite tack next week based on how you "feel" and all your liberal buddies will be just fine with that. If one believes that the world is all "random and unfair and consistency IS NOT an issue", then it is perfectly rational to not accept responsibility for your own decisions, but on the other hand, saddle your favorite scapegoat (Bush) with 100% responsibility for everything.
Oddly, most conservatives tend to believe in something transcendent, usually religion, of which liberals tend to accuse them of "believing what they want to believe". The interesting thing is that the conservative "wishful thinking" tends to come with some "rules" that liberals despise. Worse, it always puts the supplicant in "less than the prime position" and DEMANDS some sort of consistency. Demands that are the antithesis of liberalism
I think we have another "liberal fundamental here". The "National Intelligence Estimate" (NIE) prior to the Iraq war called WMD in Iraq a "slam dunk". While I might be far more prone to think that "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" than Daniel, I assume his assessment is that the pre-Iraq war NIE was "100% wrong".
In 2005, the NIE on Iran gave the same level of confidence that Iran had an active and aggressive nuclear weapons development program. Now, in 2007, they have done a complete 180 and concluded the opposite with the same level of certainty. Only THIS TIME, Daniel and the left seems 100% willing to accept their conclusions. Apparently in no small part because they feel this is is "bad news for Bush", but hopefully in at least a bit because it is hard to not consider this "good news"-but for the "reality based", I'd argue with the IMPORTANT caveat "if it is correct".
Conservatives tend to believe in individual responsibility, the need to make the best choices we can, and generally that "what we do makes a difference". We tend to do stuff like build things, invest in things, stick with jobs, educate ourselves; "lasting things"-at least on an earthy scale. We tend to believe that consistency IS an issue, but realize that any sort of "intelligence", even the kind that seems "most certain" is at best "an indication".
All human action must be taken with FAR less than the whole picture in view. Pronouncements like Daniel's about "reality" say a lot more about the pronouncer than any corner of what is real. Any person that invests in markets has put their money where their prognosticating mouth is and been proved wrong-and usually right as well. They understand that "predicting the future" is an imprecise activity, but one that millions of people have been able to do to at least their financial benefit for many many decades.
When consistency is no issue and emotion is more important than reason, it is MUCH easier to "believe what you want to believe". If you like to ignore the recent track record of NIEs and bite into this one, you know that you can take the opposite tack next week based on how you "feel" and all your liberal buddies will be just fine with that. If one believes that the world is all "random and unfair and consistency IS NOT an issue", then it is perfectly rational to not accept responsibility for your own decisions, but on the other hand, saddle your favorite scapegoat (Bush) with 100% responsibility for everything.
Oddly, most conservatives tend to believe in something transcendent, usually religion, of which liberals tend to accuse them of "believing what they want to believe". The interesting thing is that the conservative "wishful thinking" tends to come with some "rules" that liberals despise. Worse, it always puts the supplicant in "less than the prime position" and DEMANDS some sort of consistency. Demands that are the antithesis of liberalism
22 Ways To Be a Good Democrat
This one is old as well, but it has been going around the net again and deserves capture. I'd add the "meta-rule" that makes all of these make sense; "Consistency Is Not An Issue!".
1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.
2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.
3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than U.S. Nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese and North Korean communists.
4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.
5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical documented changes in the earth's climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUV's.
6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being homosexual is natural.
7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.
8. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach fourth graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.
9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do.
10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.
11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money t o make 'The Passion of the Christ' for financial gain only.
12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.
13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.
14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Edison, and A.G. Bell.
15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.
16. You have to believe that Hillary Clinton is normal and is a very nice person.
17. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.
18. You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and a sex offender belonged in the White House.
19. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag, transvestites, and bestiality should be constitutionally protected, and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.
20. You have to believe that illegal Democrat Party funding by the Chinese Government is somehow in the best interest to the United States.
21. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right wing conspiracy.
22. You have to believe that it's okay to give Federal workers the day off on Christmas Day ..........but it's not okay to say 'Merry Christmas.'
Bar Stool Economics
This one has been around the net for a long time, but wisdom is worth capturing. One can't expect the angry envious left to get this, but the story is as old as the golden goose and will be with us over and over for as long as humanity exists.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.” Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men—the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?
They realised that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.
“I only got a dollar out of the $20,”declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “But he got $10!”
“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I did!”
“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up any more. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
Dr David R. Kamerschen
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia
For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Snow Jobs
We seem to be enjoying the start of a normal winter here in MN. I say "seem", because although I was out riding snowmobile in December on limited snow in Dec 2004, it promptly melted and it was still a mild winter. Last winter was mild as well, but we did have a monster late-season storm and we were able to get out. It was also somewhat colder, since we were able to ride in Iron River WI on solid snow for the first time in years rather than having to go all the way to the Keweenaw Peninsula of upper Michigan.
I make these observations somewhat with tongue in cheek because although Christian, I am not a young-earth fundamentalist that believes in a 6K age of the planet. Even on that scale, trying to discern climate trends on years and decades would normally considered completely irrational. This however is the age of "Global Warming", now re-christened "climate change". Now, only the "most foolish" fail to believe that not only climate direction on a planetary scale, but causality for same as, can be discerned in years and decades. In any case, we have to "assume the worst" and "play it safe".
How different this doctrine from the believability of threat assessments by our security agencies. When they asserted that WMDs were in Iraq, only to apparently be wrong because of failure to find the weapons, the culprit was the President believing the assessment. The same security services also asserted that Iran was building nuclear weapons, but apparently decided based on new information this last summer that this was no longer true. They changed their minds, thus, it is a problem for THE PRESIDENT.
I listen to the MSM all the time, so this doesn't really surprise me. The answer these days is always "bad for Bush" ... stocks up, stocks down, deficit up, deficit down, surge bad, surge working, the answer is always "Bush Bad".
As the snow drifts down as it should in early December and we complete yet another year with well below normal hurricane activity when it was publicized after Katrina that "due to Global Warming" we would have season after season of worse and worse storms, but in '06 we had none and this year we had a single barely cat 1 qualifier, one tends to wonder.
We were assured by the left that "Iraq was all about oil", by which I guess I falsely assumed meant "cheap oil". It was $20 a barrel before the war and around $90 now. Does that mean that they were wrong, it wasn't about oil? We were assured that the Surge was "a huge mistake" and "there was no way a military solution could work". Bush was called "delusional" and worse. So now even Jack Murtha says the surge has worked? (although you have to search for that almost as hard as news of a new stock market high or yet another good economic number).
So BOTH Libya and Iran apparently decide to bail out of their covert weapons programs as the US decides to invade Iraq and that invasion gets no credit for that result? We had "No Blood for Oil", would the left feel as good with a bumper sticker saying "No Blood to Stop Nukes"?
I must have listened to 100s of NPR stories on "the failure of Bush to stop the REAL threat of Iranian (and N Korean) nukes while he "wasted our blood and treasure" in Iraq. So when the best data that we have shows that they DID stop their program at about the same time we invaded their neighbor, THAT is yet ANOTHER "failure of the Bush Administration"?
The sheep must be willing to be led off the cliff even more than usual these days.
I make these observations somewhat with tongue in cheek because although Christian, I am not a young-earth fundamentalist that believes in a 6K age of the planet. Even on that scale, trying to discern climate trends on years and decades would normally considered completely irrational. This however is the age of "Global Warming", now re-christened "climate change". Now, only the "most foolish" fail to believe that not only climate direction on a planetary scale, but causality for same as, can be discerned in years and decades. In any case, we have to "assume the worst" and "play it safe".
How different this doctrine from the believability of threat assessments by our security agencies. When they asserted that WMDs were in Iraq, only to apparently be wrong because of failure to find the weapons, the culprit was the President believing the assessment. The same security services also asserted that Iran was building nuclear weapons, but apparently decided based on new information this last summer that this was no longer true. They changed their minds, thus, it is a problem for THE PRESIDENT.
I listen to the MSM all the time, so this doesn't really surprise me. The answer these days is always "bad for Bush" ... stocks up, stocks down, deficit up, deficit down, surge bad, surge working, the answer is always "Bush Bad".
As the snow drifts down as it should in early December and we complete yet another year with well below normal hurricane activity when it was publicized after Katrina that "due to Global Warming" we would have season after season of worse and worse storms, but in '06 we had none and this year we had a single barely cat 1 qualifier, one tends to wonder.
We were assured by the left that "Iraq was all about oil", by which I guess I falsely assumed meant "cheap oil". It was $20 a barrel before the war and around $90 now. Does that mean that they were wrong, it wasn't about oil? We were assured that the Surge was "a huge mistake" and "there was no way a military solution could work". Bush was called "delusional" and worse. So now even Jack Murtha says the surge has worked? (although you have to search for that almost as hard as news of a new stock market high or yet another good economic number).
So BOTH Libya and Iran apparently decide to bail out of their covert weapons programs as the US decides to invade Iraq and that invasion gets no credit for that result? We had "No Blood for Oil", would the left feel as good with a bumper sticker saying "No Blood to Stop Nukes"?
I must have listened to 100s of NPR stories on "the failure of Bush to stop the REAL threat of Iranian (and N Korean) nukes while he "wasted our blood and treasure" in Iraq. So when the best data that we have shows that they DID stop their program at about the same time we invaded their neighbor, THAT is yet ANOTHER "failure of the Bush Administration"?
The sheep must be willing to be led off the cliff even more than usual these days.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)