One recurring trope on this blog is Von Hayek's teaching that government ought to garden more and sculpt less.
I was watching The Botany of Desire on PBS, based on the book by Michael Pollan. The film argues against monoculture. According to the film, people want, for example, their french fries, to always taste in a similar manner, what Pollan labels "monoculture-on-the-plate". The film faults free markets for too efficiently meeting this desire via "monoculture-on-the-farm". In a state of nature, crops evolve immunities to pests. In monoculture agriculture, where biological diversity, and so natural adaptation, is suppressed, pesticide is required in increasing quantity. This is expensive, creating demand for genetically engineered crops. As pests, unrestricted by monoculture, continue to adapt, a little genetic engineering creates the need for ever more genetic engineering. All to replace, but not really improve, a function that nature more respected well serves.
It is worth noting that diners tend to choose diversity-on-the-plate. The closer the food people eat is to the farm, the greater the economic pressure for diversity-on-the-farm. The economic pressure toward monoculture stems, in part, from consumer preference for the bounty of technology and, in part, from monoculture in the markets.
The analogue between all this and economic/financial-services regulation is self-evident, if likely missed by folks like Pollan given that, within our politics, evolution and free markets are placed in opposing corners. Von Hayek teaches that Darwin actually liberally applied ideas from Smith. Conceptually and historically, Von Hayek would seem right. The competing political alignment points to the limit of his otherwise brilliant work.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Political Architecture
As a software developer, I am in the habit of thinking about the manner in which the architecture of a process controls its results.
In the case of congressional decision making, the "primitives" (in the software, not anthropological sense) are Congressfolk whose above-all-else motivation is re-election.
There are two rough dynamics which control re-election. Many Congressfolk -- Representatives from highly gerrymandered districts and Senators from reliably red or blue States -- have relatively safe seats. These Congressfolk face greater risk of being primaried out -- for being too moderate for their base -- than losing in the general election for being too partisan or idealogical. Other Congressfolk, facing more competitive electorates, can ill afford being seen as too partisan or idealogical.
Congressional seniority rules guarrantee that party leadership will be largely composed of the less moderate safe seats Congressfolk.
Best of the Web points out that Pelosi's healthcare push, surprising in light of the election, is good for her personal re-election prospects.
At this point the argument that the interest of Blue Dog Democrats lies in opposing the Obama agenda, is wrong headed. Voters angry with Obama or Pelosi are not going to vote for Democrats, whatever their voting records. If Republicans really wanted to kibbosh the Obama agenda they would offer Blue Dogs a place under their big tent. They, of course, have other motivations.
The limiting constraint on the radicalism of the safe seated Congressfolk is that their power depends on the size of their caucus which depends on their ability to recruit and re-elect moderate candidates. It is likely too late for the moderate candidates recruited by Democrats the past two cycles and this will all serve to discourage future recruitment.
It was once said that American politics operated between the forty-yard lines. Since the passage of McCain/Finegold, American politics operates more stably in the red zone.
In the case of congressional decision making, the "primitives" (in the software, not anthropological sense) are Congressfolk whose above-all-else motivation is re-election.
There are two rough dynamics which control re-election. Many Congressfolk -- Representatives from highly gerrymandered districts and Senators from reliably red or blue States -- have relatively safe seats. These Congressfolk face greater risk of being primaried out -- for being too moderate for their base -- than losing in the general election for being too partisan or idealogical. Other Congressfolk, facing more competitive electorates, can ill afford being seen as too partisan or idealogical.
Congressional seniority rules guarrantee that party leadership will be largely composed of the less moderate safe seats Congressfolk.
Best of the Web points out that Pelosi's healthcare push, surprising in light of the election, is good for her personal re-election prospects.
At this point the argument that the interest of Blue Dog Democrats lies in opposing the Obama agenda, is wrong headed. Voters angry with Obama or Pelosi are not going to vote for Democrats, whatever their voting records. If Republicans really wanted to kibbosh the Obama agenda they would offer Blue Dogs a place under their big tent. They, of course, have other motivations.
The limiting constraint on the radicalism of the safe seated Congressfolk is that their power depends on the size of their caucus which depends on their ability to recruit and re-elect moderate candidates. It is likely too late for the moderate candidates recruited by Democrats the past two cycles and this will all serve to discourage future recruitment.
It was once said that American politics operated between the forty-yard lines. Since the passage of McCain/Finegold, American politics operates more stably in the red zone.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Incendiary
A Huffington Post post complains about over-cautious media coverage of the California gang-rape and speculates that coverage would be far more aggressive was it "a 15 year old middle class girl was gang raped by black and Latino men outside a suburban homecoming dance."
The incident is, itself, frightening. The attack went on for more than two hours, with dozens of witnesses, some of whom encouraged the attackers, none of whom notified authorities. The victim was a church-going honors student.
Through their pastor, the her family has requested:
Reading between the lines of the reporting, there is some reason to believe that the victim was white. If so, exceedingly cautious reporting is very much called for.
However responsible the reporting, as the facts emerge, the concerns of the Richmond High students will be well founded. If the past is a guide, well meaning people will, then, accuse any who do not believe "this could have happened anywhere" of prejudice. That narrative will not sell: Parents will not easily be convinced that it is bigotry to believe their own community's sons better raised.
If the more damaging, ethnic, narrative takes hold, it would be more tragic for being untrue.
I have previously posted about the social cost of the view that teaches people -- like Olachi Obioma -- to blame an unjust society for their own lack of achievement. In the end, we -- and not some alien culture -- are the ones who taught these kids that their behavior is not their responsibility.
The incident is, itself, frightening. The attack went on for more than two hours, with dozens of witnesses, some of whom encouraged the attackers, none of whom notified authorities. The victim was a church-going honors student.
Through their pastor, the her family has requested:
Please do not respond to this tragic event by promoting hatred or by causing more pain. We have had enough violence already in this place. If you need to express your outrage, please channel your anger into positive action....Richmond High students want outsiders to stop calling them animals and savages. "We feel like they're blaming the school," an angry senior complained at a school board meeting I attended Wednesday night. "It wasn't nobody's fault," she said. "People shouldn't be pointing fingers."
And school officials are making sure to emphasize the tragedies that didn't happen.
The homecoming dance "was a success in terms of safety because nothing happened at the event," a campus police officer announced. "We have a safe environment at Richmond High."
...
The troublemakers at Richmond are emulating what they see in popular culture. "A lot of them, they don't think they're going to be successful," said junior Olachi Obioma. "They've already been judged, so they go with that. They drink, they smoke, they pop pills. It's the 'bad boy' culture. That's how they see themselves."
...
Or they didn't intervene because they didn't know the girl and didn't feel compelled to help a stranger. On a big, racially mixed campus like Richmond, you stick with your own and mind your business.Reading between the lines of the reporting, there is some reason to believe that the victim was white. If so, exceedingly cautious reporting is very much called for.
However responsible the reporting, as the facts emerge, the concerns of the Richmond High students will be well founded. If the past is a guide, well meaning people will, then, accuse any who do not believe "this could have happened anywhere" of prejudice. That narrative will not sell: Parents will not easily be convinced that it is bigotry to believe their own community's sons better raised.
If the more damaging, ethnic, narrative takes hold, it would be more tragic for being untrue.
I have previously posted about the social cost of the view that teaches people -- like Olachi Obioma -- to blame an unjust society for their own lack of achievement. In the end, we -- and not some alien culture -- are the ones who taught these kids that their behavior is not their responsibility.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
SuperFreakonomics
The authors of SuperFreakonomics, Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner, make what is, at face, a straightforward economic claim: Faced with a serious problem (global warming) and given the option of two sorts of solutions, one (geoengineering) which costs an order of magnitude less then the other (carbon emission reduction), why spend more?
Some argue that there are not really two sorts of solutions, that geoengineering is unlikely to practically work. With admitted ignorance of the technology, I think -- at this point -- its fair to observe that changing the behavior of billions of people, and against many of their narrow, short-term, interests is not entirely practical itself.
The scientist most relied on by L&D, Ken Caldeira, doesn't share their conclusion, in part, for a different reason: he apparently believes carbon emission is "essentially immoral" just like "mugging little old ladies". L&D view this moralistic, as opposed to analytical, approach to be, in some form, religious.
While L&D do take perverse joy in challenging traditional moral assumptions -- eg: pimps up -- their analysis is not simply amoral. Their claim is ultimately Machiavellian: better, more moral, outcomes, can be realized through cold-hearted, amoral, analysis than by adherence to pious orthodoxies.
The traditional, religious, understanding, shunned by all sides in this debate, is that people generally act moral less out of analytical, or empathetic, judgments of right and wrong, than out of force of habit guided by the weight of culture and tradition. Where this weight is removed, people have a frightening tendency to, for example, murder little old ladies and mug defenseless children.
It is hard, then, to imagine that the behavior of billions of people will be peacefully changed to meaningfully reduce their carbon footprint without harnessing the weight of culture and tradition to attach a notion of something like sin to carbon emission.
Some argue that there are not really two sorts of solutions, that geoengineering is unlikely to practically work. With admitted ignorance of the technology, I think -- at this point -- its fair to observe that changing the behavior of billions of people, and against many of their narrow, short-term, interests is not entirely practical itself.
The scientist most relied on by L&D, Ken Caldeira, doesn't share their conclusion, in part, for a different reason: he apparently believes carbon emission is "essentially immoral" just like "mugging little old ladies". L&D view this moralistic, as opposed to analytical, approach to be, in some form, religious.
While L&D do take perverse joy in challenging traditional moral assumptions -- eg: pimps up -- their analysis is not simply amoral. Their claim is ultimately Machiavellian: better, more moral, outcomes, can be realized through cold-hearted, amoral, analysis than by adherence to pious orthodoxies.
The traditional, religious, understanding, shunned by all sides in this debate, is that people generally act moral less out of analytical, or empathetic, judgments of right and wrong, than out of force of habit guided by the weight of culture and tradition. Where this weight is removed, people have a frightening tendency to, for example, murder little old ladies and mug defenseless children.
It is hard, then, to imagine that the behavior of billions of people will be peacefully changed to meaningfully reduce their carbon footprint without harnessing the weight of culture and tradition to attach a notion of something like sin to carbon emission.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Behind the Numbers
Of all the numbers trending in the GOP's favor perhaps the most signifigant this: In April 2008, 75% of Independents believed there was solid evidence for Global Warming. Today only 53% do.
One of the important emerging political trends is increasing Democratic competitiveness in the Mountain West: Three 2004 Mountain Red States turned Blue for Obama, and a fourth was friggin close. In April 2008, the region polled 75%-21% believing in global warming. Today the region -- at 44% - 42% -- is the most skeptical in the nation.
Another, similar trend involved college graduates. In 2004, their vote was split, in 2008 they went 53% - 45% for Obama. In April 2008, 75% of Independent college graduates believed in Global Warming, today only 56% do.
In both cases, a strong contributor to increasing Democratic support was the perception that the Republican Party, personified by W & Sarah Palin, stood, blinded by, or hostage to, ideology and theology, increasingly anti-science and even anti-thought. The Democrats with increasing success portrayed themselves as the thinking person's alternative. The success of this perception was reflected in the public trust for Global Warming science vouched strongly for by Democrats and questioned, with equal fervor, by Republicans.
Republicans have done precious little in the past year and a half to counter the perception that they couldn't think less. In these numbers lies rapidly falling public faith in the reasonableness of Democrats.
One of the important emerging political trends is increasing Democratic competitiveness in the Mountain West: Three 2004 Mountain Red States turned Blue for Obama, and a fourth was friggin close. In April 2008, the region polled 75%-21% believing in global warming. Today the region -- at 44% - 42% -- is the most skeptical in the nation.
Another, similar trend involved college graduates. In 2004, their vote was split, in 2008 they went 53% - 45% for Obama. In April 2008, 75% of Independent college graduates believed in Global Warming, today only 56% do.
In both cases, a strong contributor to increasing Democratic support was the perception that the Republican Party, personified by W & Sarah Palin, stood, blinded by, or hostage to, ideology and theology, increasingly anti-science and even anti-thought. The Democrats with increasing success portrayed themselves as the thinking person's alternative. The success of this perception was reflected in the public trust for Global Warming science vouched strongly for by Democrats and questioned, with equal fervor, by Republicans.
Republicans have done precious little in the past year and a half to counter the perception that they couldn't think less. In these numbers lies rapidly falling public faith in the reasonableness of Democrats.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Kwame Anthony Appiah
In his most recent column, David Brooks quotes Princeton professor Kwame Anthony Appiah (leaving some ambiguity as to whether he shares the opinion) as distinguishing between the "philosopher's" view of possessing character and virtue and the "psychologist's" view of being a "community of competing selves" which "are continually popping in and out of existence... have different desires, and they fight for control - bargaining with, deceiving, and plotting against one another." This latter view is propped up by "a century's worth of experiments" which show people often behave differently in different contexts.
Arguing against a straw man is one tell tale sign of a weak claim. Classical thinkers, of course, even without the benefit of psychological "experiments", understood well our divided and competing natures (after all, they were people too!). They taught stories of heroes with character and virtue, not to raise awareness of our true, or fixed, nature but to encourage our better angels. Their central insight was that behavior is largely habitual and habits can, largely, be developed.
Stripped, then, of its scientific pretense, this "psychologist" critique is merely functional. It offers -- actually, sells -- greater self-satisfaction. The traditional teaching promotes better behavior.
From a societal perspective, the classical view is obviously more beneficial. Which is, in the end, to be expected of a teaching that has passed the test of time.
Arguing against a straw man is one tell tale sign of a weak claim. Classical thinkers, of course, even without the benefit of psychological "experiments", understood well our divided and competing natures (after all, they were people too!). They taught stories of heroes with character and virtue, not to raise awareness of our true, or fixed, nature but to encourage our better angels. Their central insight was that behavior is largely habitual and habits can, largely, be developed.
Stripped, then, of its scientific pretense, this "psychologist" critique is merely functional. It offers -- actually, sells -- greater self-satisfaction. The traditional teaching promotes better behavior.
From a societal perspective, the classical view is obviously more beneficial. Which is, in the end, to be expected of a teaching that has passed the test of time.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Babies with Candy
In his latest NYTimes column, Nobel Laureate, Paul Krugman is in (recycled) whining mode. Highlights:
The truth of the matter is more complicated than Krugman would like you to think. This deep into the credit crisis, even Nobel winning, NYTimes column writing, Princeton professors ought to understand the manner in which bank lending is tied to fixed income security markets (where the bulk of Goldman's reported profits came from).
Main Street, was not, as Krugman pretends, an innocent victim of Wall Street's misdeeds. Main Street, hand in hand with Wall Street, borrowed far more money than it was able to pay back, leading up to the crash.
To spur any recovery, of course, businesses require funding. Krugman's apparent view that this best comes from a return to not-entirely-responsible lending seems perverse. More obviously sensible would be tax cuts and reduced regulatory burdens.
Finally, the notion that financial reform will decrease risk taking is something other than evidence-based. Consider a recent Journal column detailing the Government's hand in almost 2/3s of all bad mortgages.
Krugman is right, of course, to be concerned about the agency costs embedded in our financial system. But legislators and regulators, as much as bankers, play games with other people's money. Was Krugman more honestly concerned he would be more in favor (de-)regulatory policies that gave people more control over their own money.
...Goldman Sachs is making record profits... banks that are actually in the business of lending, as opposed to trading, are still in trouble...
while the wheeler-dealer side of the financial industry, a k a trading operations, is highly profitable again, the part of banking that really matters — lending, which fuels investment and job creation — is not...
In the first phase of the crisis, Main Street was punished for Wall Street’s misdeeds; now broad economic distress, especially persistent high unemployment, is leading to big losses on mortgage loans and credit cards.
And here’s the thing: The continuing weakness of many banks is helping to perpetuate that economic distress. Banks remain reluctant to lend, and tight credit, especially for small businesses, stands in the way of the strong recovery we need...
we desperately need to pass effective financial reform. For if we don't, bankers will soon be taking even bigger risks than they did in the run-up to this crisis... When bankers gamble with other people's money, it's heads they win, tails the rest of us lose.
The truth of the matter is more complicated than Krugman would like you to think. This deep into the credit crisis, even Nobel winning, NYTimes column writing, Princeton professors ought to understand the manner in which bank lending is tied to fixed income security markets (where the bulk of Goldman's reported profits came from).
Main Street, was not, as Krugman pretends, an innocent victim of Wall Street's misdeeds. Main Street, hand in hand with Wall Street, borrowed far more money than it was able to pay back, leading up to the crash.
To spur any recovery, of course, businesses require funding. Krugman's apparent view that this best comes from a return to not-entirely-responsible lending seems perverse. More obviously sensible would be tax cuts and reduced regulatory burdens.
Finally, the notion that financial reform will decrease risk taking is something other than evidence-based. Consider a recent Journal column detailing the Government's hand in almost 2/3s of all bad mortgages.
Krugman is right, of course, to be concerned about the agency costs embedded in our financial system. But legislators and regulators, as much as bankers, play games with other people's money. Was Krugman more honestly concerned he would be more in favor (de-)regulatory policies that gave people more control over their own money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
