I saw the movie 'Avatar' yesterday.
It really was like nothing I've seen before. The computer generated scenes blended with the real actors. As Greg Moody said, this movie is worth seeing for the visual effects alone. What's really cool is that the visual effects aren't limited to just pyrotechnics, but a vivid realization of an alien world, complete from fearsome carnivores to strange herbivores, surprising insects, and a flora as varied and sometimes startling as found in any rain forest on Earth.
The Science Fiction in the movie does leave a few questions unanswered, and a few inconsistencies. I awoke this morning to a couple of questions of “But what if?” and “If that worked there, why didn't it work later in the movie?”. Part of the movie is very Matrix-like, with humans making a mind-transferring link to another entity; But unlike the Matrix, when the humans leave their Avatar's body, it leaves the Avatar incapacitated, and very vulnerable. Surprisingly, nothing happens to them in that state.
But those are just nits in what is other-wise a fine movie. Although, as has been pointed out, the plot is fairly simple, that's not the point of this particular film. James Cameron has a message to convey, and everything in the movie, from the actions of the aliens and The People, from the portrayal of a rich, green, interconnected and spiritual world contrasted with greedy, destructive and isolated self-interest is used as metaphor to drive the point. It may be a little heavy-handed at times, but this particular message has been given many times with more subtlety, and unheard, so perhaps Mr. Cameron can be forgiven.
Sadly, one of my movie-going friends indicated that many of those that would benefit most by contemplating the message have already rejected it. If only there were a metaphor for a closed mind in the movie...
Ah, yes. In the words of the Na'vi, “You can't add to a vessel that's already full.”
Indeed.
But for those whose vessels are receptive, Avatar is the most richly imagined and vividly realized telling to date. I recommend it.
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Thursday, November 19, 2009
The Government Deficit vs Private Saving
Ed Harrison of Credit Writedowns has an excellent post explaining some very pertinent facts about the government deficit as it relates to private saving (wealth) and investment. Well worth reading if you are concerned about the deficit.
The relation he talks about has been well explored by several economists - In 'Stabilizing an Unstable Economy', Minsky adds the financial sector to the sectors that Harrison mentions - and again, shows how additional government deficit equals increases in private and financial sector wealth. The interplay at these aggregate or macro levels often turns intuition on its head...
What I find so interesting about Obama's voicing of concern and a willingness to go down the path of Hoover is that Government Deficit has to be good for business - so why would financial (business) advisers to our politicians push so hard to Balance the Budget?
The relation he talks about has been well explored by several economists - In 'Stabilizing an Unstable Economy', Minsky adds the financial sector to the sectors that Harrison mentions - and again, shows how additional government deficit equals increases in private and financial sector wealth. The interplay at these aggregate or macro levels often turns intuition on its head...
What I find so interesting about Obama's voicing of concern and a willingness to go down the path of Hoover is that Government Deficit has to be good for business - so why would financial (business) advisers to our politicians push so hard to Balance the Budget?
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Disengeneous Anti-Library Screed
I was doing my ballot research, and trying to decide which way I would go on our City Library initiative. Increase taxes to fund the libraries, and prevent closure and a diminishing of services?
I found the Denver Post's for and against articles on the subject, just to gain a small handle.
I visit the libraries regularly - I don't like the idea of purchasing every book I want to read, just those that I might want to read twice. And my children go through books like a worm through apples (okay, maybe not quite: They don't destroy the books!). Although having a large selection of books to read certainly saves me more than the projected $70 a year the tax hike will cost me, do I really want to pay for more library?
But what has really decided me to vote for the measure was the completely disingenuous screed against expanding the library: In the writer's words, technology is overcoming our need for a library. We don't need a library, we just need Amazon and Google, and all will be well.
Except: When I visit the library, the banks of computers that allow our residents to do research on the web are full, lines waiting. The modern library is about much more than just the books on its shelves: It provides research capabilities to those who don't have internet access at home. It provides inter-library loans of books and materials. It provides Google and much more to those who can't afford it. In short, it provides technology equitably to our residents.
And Mr. Golyansky misleads: It's $60 million over 5 years! Sure, while trivially true, It's actually just 12.5 million per year, which is just just under $35 per resident, and roughly $70-$90 per homeowner (based on our median home value). Those are the numbers that matter. Not $60 million. Another perspective: A city our size has an annual budget of $600 million - that's $3 billion over five years! Turns out $60 million is drop in the bucket (a 2% drop).
If the best the opposition can do is to mislead and act like all the library does is purchase books for its shelves (and ignore it's other services completely) - then they lose. At least for my vote. The city libraries are not caught in a technological time-warp - expanding those very technologies that Mr Golyansky wants is exactly why they must raise more revenue.
I found the Denver Post's for and against articles on the subject, just to gain a small handle.
I visit the libraries regularly - I don't like the idea of purchasing every book I want to read, just those that I might want to read twice. And my children go through books like a worm through apples (okay, maybe not quite: They don't destroy the books!). Although having a large selection of books to read certainly saves me more than the projected $70 a year the tax hike will cost me, do I really want to pay for more library?
But what has really decided me to vote for the measure was the completely disingenuous screed against expanding the library: In the writer's words, technology is overcoming our need for a library. We don't need a library, we just need Amazon and Google, and all will be well.
Except: When I visit the library, the banks of computers that allow our residents to do research on the web are full, lines waiting. The modern library is about much more than just the books on its shelves: It provides research capabilities to those who don't have internet access at home. It provides inter-library loans of books and materials. It provides Google and much more to those who can't afford it. In short, it provides technology equitably to our residents.
And Mr. Golyansky misleads: It's $60 million over 5 years! Sure, while trivially true, It's actually just 12.5 million per year, which is just just under $35 per resident, and roughly $70-$90 per homeowner (based on our median home value). Those are the numbers that matter. Not $60 million. Another perspective: A city our size has an annual budget of $600 million - that's $3 billion over five years! Turns out $60 million is drop in the bucket (a 2% drop).
If the best the opposition can do is to mislead and act like all the library does is purchase books for its shelves (and ignore it's other services completely) - then they lose. At least for my vote. The city libraries are not caught in a technological time-warp - expanding those very technologies that Mr Golyansky wants is exactly why they must raise more revenue.
Jon Ronson and "Them:"
I just finished reading "Them: Adventures with Extremists" by Jon Ronson, and I have to confess that I was initially not sure what to make of it.
Immediately upon finishing, I was a little concerned that I had been hoodwinked: That what I was taking to be a book documentary was really a work of fiction. The closing two chapters had a surreal, out of place feel that didn't seem to fit. I had to look up all the principle players (and they all exist, including footage from a video documentary that Ronson shot while investigating the material.) So, the credibility of Ronson and the events portrayed restored, I returned to my ruminations about the book.
As opposed to stating a thesis and building evidence to support it, "Them:" follows much more the documentary style: The journalist attempts to fade into the background, and not project any of his views onto the raw reporting of the people and events. Through many of the chapters of the book, Ronson achieves this: Omar Bakri, Randy Weaver, Thom Robb, Ian Paisley are allowed to speak without interference.
But, the closing chapters upset this. Ronson visits the Bilderburg Group and the Bohemian Grove, both objects of the conspiracy theories held by many in the earlier chapters. It almost appears that Ronson is now going to point out how silly their theories are, or outright debunk them.
However, he just doesn't do that. Instead of hard evidence, he simply interjects his views onto the events unfolding before him, coloring his reporting. He does reveal the counterpoint view held by two "extremists" who accompany him. Who's view is correct?
And that's the problem. Throughout the book, we are invited to live with the extremists, to see them as people who maybe hold a different viewpoint, to confront their views neutrally, and perhaps learn a little about them. It could provide a good springboard for thinking about us and them, about the origins of beliefs, and the chaotic nature of all belief.
Then he tears this down. Suddenly his viewpoint appears, as if to say: You knew they were wrong all along, go ahead, let's mock them together. No supporting evidence that "we" are correct, that the viewpoint held by "them" is wrong. He closes in exasperation, as though to say there's no hope, and that we should be equally exasperated.
I am. Not with "them", but with Ronson.
Immediately upon finishing, I was a little concerned that I had been hoodwinked: That what I was taking to be a book documentary was really a work of fiction. The closing two chapters had a surreal, out of place feel that didn't seem to fit. I had to look up all the principle players (and they all exist, including footage from a video documentary that Ronson shot while investigating the material.) So, the credibility of Ronson and the events portrayed restored, I returned to my ruminations about the book.
As opposed to stating a thesis and building evidence to support it, "Them:" follows much more the documentary style: The journalist attempts to fade into the background, and not project any of his views onto the raw reporting of the people and events. Through many of the chapters of the book, Ronson achieves this: Omar Bakri, Randy Weaver, Thom Robb, Ian Paisley are allowed to speak without interference.
But, the closing chapters upset this. Ronson visits the Bilderburg Group and the Bohemian Grove, both objects of the conspiracy theories held by many in the earlier chapters. It almost appears that Ronson is now going to point out how silly their theories are, or outright debunk them.
However, he just doesn't do that. Instead of hard evidence, he simply interjects his views onto the events unfolding before him, coloring his reporting. He does reveal the counterpoint view held by two "extremists" who accompany him. Who's view is correct?
And that's the problem. Throughout the book, we are invited to live with the extremists, to see them as people who maybe hold a different viewpoint, to confront their views neutrally, and perhaps learn a little about them. It could provide a good springboard for thinking about us and them, about the origins of beliefs, and the chaotic nature of all belief.
Then he tears this down. Suddenly his viewpoint appears, as if to say: You knew they were wrong all along, go ahead, let's mock them together. No supporting evidence that "we" are correct, that the viewpoint held by "them" is wrong. He closes in exasperation, as though to say there's no hope, and that we should be equally exasperated.
I am. Not with "them", but with Ronson.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Verbs, Pinker, Foder, and Thought
Thanks to the Harry Potter series, we know what thoughts look like: Silvery strands of goo that can be pulled out of your ears for storage and later retrieval and play-back. But what are thoughts, really?
Undaunted, Steven Pinker tackles that subject in his book 'The Stuff of Thought'. Pinker is a linguist, and he approaches the subject through his research into how we use language, and what it looks like on a universal scale. (Early in the book he states that there is enough universality to languages that we don't actually think differently based on the language we use. I'm not proficient in enough languages to either verify or refute that claim, so we'll have to accept it for now.)
Pinker bases his observations on the constructs that appear in language, and how we (or more appropriately, children) learn and use their language. As an example, he points at that some verbs are very flexible: They can fit into either construct:
Load hay into the wagon.
Load the wagon with hay.
But other seemingly similar verbs (action) refuse:
Pour water into the glass.
*Pour the glass with water.
You have probably never been tempted to use the second form (unless, perhaps, if you are a poet.) What is astonishing to linguists the world over is how quickly we learn which verbs fit into which constructs (and Steven Pinker gives several more classes as examples) – and often, after some initial flubs as very young children, we are not tempted to mess them up, even when we encounter a new verb that we haven't known before!
Enter Jerry Foder. Another linguist / philosopher, he is convinced that there is an enormous amount of language structure built in – our dividing verbs (and nouns) into classes that pre-determine how they get used is innate: We don't have to be taught, our brains are pre-wired for those constructs and those verb classes – and maybe even those verbs! Foder belongs to the class of linguists described as Extreme Nativists.
Pinker disagrees with Foder, and the exposition of the book is putting forth his argument that we do indeed learn all this stuff, and the quantity of innate structure in our minds is much, much less. However, in a gentlemanly moment, Pinker gives a compliment to Foder by quoting Daniel Dennett: “If we've learned much and pushed new ground, it's by jumping on Jerry” - a take on the old adage that 'if I've seen farther, it's by standing on the shoulders of giants.' Pinker indicates that without Foder as a foil (and a very, very intelligent one, at that), his and others' research would not have gone as far or perhaps produced the same quality of hypothesis. Disagreement, yes, but respect.
As I was contemplating the information contained in the book, it became very clear to me why both hypotheses would exist: It is extremely difficult to tease apart cause and effect at this level. Do the children of musicians become musicians because there is a music gene that they've inherited (plausible), or because their milieu from the time they were born was musical (equally plausible)? The same for athletes, actors, public servants, etc. We can see the genetic results in our external forms – do we have long arms, a slender or stocky build, what is the ratio of our tibia to our femur – all things that certainly may suit or unsuit us for particular activities.
But we can't see the genetic differences in the internal aspects of our brains. Is there a gene that controls the degree of folding? The connections between the hemispheres? The size ratios of the various constituent parts? We universally learn to speak by the time we are three – instinct? Or learned? (And that's an impossible test: We can't ethically remove children from speakers and isolate them to see if they ever learn to speak...) Does our brain innately understand cause and effect, movement to/from or past, or do we learn these constructs that are reflected in our language? How do we tell? If we observe the same constructs, and the same avoidance's, do we learn not to pour the glass with water, or does it innately not make sense?
Recent research into other areas of environment vs innate ability keep astonishing us, mostly with how what we thought was innate is instead learned – and so Pinker may currently have the upper hand in this argument, but certainly not the last word. The rest of us are lucky, that, again in Dennett's words: Pinker and Foder are like trampolines that push back when challenged, and in the process of springing off each other, they push our understanding of, well, understanding.
Undaunted, Steven Pinker tackles that subject in his book 'The Stuff of Thought'. Pinker is a linguist, and he approaches the subject through his research into how we use language, and what it looks like on a universal scale. (Early in the book he states that there is enough universality to languages that we don't actually think differently based on the language we use. I'm not proficient in enough languages to either verify or refute that claim, so we'll have to accept it for now.)
Pinker bases his observations on the constructs that appear in language, and how we (or more appropriately, children) learn and use their language. As an example, he points at that some verbs are very flexible: They can fit into either construct:
Load hay into the wagon.
Load the wagon with hay.
But other seemingly similar verbs (action) refuse:
Pour water into the glass.
*Pour the glass with water.
You have probably never been tempted to use the second form (unless, perhaps, if you are a poet.) What is astonishing to linguists the world over is how quickly we learn which verbs fit into which constructs (and Steven Pinker gives several more classes as examples) – and often, after some initial flubs as very young children, we are not tempted to mess them up, even when we encounter a new verb that we haven't known before!
Enter Jerry Foder. Another linguist / philosopher, he is convinced that there is an enormous amount of language structure built in – our dividing verbs (and nouns) into classes that pre-determine how they get used is innate: We don't have to be taught, our brains are pre-wired for those constructs and those verb classes – and maybe even those verbs! Foder belongs to the class of linguists described as Extreme Nativists.
Pinker disagrees with Foder, and the exposition of the book is putting forth his argument that we do indeed learn all this stuff, and the quantity of innate structure in our minds is much, much less. However, in a gentlemanly moment, Pinker gives a compliment to Foder by quoting Daniel Dennett: “If we've learned much and pushed new ground, it's by jumping on Jerry” - a take on the old adage that 'if I've seen farther, it's by standing on the shoulders of giants.' Pinker indicates that without Foder as a foil (and a very, very intelligent one, at that), his and others' research would not have gone as far or perhaps produced the same quality of hypothesis. Disagreement, yes, but respect.
As I was contemplating the information contained in the book, it became very clear to me why both hypotheses would exist: It is extremely difficult to tease apart cause and effect at this level. Do the children of musicians become musicians because there is a music gene that they've inherited (plausible), or because their milieu from the time they were born was musical (equally plausible)? The same for athletes, actors, public servants, etc. We can see the genetic results in our external forms – do we have long arms, a slender or stocky build, what is the ratio of our tibia to our femur – all things that certainly may suit or unsuit us for particular activities.
But we can't see the genetic differences in the internal aspects of our brains. Is there a gene that controls the degree of folding? The connections between the hemispheres? The size ratios of the various constituent parts? We universally learn to speak by the time we are three – instinct? Or learned? (And that's an impossible test: We can't ethically remove children from speakers and isolate them to see if they ever learn to speak...) Does our brain innately understand cause and effect, movement to/from or past, or do we learn these constructs that are reflected in our language? How do we tell? If we observe the same constructs, and the same avoidance's, do we learn not to pour the glass with water, or does it innately not make sense?
Recent research into other areas of environment vs innate ability keep astonishing us, mostly with how what we thought was innate is instead learned – and so Pinker may currently have the upper hand in this argument, but certainly not the last word. The rest of us are lucky, that, again in Dennett's words: Pinker and Foder are like trampolines that push back when challenged, and in the process of springing off each other, they push our understanding of, well, understanding.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Intrinsic vs Extrinsic Rewards
So much of what we do is driven by extrinsic reward - do your homework to get good grades (and your parent's and teacher's praise), practice your skills (again, for praise and attentions), do your job (for the money). In a recent book club book, Outliers, by Malcom Gladwell, he pointed out that those who achieve the very highest levels of skill do so because they are able to replace extrinsic motivation for intrinsic (internal) motivation: They start doing the activity for the sheer pleasure that they derive. This internal motivation enables them to concentrate and practice for long periods - much longer than those who are just extrinsically motivated. And there is nothing like lots of extra practice to perfect a skill.
So, naturally, as parents, we want to provide motivations to our children that will ultimately lead to their developing intrinsic motivations. Unfortunately, most of what we know is to reward or bribe (Do this, and I'll give you something you want.)
I don't recall how I ran across her website, but Dr. Christine Carter has some good ideas driven by research on how that may be accomplished. And since a co-worker and I were speaking on this topic today, here is a link to her post on ways to motivate without extrinsic reward.
So, naturally, as parents, we want to provide motivations to our children that will ultimately lead to their developing intrinsic motivations. Unfortunately, most of what we know is to reward or bribe (Do this, and I'll give you something you want.)
I don't recall how I ran across her website, but Dr. Christine Carter has some good ideas driven by research on how that may be accomplished. And since a co-worker and I were speaking on this topic today, here is a link to her post on ways to motivate without extrinsic reward.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Peter Galbraith in the News
One of the towering figures of the 20th century Economics profession was John Kenneth Galbraith. He wrote prolifically, and looked at economics from often a different viewpoint - a very humane view that questioned whether the economy was helping everyone. His writing is accessible and enjoyable - not something every economics professor can pull off!
Interestingly, his children have also entered very public roles: James K. Galbraith as an economics professor at University of Texas at Austin, who speaks out prominently against economic inequality and war. And, his older son Peter, has been a high profile U.S. ambassador, to Croatia, East Timor, and most recently, Afghanistan.
Peter Galbraith is in the news, as he has just been recalled (fired) from his post in Afghanistan, following a dispute he had with the senior U.N. official there about the large scale election fraud that took place during the recent election that retained Hamid Kharzi in power.
Enough of a preamble: You can read his letter to the NY Times, and listen to an interview on NPR's On-Point.
Interestingly, his children have also entered very public roles: James K. Galbraith as an economics professor at University of Texas at Austin, who speaks out prominently against economic inequality and war. And, his older son Peter, has been a high profile U.S. ambassador, to Croatia, East Timor, and most recently, Afghanistan.
Peter Galbraith is in the news, as he has just been recalled (fired) from his post in Afghanistan, following a dispute he had with the senior U.N. official there about the large scale election fraud that took place during the recent election that retained Hamid Kharzi in power.
Enough of a preamble: You can read his letter to the NY Times, and listen to an interview on NPR's On-Point.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
1421 by Gavin Menzies
I think that I am finished reading Gavin Menzies' “1421 – The Year China Discovered America”. Not that I have completed the book, but I've reached the point where I am no longer interested in reading.
Mr. Menzies starts with an intriguing premise: The Chinese, with the large economy they had at the start of the 15th century, coupled with their ship-building know-how (they actually built sectioned boats that could have two compartments flooded and still stay afloat!) and their desire for trade led them to sail to the America's both across the Pacific and the Atlantic in advance of Columbus.
Mr. Menzies uses his knowledge of the sea and its ways (he was a Captain in the Royal Navy), along with an understanding of how a man standing on a ship deck would view the land and chart it; this has led him to believe that charts of the world that pre-date Columbus sailing were in fact copied from Chinese charts – and coupled with artifacts found around the world constitute proof that the Chinese were there first.
Claiming first arrival is difficult. Although we have the recorded history of Columbus' voyages, we now know that the Polynesians crossed large expanses of the Pacific ahead of Columbus (and Magellan) settling most of the larger Pacific islands. It actually is not unreasonable that they may have sailed from Hawaii and Easter on to North and South America, respectively. And, given what we are learning about the Chinese capabilities during the latter 14th and early 15th century, they may very well have, too.
And those charts: The Portuguese had charts in their possession that showed lands across the Atlantic. We know the apocryphal stories of Columbus to be untrue: It wasn't that the majority believed the world to be flat, they knew it to be round, and further, 15th century Europeans, from contact with the Greeks and the Arabs, knew approximately how big it was. It wasn't that Columbus would fall off – he would run out of provisions attempting to cross the large expanse of sea that must lie between Europe and India. So, if Columbus had a chart that indicated an intermediary land where he could re-provision...
Mr. Menzies gets kudos for his explanations of the charts, how a 15th century seaman would have charted the land he saw, for his explanations of ocean currents and prevailing winds, and the effects they would have had on a square-rigged Chinese junk. Kudos too for explaining how ocean currents would change a charter's perspective, and cause them to draw Africa the right height (north-south), but fore-shorten it's western bulge due to a current heading west along it's coast.
And kudos too for his explanation of how the Chinese built survey posts to record a lunar eclipse, and hence charted the east coast of Africa, all of India, and China accurately not only in latitude but longitude.
But, Gavin Menzies is no historian. He starts repeating himself, and he jumps to conclusions. He finds evidence of an ancient wreck in San Francisco Bay, and concludes “I'm convinced it was the Chinese”. He finds similarities between some Mayan ceremonies and Chinese ceremonies, and concludes “I'm convinced it was the Chinese.” He finds evidence of a shipwreck in Australia, and concludes “It could only have been the Chinese.”
When an author starts promoting his view, his conclusion, without exploring alternative explanations, my internal warning flags go off. And when his conclusion is based on the barest of evidence and minimal cross-support, I start to doubt. And then, when his conclusion appears to be a leap, with nothing more than “I'm certain it could only be...”, showing a lack of imagination, I'm forced to discard his conclusion as unproven.
I'm sympathetic to Mr. Menzies and his ideas. Given some of the things I've outlined, plus others, I wonder that our accepted view of history may still be a little off, a little Euro-centered. I wonder if someday in the future we may find evidence that the population of the Americas wasn't just a migration following the crossing of the Bering Foot-Bridge, but was accomplished by other means as well. That before the Europeans crossed the Atlantic and sailed the world that other peoples had sailed there before. That the people of Australia, New Zealand, and maybe even China were aware of the Antarctic and South America and the animals unique to those regions long before Shackleton.
But, these ideas remain only possibilities. Gavin Menzies has not proven them.
Mr. Menzies starts with an intriguing premise: The Chinese, with the large economy they had at the start of the 15th century, coupled with their ship-building know-how (they actually built sectioned boats that could have two compartments flooded and still stay afloat!) and their desire for trade led them to sail to the America's both across the Pacific and the Atlantic in advance of Columbus.
Mr. Menzies uses his knowledge of the sea and its ways (he was a Captain in the Royal Navy), along with an understanding of how a man standing on a ship deck would view the land and chart it; this has led him to believe that charts of the world that pre-date Columbus sailing were in fact copied from Chinese charts – and coupled with artifacts found around the world constitute proof that the Chinese were there first.
Claiming first arrival is difficult. Although we have the recorded history of Columbus' voyages, we now know that the Polynesians crossed large expanses of the Pacific ahead of Columbus (and Magellan) settling most of the larger Pacific islands. It actually is not unreasonable that they may have sailed from Hawaii and Easter on to North and South America, respectively. And, given what we are learning about the Chinese capabilities during the latter 14th and early 15th century, they may very well have, too.
And those charts: The Portuguese had charts in their possession that showed lands across the Atlantic. We know the apocryphal stories of Columbus to be untrue: It wasn't that the majority believed the world to be flat, they knew it to be round, and further, 15th century Europeans, from contact with the Greeks and the Arabs, knew approximately how big it was. It wasn't that Columbus would fall off – he would run out of provisions attempting to cross the large expanse of sea that must lie between Europe and India. So, if Columbus had a chart that indicated an intermediary land where he could re-provision...
Mr. Menzies gets kudos for his explanations of the charts, how a 15th century seaman would have charted the land he saw, for his explanations of ocean currents and prevailing winds, and the effects they would have had on a square-rigged Chinese junk. Kudos too for explaining how ocean currents would change a charter's perspective, and cause them to draw Africa the right height (north-south), but fore-shorten it's western bulge due to a current heading west along it's coast.
And kudos too for his explanation of how the Chinese built survey posts to record a lunar eclipse, and hence charted the east coast of Africa, all of India, and China accurately not only in latitude but longitude.
But, Gavin Menzies is no historian. He starts repeating himself, and he jumps to conclusions. He finds evidence of an ancient wreck in San Francisco Bay, and concludes “I'm convinced it was the Chinese”. He finds similarities between some Mayan ceremonies and Chinese ceremonies, and concludes “I'm convinced it was the Chinese.” He finds evidence of a shipwreck in Australia, and concludes “It could only have been the Chinese.”
When an author starts promoting his view, his conclusion, without exploring alternative explanations, my internal warning flags go off. And when his conclusion is based on the barest of evidence and minimal cross-support, I start to doubt. And then, when his conclusion appears to be a leap, with nothing more than “I'm certain it could only be...”, showing a lack of imagination, I'm forced to discard his conclusion as unproven.
I'm sympathetic to Mr. Menzies and his ideas. Given some of the things I've outlined, plus others, I wonder that our accepted view of history may still be a little off, a little Euro-centered. I wonder if someday in the future we may find evidence that the population of the Americas wasn't just a migration following the crossing of the Bering Foot-Bridge, but was accomplished by other means as well. That before the Europeans crossed the Atlantic and sailed the world that other peoples had sailed there before. That the people of Australia, New Zealand, and maybe even China were aware of the Antarctic and South America and the animals unique to those regions long before Shackleton.
But, these ideas remain only possibilities. Gavin Menzies has not proven them.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
A Cloak for Facebook
I ran across this at slashdot this morning, and wanted to make the story available to those who don't seek out news in geekland...
Privacy Plug-In Fakes Out Facebook
The article is primarily about hiding sensitive information on Facebook, but they raise some really good points that people should consider before sharing (and sometimes virtually baring) all...Good info for all of us as we adapt to online technology.
Privacy Plug-In Fakes Out Facebook
The article is primarily about hiding sensitive information on Facebook, but they raise some really good points that people should consider before sharing (and sometimes virtually baring) all...Good info for all of us as we adapt to online technology.
Monday, September 7, 2009
The President Speaks...
A friend of mine put it very succinctly:
I agree fully. I think that our current and each of our past Presidents have been uncommon men - an uncommon mixture of talent, will, and vision. The opportunity to listen to such an individual doesn't happen every day.
Yet, due to unreasonable paranoia (and partisanship!), many children will likely be denied the opportunity Tuesday.
They'll miss more than just his words: They'll miss listening to a man who became their nation's President not through heredity, not through military coup or fiat, but by doing his studies when young, seeking and gaining acceptance to Harvard's Law School, building and honing his knowledge, leadership and oratory at every step of the way. They'll miss listening to a living example of what in America is possible.
(Thanks, Mike.)
"There are plenty of presidents I've disagreed with, but not one I wouldn't want my kids to have an opportunity to hear."
I agree fully. I think that our current and each of our past Presidents have been uncommon men - an uncommon mixture of talent, will, and vision. The opportunity to listen to such an individual doesn't happen every day.
Yet, due to unreasonable paranoia (and partisanship!), many children will likely be denied the opportunity Tuesday.
They'll miss more than just his words: They'll miss listening to a man who became their nation's President not through heredity, not through military coup or fiat, but by doing his studies when young, seeking and gaining acceptance to Harvard's Law School, building and honing his knowledge, leadership and oratory at every step of the way. They'll miss listening to a living example of what in America is possible.
(Thanks, Mike.)
Friday, September 4, 2009
Indoctrination
My son is being indoctrinated. Five days a week I send him off to school, where he spends more time with his teacher than he does with me. 30 hours a week of learning from someone else.
I don't worry too much. We talk every day about what he learned. I figure that if his teacher is straying from the published curriculum, I'll eventually hear about it. My son and I then have the opportunity to talk - something we already do. Although I believe that his teachers have an advantage of training, and will introduce and help him gain proficiency in his subjects much more effectively than I, I still feel that I am part of the equation. So I help him with his homework, and we talk regularly about our ideals. About what it means to be a moral person.
And I see him growing into the sort of person I'd like him to be.
So it didn't fill me with dread when I heard that our President was going to speak to our school children. "What a neat thing to do!" I thought. It will likely make an impression on his young mind - probably much more that the President took the time to speak over anything that might be said.
And if it does make an impression, it is something we will likely talk about when I get home from work. If the President talks about education, about my son's role in accepting responsibility for his education, that he can't just depend on others to do it for him; that education is a good thing and if pursued diligently will enhance my son's life; that he must look to his parents and within himself to really grow, then it will be a very positive experience.
And, if for some reason the President does deviate into other topics about government, about government's role in our lives, then we have that as a springboard for discussion as well. I may disagree, and that could be a very powerful moment ("Wow, Dad, you disagree with the President?" "Yes, eventually I'm bound to disagree with everyone, including the President. And here's why...")
As much as I can stay involved, and hopefully teach him to evaluate, to search for supporting evidence, then I don't have to worry that he is being indoctrinated at all. He's being educated.
And he's going to grow up and move into the world where he will daily hear people speak and have to determine the truth or falsehood of what they are saying. Better he should start now.
With me by his side.
I don't worry too much. We talk every day about what he learned. I figure that if his teacher is straying from the published curriculum, I'll eventually hear about it. My son and I then have the opportunity to talk - something we already do. Although I believe that his teachers have an advantage of training, and will introduce and help him gain proficiency in his subjects much more effectively than I, I still feel that I am part of the equation. So I help him with his homework, and we talk regularly about our ideals. About what it means to be a moral person.
And I see him growing into the sort of person I'd like him to be.
So it didn't fill me with dread when I heard that our President was going to speak to our school children. "What a neat thing to do!" I thought. It will likely make an impression on his young mind - probably much more that the President took the time to speak over anything that might be said.
And if it does make an impression, it is something we will likely talk about when I get home from work. If the President talks about education, about my son's role in accepting responsibility for his education, that he can't just depend on others to do it for him; that education is a good thing and if pursued diligently will enhance my son's life; that he must look to his parents and within himself to really grow, then it will be a very positive experience.
And, if for some reason the President does deviate into other topics about government, about government's role in our lives, then we have that as a springboard for discussion as well. I may disagree, and that could be a very powerful moment ("Wow, Dad, you disagree with the President?" "Yes, eventually I'm bound to disagree with everyone, including the President. And here's why...")
As much as I can stay involved, and hopefully teach him to evaluate, to search for supporting evidence, then I don't have to worry that he is being indoctrinated at all. He's being educated.
And he's going to grow up and move into the world where he will daily hear people speak and have to determine the truth or falsehood of what they are saying. Better he should start now.
With me by his side.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Aspire to Inspire
Sometimes, it's just good to remember what we wish to do:
"The mediocre teacher tells. The good teacher explains. The superior teacher demonstrates. The great teacher inspires." - William A. Ward
"The mediocre teacher tells. The good teacher explains. The superior teacher demonstrates. The great teacher inspires." - William A. Ward
Monday, August 31, 2009
Torture Again
I've had cause recently to recall a philosophy course I took in college. I remember one particular day, when, during our daily topic discussion / arguments, one courageous young woman took the unusual position that killing was wrong. I say courageous because, despite strong opposition from a majority of the class, she held to her view.
The opposition didn't really dispute her stance - nobody actually argued that killing was right. But, the argument against her was that she was unwilling to make exceptions, especially exceptions for the state. And, it seemed, many felt that killing wasn't wrong in the same way for the state.
I was mostly an observer that day. My strongest prior influence on the topic had been Justice Van Pelt's assertion that state execution should be reserved for professional assassins - it constituted an occupational hazard. In all other instances, the state should refrain.
But as I listened to the arguments in class that day, it occurred to me how strange it was that something we would abhor, something we would expressly forbid individuals from doing, we would grant authority to the impersonal body of the state to do.
I hear the same argument playing out again today. There are those who take the unusual position that violence, especially violence conducted expressly to advance one's goals or ends, is wrong. They argue that there shouldn't be exceptions - that the state shouldn't retain for itself the right to commit violence in our name without our prior, specific approval.
And then the opposition, yesterday articulated by former Vice President Dick Cheney, arguing that the state application of violence to obtain information is the best means we have, that it saves lives, and that our goal of saving lives justifies the state application of violence in secret. Today, I predict that the violence apologists will spring up across the news spectrum, taking up the call for society's approval of more state violence.
At least Justice Van Pelt's position had a certain logic: To be eligible for state execution, you had to be demonstrably employed in a specific profession, and you had to have been convicted of a very specific crime.
But the calls to allow state sponsored torture lack any of that - there is no requirement for specific actions, no requirement for conviction of a specific crime. Without very specific criteria - criteria that prevent abuse, that prevent it from becoming nothing more than some individuals using the state as cover to explore their personal desire to perpetrate violence, then it becomes just an acceptance of violence in society. It begins to take on overtones of racism and xenophobia - since we have no clear guidelines to its application, it will be applied to individuals based upon other individuals beliefs and fears and preconceptions. Surely a recipe for abuse.
Will we support Attorney General Holder's investigation into torture abuse? Will we pressure our representatives for stronger laws prohibiting and regulating torture?
Or will we be left with the sad conclusion that in America taking the position that violence is wrong is the unusual one?
The opposition didn't really dispute her stance - nobody actually argued that killing was right. But, the argument against her was that she was unwilling to make exceptions, especially exceptions for the state. And, it seemed, many felt that killing wasn't wrong in the same way for the state.
I was mostly an observer that day. My strongest prior influence on the topic had been Justice Van Pelt's assertion that state execution should be reserved for professional assassins - it constituted an occupational hazard. In all other instances, the state should refrain.
But as I listened to the arguments in class that day, it occurred to me how strange it was that something we would abhor, something we would expressly forbid individuals from doing, we would grant authority to the impersonal body of the state to do.
I hear the same argument playing out again today. There are those who take the unusual position that violence, especially violence conducted expressly to advance one's goals or ends, is wrong. They argue that there shouldn't be exceptions - that the state shouldn't retain for itself the right to commit violence in our name without our prior, specific approval.
And then the opposition, yesterday articulated by former Vice President Dick Cheney, arguing that the state application of violence to obtain information is the best means we have, that it saves lives, and that our goal of saving lives justifies the state application of violence in secret. Today, I predict that the violence apologists will spring up across the news spectrum, taking up the call for society's approval of more state violence.
At least Justice Van Pelt's position had a certain logic: To be eligible for state execution, you had to be demonstrably employed in a specific profession, and you had to have been convicted of a very specific crime.
But the calls to allow state sponsored torture lack any of that - there is no requirement for specific actions, no requirement for conviction of a specific crime. Without very specific criteria - criteria that prevent abuse, that prevent it from becoming nothing more than some individuals using the state as cover to explore their personal desire to perpetrate violence, then it becomes just an acceptance of violence in society. It begins to take on overtones of racism and xenophobia - since we have no clear guidelines to its application, it will be applied to individuals based upon other individuals beliefs and fears and preconceptions. Surely a recipe for abuse.
Will we support Attorney General Holder's investigation into torture abuse? Will we pressure our representatives for stronger laws prohibiting and regulating torture?
Or will we be left with the sad conclusion that in America taking the position that violence is wrong is the unusual one?
Friday, August 28, 2009
Market Value
One of our cherished ideas about the market is that it properly (and efficiently) sets the value of items. We even believe that it properly values people: Whether someone is making $10,000, $100,000, or $1,000,000, we often contend that the market has accurately determined their value to society, and they are being paid appropriately.
Leaving aside whether that is true or not, let’s poke a little at some of the ramifications. One observation that we can make is that it is the current value – the market does not attempt (with a couple of possible exceptions) to predict our future value. In other words, our current pay reflects our current value to our current employer – nothing more.
A co-worker made the assertion the other day that people who are poorly valued by the market have no business demanding Health Care. His idea was simply that if they hadn’t done what it takes to be highly valued by the market, and since the market reflects value to society, society is proper in denying them health care – we don’t get a good return on our investment by fixing them up.
But, that only reflects current value. We have no idea (and the market makes no predictions) about their possible future value. Most individuals, upon leaving High School, are relatively unemployable. Gradually, through time, they find a trade, complete college, and raise their wage.
Fortunately, most young people have good health. But, if they were to become sick, or injured: Can we take their current position in society, as determined by their wage, to fairly determine whether they deserve Health Care? Do we know that they will never amount to more, and our judgment that they should have only a bare minimum or face a lifetime attempting to pay their medical debts is fair?
Consider this, too: When CEO’s make mistakes, when those we’ve judged (by their salary only) to have high worth to society over extend their company: It is the rank and file worker who takes the brunt of the punishment, and loses their job, and frequently any Health Insurance / Care.
Did the worker’s value to society actually go to zero at the moment they lost their job?
I think we would say not – and the very act of denying the truth of this statement calls into question the earlier assertion that markets accurately value people.
And if markets don’t accurately value people, the idea that we can use a market valuation to determine eligibility for Health Care is also suspect.
Leaving aside whether that is true or not, let’s poke a little at some of the ramifications. One observation that we can make is that it is the current value – the market does not attempt (with a couple of possible exceptions) to predict our future value. In other words, our current pay reflects our current value to our current employer – nothing more.
A co-worker made the assertion the other day that people who are poorly valued by the market have no business demanding Health Care. His idea was simply that if they hadn’t done what it takes to be highly valued by the market, and since the market reflects value to society, society is proper in denying them health care – we don’t get a good return on our investment by fixing them up.
But, that only reflects current value. We have no idea (and the market makes no predictions) about their possible future value. Most individuals, upon leaving High School, are relatively unemployable. Gradually, through time, they find a trade, complete college, and raise their wage.
Fortunately, most young people have good health. But, if they were to become sick, or injured: Can we take their current position in society, as determined by their wage, to fairly determine whether they deserve Health Care? Do we know that they will never amount to more, and our judgment that they should have only a bare minimum or face a lifetime attempting to pay their medical debts is fair?
Consider this, too: When CEO’s make mistakes, when those we’ve judged (by their salary only) to have high worth to society over extend their company: It is the rank and file worker who takes the brunt of the punishment, and loses their job, and frequently any Health Insurance / Care.
Did the worker’s value to society actually go to zero at the moment they lost their job?
I think we would say not – and the very act of denying the truth of this statement calls into question the earlier assertion that markets accurately value people.
And if markets don’t accurately value people, the idea that we can use a market valuation to determine eligibility for Health Care is also suspect.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
More Means and Medians
There are a couple of threads that I wanted to follow from my previous entry on Means and Medians. One, of course, relates to the weather. The other is this one, on income.
There are (roughly) 300 million people in America. If you take our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of $14 trillion dollars, and divide by the population, you arrive at a per-capita income of approximately $45,000. We take that value and compare it with the per-capita income of other countries to get a sense of how well off we are – are we rich, or not?
And, by that measure, Americans are rich. A family of four's share of the output of America is $190,000. We're swimming in money, at least according to the mean.
Of course, that's just a measure of how we have to spread our output around. Unless they are extraordinary, most children don't work, and the majority of our seniors are retired. So a more interesting mean might be the amount of our GDP generated by each worker.
According to the census bureau, there are 138 million employed workers. (So, there are several million more potential workers...). That's a convenient number, because it makes the math easy: The average share of the output (the worker per-capita) is $100,000.
A normal distribution about the average would have 50% of American workers making more than $100,000 a year, and 50% making less. If it were fairly tightly bound to the mean, we would be able to say that American's are quite well off. But is that true?
Again, using the census bureau's numbers, the median household income (the mid-point) is $50,000. And since there are more income earners than households, the median worker income is lower still: $45,000 for men, $35,000 for women, and $41,000 overall.
In fact, the top quintile of all households starts at $91,000. So, less than 20% of American households make the per-worker average. And, since to get into the top quintile 77% of the households had two wage earners, that drops the number of workers who approach the national average income to just under 5%.
95% of all American workers make less than the per-capita value!
Therefore, for determining the actual wealth of the 'average' American, neither the per-capita value nor the per-worker share tells us much useful. Much better is the experience of the median family of 4, with an individual share of just $12,500. That's the experience of most of America. Not $45,000.
Now, economists are a pretty smart lot, and they understand that the difference between the mean and the median income in a country has meaning to the people of that country, and to what you can say about it. To help them, they use the Gini Coefficient (read wikipedia for a fuller account) – but it basically tells them the relative distance between the median and the mean.
Ours is a relatively high 45. Compare that with the bulk of Europe (34 for GB and Switzerland, low 30's for Canada, Ireland and Spain, 28 for France, Belgium, Hungary, Germany and Norway). We're only low compared to Argentina (49), Sri Lanka (50), El Salvador (52), Panama (56), Brazil (57) – and I'll leave it to the reader to consider what those nations have in common.
There's a lot more that could be said and investigated. For instance, what is the typical experience of a worker: Do they start low and progress across the median during their career, or do they remain on one side or the other? Where do our elderly lie? (I think we know: Most are below...)
But to maintain a semblance of brevity, I'll just leave you with this thought. Consider how this large income inequality is the gorilla in the room that silently influences every socio-economic discussion we have: From Education to Health Care, from Taxation to Retirement – the experience of the majority of Americans does not match the experience projected by the statistical mean, nor the experience of the planners and policy makers.
Once again, the mean and the median paint very different pictures. The mean says that we are universally rich.
The median exposes the lie.
There are (roughly) 300 million people in America. If you take our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of $14 trillion dollars, and divide by the population, you arrive at a per-capita income of approximately $45,000. We take that value and compare it with the per-capita income of other countries to get a sense of how well off we are – are we rich, or not?
And, by that measure, Americans are rich. A family of four's share of the output of America is $190,000. We're swimming in money, at least according to the mean.
Of course, that's just a measure of how we have to spread our output around. Unless they are extraordinary, most children don't work, and the majority of our seniors are retired. So a more interesting mean might be the amount of our GDP generated by each worker.
According to the census bureau, there are 138 million employed workers. (So, there are several million more potential workers...). That's a convenient number, because it makes the math easy: The average share of the output (the worker per-capita) is $100,000.
A normal distribution about the average would have 50% of American workers making more than $100,000 a year, and 50% making less. If it were fairly tightly bound to the mean, we would be able to say that American's are quite well off. But is that true?
Again, using the census bureau's numbers, the median household income (the mid-point) is $50,000. And since there are more income earners than households, the median worker income is lower still: $45,000 for men, $35,000 for women, and $41,000 overall.
In fact, the top quintile of all households starts at $91,000. So, less than 20% of American households make the per-worker average. And, since to get into the top quintile 77% of the households had two wage earners, that drops the number of workers who approach the national average income to just under 5%.
95% of all American workers make less than the per-capita value!
Therefore, for determining the actual wealth of the 'average' American, neither the per-capita value nor the per-worker share tells us much useful. Much better is the experience of the median family of 4, with an individual share of just $12,500. That's the experience of most of America. Not $45,000.
Now, economists are a pretty smart lot, and they understand that the difference between the mean and the median income in a country has meaning to the people of that country, and to what you can say about it. To help them, they use the Gini Coefficient (read wikipedia for a fuller account) – but it basically tells them the relative distance between the median and the mean.
Ours is a relatively high 45. Compare that with the bulk of Europe (34 for GB and Switzerland, low 30's for Canada, Ireland and Spain, 28 for France, Belgium, Hungary, Germany and Norway). We're only low compared to Argentina (49), Sri Lanka (50), El Salvador (52), Panama (56), Brazil (57) – and I'll leave it to the reader to consider what those nations have in common.
There's a lot more that could be said and investigated. For instance, what is the typical experience of a worker: Do they start low and progress across the median during their career, or do they remain on one side or the other? Where do our elderly lie? (I think we know: Most are below...)
But to maintain a semblance of brevity, I'll just leave you with this thought. Consider how this large income inequality is the gorilla in the room that silently influences every socio-economic discussion we have: From Education to Health Care, from Taxation to Retirement – the experience of the majority of Americans does not match the experience projected by the statistical mean, nor the experience of the planners and policy makers.
Once again, the mean and the median paint very different pictures. The mean says that we are universally rich.
The median exposes the lie.
Monday, August 10, 2009
The Market
I am a software engineer. Recently, I've been able to work on the software for autonomous, collaborative, distributed systems.
When a problem grows too large for a single computer to solve because of its complexity, a distributed system often provides a means of gaining the solution: Several to hundreds of computers are pulled into the task. Each computer churns on a portion of the problem, adding its partial solution to the whole, and then the partials are aggregated into a final.
An autonomous system is one where we add rules and logic to the individual computers so that, rather than my choosing as a programmer which parts of the problem will be solved on a computer, the program running there is allowed to survey the problem space, and select where it will search for a solution. We call such systems collaborative when they are allowed to communicate, and base their decisions not just on the problem at hand, but which parts are seen to be worked on by other computers.
We code up the rules and logic, compile, and then place an identical program on several computers, and start them up to see if they can find a solution. Often they do, and often very quickly. However, compared to a single system with its single set of logic and rules, sometimes our distributed system is much, much faster, but has found a local solution, rather than an optimal solution. Whether that is acceptable depends on the nature of the problem we are attempting to solve.
Sometimes, these systems surprise us. We've coded the rules, we've devised the logic, we've predicted just how they'll work together, and how quickly and efficiently they'll search the solution space. They don't always behave that way. Interactions we didn't foresee lead to solutions we didn't anticipate.
And we've coined a term for this: Emergent Behavior.
Sometimes, the emergent behavior opens up new possibilities, new avenues to explore. We see that a system we started developing to solve one problem, with some adjustment, can be made to solve another. Maybe two problems can be combined, and solutions found for both.
And sometimes, the emergent behavior is just bad. Rather than solutions, unanticipated interactions create loops, the same section of the problem is revisited again and again, with no progress. We go back to our cubes, change the rules, re-code the logic, adjust our algorithms, and try again.
We devised these systems out of analogy. Some say that it was a programmer's fascination with ants that lead to the first, others claim bee behavior lead to the insight. It doesn't really matter. We pull from research on not only insects, but animal and even human behavior for our inspiration.
But, it turns out that the analogy works both ways. We are all embedded in an autonomous, distributed, collaborative system in real life. We each work and play, earn money, and consume based upon an individual rule set – need, peer, and culture driven. Collectively, we participate economically, and the emergent behavior of all of our economic decisions and actions has been given a word: The Market.
In a sense, 'The Market' does not exist. It is not an entity to which you can appeal, it doesn't appear in nature. 'The Market' is just a term for the end result of human economic activity.
Like my programs, where the emergent behavior depends upon the rules, algorithms, and logic that I have coded, so too, 'The Market' depends upon the conditions of society in which it emerges: The laws that constrain possibility, the culture that helps determine value, the beliefs that influence individual behavior. Change any one, and the emergent behavior, 'The Market', changes.
Additionally, there is no reason to believe that the market is efficient or optimum. My distributed programs are neither. They use much more resources and energy than a conceivable single system would – the caveat is that we cannot yet build a single computer anywhere near to powerful enough to eliminate the inefficiencies. We see these same economic inefficiencies every day. Does everyone get the precise shoe they want? No. Does everyone get a shoe? No. Are there shoes manufactured that are discarded without a user? Yes.
Am I condemning 'The Market'? No. I'm just pointing out that it is nothing which we should approach on bended knee, that it is nothing 'out there' about which we cannot change. Nothing grates on me more than when an inefficiency (or worse, an inequality) is discovered in our society, and in response to proposals to ameliorate the inefficiency or inequality, someone cries “No! Let the Market Decide.”
'The Market' decides nothing. 'The Market' gives us nothing. 'The Market' is the end result, not a functioning intermediary.
Does the insight that ‘The Market’ is an outcome provide us with anything useful?
I think it does.
First, it ascribes morality to the outcome. There are those who claim that markets are impersonal, unbiased, and amoral; that market outcomes should not be morally judged. But if we recognize that the market is the end result of laws, culture, and beliefs, each of which is infused with our morals, then we can understand that the outcome can be judged against our moral standards, and, if found wanting, should be modified. (Those who appeal to the amoral market are often seeking cover for the furthering of their own self-interest. But, the intersection and balance between self-interest and group interest is exactly what morality is!)
Second, it empowers us to attempt modification. By understanding that ‘The Market’ is an outcome of our making, not some inviolate entity, we realize that we can imagine and then seek a better outcome. We’ll no longer allow ourselves to be bullied into inaction by those who seek to retain the status quo under the guise of some fictional entity.
Thirdly, it removes some of the mythology from ‘The Markets’ entity. When one speaks of rational markets, or efficient markets, we can see from analogy that they are discussing something that exists only in freshman econ textbooks, and nowhere in the real world. For in the real world, markets are made up of inefficient, sometimes irrational agents with incomplete knowledge and conflicting desires. How either rationality or efficiency can be ascribed to such a mess is beyond me. It requires heroic assumptions that just aren’t true. (It’s just like the physics point mass – frictionless surface problem that never occurs: useful for gleaning some understanding, but completely trivial for modeling anything in the real world.)
And, just as my computer programs aren’t useful for attempting every problem, so economics and the emergent ‘Market’ isn’t appropriate for every human problem, either. Our biggest challenge is to determine which problems we can tackle economically, and then collectively determine what attributes the solution should have (justice, equality, fairness, reward), and in what balance, and then work the structure towards such a solution.
When a problem grows too large for a single computer to solve because of its complexity, a distributed system often provides a means of gaining the solution: Several to hundreds of computers are pulled into the task. Each computer churns on a portion of the problem, adding its partial solution to the whole, and then the partials are aggregated into a final.
An autonomous system is one where we add rules and logic to the individual computers so that, rather than my choosing as a programmer which parts of the problem will be solved on a computer, the program running there is allowed to survey the problem space, and select where it will search for a solution. We call such systems collaborative when they are allowed to communicate, and base their decisions not just on the problem at hand, but which parts are seen to be worked on by other computers.
We code up the rules and logic, compile, and then place an identical program on several computers, and start them up to see if they can find a solution. Often they do, and often very quickly. However, compared to a single system with its single set of logic and rules, sometimes our distributed system is much, much faster, but has found a local solution, rather than an optimal solution. Whether that is acceptable depends on the nature of the problem we are attempting to solve.
Sometimes, these systems surprise us. We've coded the rules, we've devised the logic, we've predicted just how they'll work together, and how quickly and efficiently they'll search the solution space. They don't always behave that way. Interactions we didn't foresee lead to solutions we didn't anticipate.
And we've coined a term for this: Emergent Behavior.
Sometimes, the emergent behavior opens up new possibilities, new avenues to explore. We see that a system we started developing to solve one problem, with some adjustment, can be made to solve another. Maybe two problems can be combined, and solutions found for both.
And sometimes, the emergent behavior is just bad. Rather than solutions, unanticipated interactions create loops, the same section of the problem is revisited again and again, with no progress. We go back to our cubes, change the rules, re-code the logic, adjust our algorithms, and try again.
We devised these systems out of analogy. Some say that it was a programmer's fascination with ants that lead to the first, others claim bee behavior lead to the insight. It doesn't really matter. We pull from research on not only insects, but animal and even human behavior for our inspiration.
But, it turns out that the analogy works both ways. We are all embedded in an autonomous, distributed, collaborative system in real life. We each work and play, earn money, and consume based upon an individual rule set – need, peer, and culture driven. Collectively, we participate economically, and the emergent behavior of all of our economic decisions and actions has been given a word: The Market.
In a sense, 'The Market' does not exist. It is not an entity to which you can appeal, it doesn't appear in nature. 'The Market' is just a term for the end result of human economic activity.
Like my programs, where the emergent behavior depends upon the rules, algorithms, and logic that I have coded, so too, 'The Market' depends upon the conditions of society in which it emerges: The laws that constrain possibility, the culture that helps determine value, the beliefs that influence individual behavior. Change any one, and the emergent behavior, 'The Market', changes.
Additionally, there is no reason to believe that the market is efficient or optimum. My distributed programs are neither. They use much more resources and energy than a conceivable single system would – the caveat is that we cannot yet build a single computer anywhere near to powerful enough to eliminate the inefficiencies. We see these same economic inefficiencies every day. Does everyone get the precise shoe they want? No. Does everyone get a shoe? No. Are there shoes manufactured that are discarded without a user? Yes.
Am I condemning 'The Market'? No. I'm just pointing out that it is nothing which we should approach on bended knee, that it is nothing 'out there' about which we cannot change. Nothing grates on me more than when an inefficiency (or worse, an inequality) is discovered in our society, and in response to proposals to ameliorate the inefficiency or inequality, someone cries “No! Let the Market Decide.”
'The Market' decides nothing. 'The Market' gives us nothing. 'The Market' is the end result, not a functioning intermediary.
Does the insight that ‘The Market’ is an outcome provide us with anything useful?
I think it does.
First, it ascribes morality to the outcome. There are those who claim that markets are impersonal, unbiased, and amoral; that market outcomes should not be morally judged. But if we recognize that the market is the end result of laws, culture, and beliefs, each of which is infused with our morals, then we can understand that the outcome can be judged against our moral standards, and, if found wanting, should be modified. (Those who appeal to the amoral market are often seeking cover for the furthering of their own self-interest. But, the intersection and balance between self-interest and group interest is exactly what morality is!)
Second, it empowers us to attempt modification. By understanding that ‘The Market’ is an outcome of our making, not some inviolate entity, we realize that we can imagine and then seek a better outcome. We’ll no longer allow ourselves to be bullied into inaction by those who seek to retain the status quo under the guise of some fictional entity.
Thirdly, it removes some of the mythology from ‘The Markets’ entity. When one speaks of rational markets, or efficient markets, we can see from analogy that they are discussing something that exists only in freshman econ textbooks, and nowhere in the real world. For in the real world, markets are made up of inefficient, sometimes irrational agents with incomplete knowledge and conflicting desires. How either rationality or efficiency can be ascribed to such a mess is beyond me. It requires heroic assumptions that just aren’t true. (It’s just like the physics point mass – frictionless surface problem that never occurs: useful for gleaning some understanding, but completely trivial for modeling anything in the real world.)
And, just as my computer programs aren’t useful for attempting every problem, so economics and the emergent ‘Market’ isn’t appropriate for every human problem, either. Our biggest challenge is to determine which problems we can tackle economically, and then collectively determine what attributes the solution should have (justice, equality, fairness, reward), and in what balance, and then work the structure towards such a solution.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Means, Medians, and the Weather
Today, a little math.
Take the sequence of numbers: 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19.
The average of these numbers is 15. So is the mid-point, or median. If these numbers were in a bag, and you were to draw one out, there is equal probability that the number you drew would be above or below 15 (and a 1/9 chance that it would be 15 exactly).
If you had a very large bag, and there were equal number of duplicates of each, and you were to draw enough times (say, 400 or so), you would likely end up with a very even distribution, 44 occurrences of each. The average would be unchanged.
Now, in that same bag, let’s remove all of the 11’s, and replace them with 1’s. We’ll do the same 400 draws, but what happens to the average and mid-point?
The average drops to 13.9. However, the median remains unchanged at 15. (The sequence is now: 1, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19). 15 is equidistant from each end.
Which means that the probability of drawing a number greater than or less than 15 remains unchanged – for every number that you draw that turns out to be larger than 15, you will probably draw a counterpart that is less than 15.
But what if, instead of telling you the sequence of numbers in the bag and the median, I just told you that I have a bag of numbers in which the average, over all of the numbers in the bag, is 13.9. Then I invite you to draw 5.
The chance that you will draw numbers greater than 13.9 is very large – 6/9, or 2/3’s, to be exact. And by drawing only 5, there is a chance that you won’t actually draw any less than the average.
So, your perception of the range of numbers in the bag would be skewed. If you were to think about it, you would properly discern that there must be some numbers less than 13.9 in the bag, and if I were to continue to allow you to draw, you might even propose (or draw!) a very low number (the 1).
Now, to an application of exactly this phenomenon.
The average temperature (as published by the NWS) in Denver in late July / early August is 88 degrees.
So, what is the chance that any given day during this period is greater than 88 degrees? Is a 91 degree day ‘above normal’?
You get points if you realized that you can’t answer the question with the data given.
You get extra points if you realized that when our local weather people come on the TV and tell you that ‘it’s going to be a few degrees above normal today, with the expected high of 91 degrees’, they are being foolish, and possibly mis-informing you.
I got to wondering, especially last year, when it seemed that a 90+ degree day in the summer was more common than a 90- degree day. I contacted one of our local weathermen, and asked what the spread of the first standard deviation was on our weather, figuring that would actually tell us much more information about what constituted an abnormally hot (or cold) day. (The first standard deviation encompasses 2/3 of the data – if it were from, say 85 to 95 degrees, you could pretty accurately predict that most of the time, the summer day-time high would be in that range, and an abnormal, by this measure, day would be one above 95 degrees, which would constitute just 1/6 of all summer days.)
His reply astounded me: “We don’t get that information from the NWS – just the daily averages and extremes. BTW, the averages are computed every 10 years over the previous 30, so currently we are using the data collected from 1971 – 2000.”
Well. There is nothing left for an inquisitive person to do but to look at the data directly. Fortunately, the daily recorded highs and lows for the last 30 years can be had from the NWS site. So, I went to work.
And what I found was interesting. Our weather more closely represents the second sequence than it does the first. Rather than a smooth distribution about the average, it has regular, but infrequent, extremely low temps (in the 70’s!). The median temperature, as a result, is about 3.5 degrees above the average. It works out that just shy of 2/3’s of all summer daytime temps are above the published average!
Imagine how this alters your perception of the region’s weather. If you knew that the median temperature was 91.4 degrees, you would know to expect that, given enough days and years, half of the summer day-time highs would be 92 or above, and you wouldn’t be surprised at a string of 93-95 degree days. (Conversely, you also wouldn’t be surprised by an equal string of 87-89 degree days.) And if you knew the full variability of the weather, you also wouldn’t be surprised by a string of 80-82 degree days, or the occasional string of 97-99 degree days.
There is a more important point buried in all of this. The computation and use of means and medians is elementary, in the sense that we all encounter it prior to secondary (9-12) school. Our teachers take the time to create examples like this to illustrate how they differ, although the real meaning (and mismeaning) is not fully explored until statistics, usually in college. But, a rough understanding is vital to our accurate perception of the world around us, and the data presented.
And, we expect people who have a vested interest in molding our perceptions (think politicians and lobbyists) would leave one or the other out.
But, our weather people, and the NWS? What do they have to gain, other than laziness? They are all college educated, they certainly had college statistics as part of their degree program, and yet – they think nothing of going on TV each and every evening and misleading us about the ‘normalness’ of today’s weather.
Which really illustrates just how vigilant we must be whenever numbers and terms like average, median, and deviation are used. As has been said, the worst lies are statistical lies, which we can see are often lies of omission – omission of large parts of the relevant data.
Take the sequence of numbers: 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19.
The average of these numbers is 15. So is the mid-point, or median. If these numbers were in a bag, and you were to draw one out, there is equal probability that the number you drew would be above or below 15 (and a 1/9 chance that it would be 15 exactly).
If you had a very large bag, and there were equal number of duplicates of each, and you were to draw enough times (say, 400 or so), you would likely end up with a very even distribution, 44 occurrences of each. The average would be unchanged.
Now, in that same bag, let’s remove all of the 11’s, and replace them with 1’s. We’ll do the same 400 draws, but what happens to the average and mid-point?
The average drops to 13.9. However, the median remains unchanged at 15. (The sequence is now: 1, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19). 15 is equidistant from each end.
Which means that the probability of drawing a number greater than or less than 15 remains unchanged – for every number that you draw that turns out to be larger than 15, you will probably draw a counterpart that is less than 15.
But what if, instead of telling you the sequence of numbers in the bag and the median, I just told you that I have a bag of numbers in which the average, over all of the numbers in the bag, is 13.9. Then I invite you to draw 5.
The chance that you will draw numbers greater than 13.9 is very large – 6/9, or 2/3’s, to be exact. And by drawing only 5, there is a chance that you won’t actually draw any less than the average.
So, your perception of the range of numbers in the bag would be skewed. If you were to think about it, you would properly discern that there must be some numbers less than 13.9 in the bag, and if I were to continue to allow you to draw, you might even propose (or draw!) a very low number (the 1).
Now, to an application of exactly this phenomenon.
The average temperature (as published by the NWS) in Denver in late July / early August is 88 degrees.
So, what is the chance that any given day during this period is greater than 88 degrees? Is a 91 degree day ‘above normal’?
You get points if you realized that you can’t answer the question with the data given.
You get extra points if you realized that when our local weather people come on the TV and tell you that ‘it’s going to be a few degrees above normal today, with the expected high of 91 degrees’, they are being foolish, and possibly mis-informing you.
I got to wondering, especially last year, when it seemed that a 90+ degree day in the summer was more common than a 90- degree day. I contacted one of our local weathermen, and asked what the spread of the first standard deviation was on our weather, figuring that would actually tell us much more information about what constituted an abnormally hot (or cold) day. (The first standard deviation encompasses 2/3 of the data – if it were from, say 85 to 95 degrees, you could pretty accurately predict that most of the time, the summer day-time high would be in that range, and an abnormal, by this measure, day would be one above 95 degrees, which would constitute just 1/6 of all summer days.)
His reply astounded me: “We don’t get that information from the NWS – just the daily averages and extremes. BTW, the averages are computed every 10 years over the previous 30, so currently we are using the data collected from 1971 – 2000.”
Well. There is nothing left for an inquisitive person to do but to look at the data directly. Fortunately, the daily recorded highs and lows for the last 30 years can be had from the NWS site. So, I went to work.
And what I found was interesting. Our weather more closely represents the second sequence than it does the first. Rather than a smooth distribution about the average, it has regular, but infrequent, extremely low temps (in the 70’s!). The median temperature, as a result, is about 3.5 degrees above the average. It works out that just shy of 2/3’s of all summer daytime temps are above the published average!
Imagine how this alters your perception of the region’s weather. If you knew that the median temperature was 91.4 degrees, you would know to expect that, given enough days and years, half of the summer day-time highs would be 92 or above, and you wouldn’t be surprised at a string of 93-95 degree days. (Conversely, you also wouldn’t be surprised by an equal string of 87-89 degree days.) And if you knew the full variability of the weather, you also wouldn’t be surprised by a string of 80-82 degree days, or the occasional string of 97-99 degree days.
There is a more important point buried in all of this. The computation and use of means and medians is elementary, in the sense that we all encounter it prior to secondary (9-12) school. Our teachers take the time to create examples like this to illustrate how they differ, although the real meaning (and mismeaning) is not fully explored until statistics, usually in college. But, a rough understanding is vital to our accurate perception of the world around us, and the data presented.
And, we expect people who have a vested interest in molding our perceptions (think politicians and lobbyists) would leave one or the other out.
But, our weather people, and the NWS? What do they have to gain, other than laziness? They are all college educated, they certainly had college statistics as part of their degree program, and yet – they think nothing of going on TV each and every evening and misleading us about the ‘normalness’ of today’s weather.
Which really illustrates just how vigilant we must be whenever numbers and terms like average, median, and deviation are used. As has been said, the worst lies are statistical lies, which we can see are often lies of omission – omission of large parts of the relevant data.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Markets & Morals - Michael Sandel
I found this to be particularly interesting. Do markets play a role in how we view morality, and in turn, is our morality influenced by how we view markets?
I won't write more - it's worth reading and reflecting on.
Markets & Morals - Michael Sandel
I won't write more - it's worth reading and reflecting on.
Markets & Morals - Michael Sandel
Monday, June 8, 2009
Sunday, May 31, 2009
BBQs
Barbecues are fun. Especially large group barbecues. Everyone pitching in to see that the food is cooked, the serving line manned, everything necessary is available. Kind words exchanged, small groups breaking off to have conversation - kids playing tug-of-war.
After the food is served, some participate as actors, some as honored members, some as spectators. The roles will change for the next. Since this particular BBQ was to celebrate the growth and development of some youngsters, there were proud parents and proud kids to go along with the ceremony.
And new faces. New members to the group, watching and participating for the first time. Feeling the welcome camaraderie of being part of something good, something significant, of belonging.
At times like these it is hard to believe there is strife, that there are disagreements. It is a welcome diversion from the awareness that not all agree with us. We can agree on so much, participate together in so much, have so much in common. Different though we may be, we look at our children, and together invest our time and energy to see to their development, and concur that it is a very important thing to do. We become like-minded, and briefly imagine the rest of the world may be, too.
I like barbecues.
After the food is served, some participate as actors, some as honored members, some as spectators. The roles will change for the next. Since this particular BBQ was to celebrate the growth and development of some youngsters, there were proud parents and proud kids to go along with the ceremony.
And new faces. New members to the group, watching and participating for the first time. Feeling the welcome camaraderie of being part of something good, something significant, of belonging.
At times like these it is hard to believe there is strife, that there are disagreements. It is a welcome diversion from the awareness that not all agree with us. We can agree on so much, participate together in so much, have so much in common. Different though we may be, we look at our children, and together invest our time and energy to see to their development, and concur that it is a very important thing to do. We become like-minded, and briefly imagine the rest of the world may be, too.
I like barbecues.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Historical Perspective
From Choices and Echoes in Presidential Elections (Benjamin I. Page):
In 1956, Adlai Stevenson put forth the idea during his presidential campaign for National Health Insurance, using federal aid to make voluntary insurance available to everyone.
In 1964, Barry Goldwater included planks to make Social Security 'flexible' and 'voluntary'.
And I thought these were new ideas. In reading history, I see that we keep retreading old ground in our quadrennial elections. No wonder the issues seem so entrenched that we can no longer get at the roots and work towards meaningful resolutions. The real stops to our desires, however, must be congress: Their recalcitrance on passing legislation for which there is majority popular support continues today - read any report of how current Health Care legislation has stalled. (61% support full Health Coverage to all today, up from 51% in 1956.)
(In 1960, Goldwater also published a book titled: "Conscience of a Conservative". Now I know where Krugman got his title.)
In 1956, Adlai Stevenson put forth the idea during his presidential campaign for National Health Insurance, using federal aid to make voluntary insurance available to everyone.
In 1964, Barry Goldwater included planks to make Social Security 'flexible' and 'voluntary'.
And I thought these were new ideas. In reading history, I see that we keep retreading old ground in our quadrennial elections. No wonder the issues seem so entrenched that we can no longer get at the roots and work towards meaningful resolutions. The real stops to our desires, however, must be congress: Their recalcitrance on passing legislation for which there is majority popular support continues today - read any report of how current Health Care legislation has stalled. (61% support full Health Coverage to all today, up from 51% in 1956.)
(In 1960, Goldwater also published a book titled: "Conscience of a Conservative". Now I know where Krugman got his title.)
Friday, May 22, 2009
Stories
More than anything else, we tell stories. Stories about our life, our friends, our world, and our place in it. Especially important are our origin stories: Tales about how we came to be, from a grand perspective (think Biblical, Origin Myth, Evolution) to smaller, closer to home tales about our particular family.
Stories give us identity. We repeat the tales about the founding of our country to reinforce the ideals and struggles that led to its birth, and in the telling, we share a common history.
We elaborate and embellish. Rare indeed is the individual whose recounting of past events doesn't have themselves playing a more prominent role, doesn't have themselves portraying higher morals, forgetting errors, adding conquests. That's not all bad: By recounting how we want to be, how we wished we'd behaved, we create a powerful cognitive feedback loop that reinforces future behavior. We act out the roles we create for ourselves in the stories we tell.
Sometimes, though, the story we hear repeatedly starts to sound untrue. Evidence mounts that the original tale has been distorted, perhaps has reached the point of caricature, or has undergone so much wishful embellishment as to appear completely made up. Perhaps it no longer serves a universal purpose, but has been captured by a small group.
Stories that recount the innate superiority of Western Civilization have started to fall into this category. New evidence about commonality worldwide has surfaced. For instance, no matter who you are or where you are reading this, you stand an equal chance of sharing more common DNA with me than my immediate neighbor. Researchers have uncovered other clues about the vagaries of existence, clues about the role of language and culture in cognitive development, and exposed the fluidity of it all.
Into this maelstrom roars Jared Diamond with his book 'Guns, Germs, and Steel'. Weaving together tales of biological availability, geography, cultural solutions to needs, he creates a new origin story about civilization. He creates an account of the development of immunity to germs through animal husbandry. He shows how some regions were ripe for agriculture through the availability of high protein grains, and how other areas, richer in other resources but lacking in cultivatable plants, had no compelling need to develop farming. He uses geography, and the ease or difficulty of traversing the landscape to explain why some migrations occurred, and others did not. The availability of domesticateable animals (for not all are!) explains population concentrations: With, a single farmer can supply many more; without, even transporting goods becomes difficult, forcing groups to live closer to their resources.
Diamond's story is a very good one. It parks at the door ideas about innate superiority, and instead replaces them with proximate causes, external factors. It provides a more equitable place in the world for all people, and forgoes judgment of civilizations that haven't expanded in the same way as ours.
However, it's always good to seek out criticism, to search for inadequacies in any story, to reveal options for improving the tale and our understanding of the world.
I've seen critics of Diamond in the past, but they always appeared to be angry that he had so successfully created a tale that didn't rely on innate differences to explain the world as we see it today. They were riled that they could no longer point to internal causes - one could easily see that in 500 pages Diamond had erased part of their identity. They were forced to recreate their own origin tales to fit in the new picture, or, they had to discount Diamond's account. Such criticisms are not substantive.
I ran across some more thoughtful, anthropological critiques yesterday by Timothy Burke (you can read them here and here.) The summary is that Diamond too easily ignores data that doesn't fit his grand story (his account is long, slow, and sweeping; what about short term, close in explanations that are sufficient?), that the stage is set in the 11,000 years leading up to 1500, and events since then have unfolded because of this long pre-history, ignoring "the importance of accident and serendipidity at the moment of contact between an expanding Europe and non-Western societies around 1500."
If you have enjoyed 'Guns, Germs, and Steel', I highly recommend that you read Burke's essays. They have certainly given me a larger appreciation for what anthropology is about, and a new way of viewing Diamond's works.
But, the crucial question: Does Burke invalidate Diamond? It would appear not. Like every map, which is just an approximation, capable of answering some questions about the terrain while leaving others out, so, too, any origin story is only an approximation, highlighting the salient points. Even accident and serendipidity don't require innate superiority to function. Diamond provides a useful account of human expansions and civilization that flies in the face of Western arrogance, and if we'd listen, perhaps provides us with a little humility.
It is useful, too, as we continue to create our particular story. That we strive for greatness of culture, of civilization is important. That we look for real ways to explain our relative success, that we can pass on our methods and share strengthens our tale. And, by not appealing to some innate quality, but instead searching and building on what we have, we open ourselves to more possibilities, to a greater society. Enabling broader participation in our story creation should lead to a more compelling story.
Stories give us identity. We repeat the tales about the founding of our country to reinforce the ideals and struggles that led to its birth, and in the telling, we share a common history.
We elaborate and embellish. Rare indeed is the individual whose recounting of past events doesn't have themselves playing a more prominent role, doesn't have themselves portraying higher morals, forgetting errors, adding conquests. That's not all bad: By recounting how we want to be, how we wished we'd behaved, we create a powerful cognitive feedback loop that reinforces future behavior. We act out the roles we create for ourselves in the stories we tell.
Sometimes, though, the story we hear repeatedly starts to sound untrue. Evidence mounts that the original tale has been distorted, perhaps has reached the point of caricature, or has undergone so much wishful embellishment as to appear completely made up. Perhaps it no longer serves a universal purpose, but has been captured by a small group.
Stories that recount the innate superiority of Western Civilization have started to fall into this category. New evidence about commonality worldwide has surfaced. For instance, no matter who you are or where you are reading this, you stand an equal chance of sharing more common DNA with me than my immediate neighbor. Researchers have uncovered other clues about the vagaries of existence, clues about the role of language and culture in cognitive development, and exposed the fluidity of it all.
Into this maelstrom roars Jared Diamond with his book 'Guns, Germs, and Steel'. Weaving together tales of biological availability, geography, cultural solutions to needs, he creates a new origin story about civilization. He creates an account of the development of immunity to germs through animal husbandry. He shows how some regions were ripe for agriculture through the availability of high protein grains, and how other areas, richer in other resources but lacking in cultivatable plants, had no compelling need to develop farming. He uses geography, and the ease or difficulty of traversing the landscape to explain why some migrations occurred, and others did not. The availability of domesticateable animals (for not all are!) explains population concentrations: With, a single farmer can supply many more; without, even transporting goods becomes difficult, forcing groups to live closer to their resources.
Diamond's story is a very good one. It parks at the door ideas about innate superiority, and instead replaces them with proximate causes, external factors. It provides a more equitable place in the world for all people, and forgoes judgment of civilizations that haven't expanded in the same way as ours.
However, it's always good to seek out criticism, to search for inadequacies in any story, to reveal options for improving the tale and our understanding of the world.
I've seen critics of Diamond in the past, but they always appeared to be angry that he had so successfully created a tale that didn't rely on innate differences to explain the world as we see it today. They were riled that they could no longer point to internal causes - one could easily see that in 500 pages Diamond had erased part of their identity. They were forced to recreate their own origin tales to fit in the new picture, or, they had to discount Diamond's account. Such criticisms are not substantive.
I ran across some more thoughtful, anthropological critiques yesterday by Timothy Burke (you can read them here and here.) The summary is that Diamond too easily ignores data that doesn't fit his grand story (his account is long, slow, and sweeping; what about short term, close in explanations that are sufficient?), that the stage is set in the 11,000 years leading up to 1500, and events since then have unfolded because of this long pre-history, ignoring "the importance of accident and serendipidity at the moment of contact between an expanding Europe and non-Western societies around 1500."
If you have enjoyed 'Guns, Germs, and Steel', I highly recommend that you read Burke's essays. They have certainly given me a larger appreciation for what anthropology is about, and a new way of viewing Diamond's works.
But, the crucial question: Does Burke invalidate Diamond? It would appear not. Like every map, which is just an approximation, capable of answering some questions about the terrain while leaving others out, so, too, any origin story is only an approximation, highlighting the salient points. Even accident and serendipidity don't require innate superiority to function. Diamond provides a useful account of human expansions and civilization that flies in the face of Western arrogance, and if we'd listen, perhaps provides us with a little humility.
It is useful, too, as we continue to create our particular story. That we strive for greatness of culture, of civilization is important. That we look for real ways to explain our relative success, that we can pass on our methods and share strengthens our tale. And, by not appealing to some innate quality, but instead searching and building on what we have, we open ourselves to more possibilities, to a greater society. Enabling broader participation in our story creation should lead to a more compelling story.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Is Twitter Our Id?
Read Roger Ehrenberg (Twitter is our Id, Facebook our Ego) and let me know: Is he right? Especially from my friends who 'Tweet'...(and extra credit if you can do it in the size of a twitter msg!)
Chief Justice Roberts
There is an article in this week's New Yorker about Chief Justice Roberts, his views expressed during his current tenure on the court, and a historical perspective on his life.
In reading it, I was struck by a couple of things. One was his focus on race (in the guise of removing our focus on race), and the second his deference to power.
In his desire to remove our nation's focus on race, Justice Roberts has sided against laws that uphold quotas or similar means to address racial inequalities. In a statement guaranteed to be widely quoted (out of context and likely turned into a cliche, but really amounts to a tautology), Roberts observed “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
But even while challenging the laws that attempt to address past and current racial inequities, Justice Roberts himself ignores context. While it is true that most attempts at rectifying the results of discrimination end up imposing discrimination, concentrating on those ignores the initial causes of inequality - namely, the often implicit discrimination that exists in our society. Are you poor? You are most likely black or minority. Is your father in jail? Again, you are most likely black. Is your local school overcrowded, with poor teacher retention and dismal graduation rates?
We might do well to do away with explicit racial quotas on hiring and college school attendance. In 'Outliers', Malcolm Gladwell cites a study that followed those who attended law school and looked at the outcome. Did those who got in under quota (perhaps with less preparation than some passed over peers) under perform after? The answer was 'No.' In many things, after a certain threshold has been crossed, all can equally receive the training and education with similar results, thus leading to ideas of a lottery. We can't with precision determine who will succeed and who won't, so perhaps we shouldn't try, and let the individuals themselves decide. Of course, there are those who put forward extreme preparation that might be passed over, but since we can't adequately measure and predict, we aren't really doing anyone a disservice. Plus, our college educated ranks should more closely resemble the ratios of race in the population.
Of more concern to me is Justice Roberts deference to power and existing power structures. Jeffrey Toobin writes:
As I've observed elsewhere, individuals can rarely do as much damage as groups, and perhaps our most egregious violators are our nation's corporations, often acting without regard to safety, social needs, or respect for the long term environment.
But I'm not a lawyer. So what concerns me most about Roberts' view is not that he may be wrong, but that he may actually be right - That his interpretation of our nation's laws is consistent with the intent of our nation's laws. For over 200 years the common individual of America has been fighting against entrenched power, has been fighting for the right to live and excel on their own merits, has been fighting to be free from exploitation by powerful controlling groups. And again and again, fearful that if the masses have the same opportunities, the same privileges, that they will undermine the powerful, laws have been passed and judgments made that keep power in the hands of the few. Although there are anecdotal stories about 'self-made men', vastly more common is the 'success' of those who started out with money, privilege, and advantage.
Between our laws and a sympathetic Chief Justice, it is likely to remain that way.
In reading it, I was struck by a couple of things. One was his focus on race (in the guise of removing our focus on race), and the second his deference to power.
In his desire to remove our nation's focus on race, Justice Roberts has sided against laws that uphold quotas or similar means to address racial inequalities. In a statement guaranteed to be widely quoted (out of context and likely turned into a cliche, but really amounts to a tautology), Roberts observed “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
But even while challenging the laws that attempt to address past and current racial inequities, Justice Roberts himself ignores context. While it is true that most attempts at rectifying the results of discrimination end up imposing discrimination, concentrating on those ignores the initial causes of inequality - namely, the often implicit discrimination that exists in our society. Are you poor? You are most likely black or minority. Is your father in jail? Again, you are most likely black. Is your local school overcrowded, with poor teacher retention and dismal graduation rates?
We might do well to do away with explicit racial quotas on hiring and college school attendance. In 'Outliers', Malcolm Gladwell cites a study that followed those who attended law school and looked at the outcome. Did those who got in under quota (perhaps with less preparation than some passed over peers) under perform after? The answer was 'No.' In many things, after a certain threshold has been crossed, all can equally receive the training and education with similar results, thus leading to ideas of a lottery. We can't with precision determine who will succeed and who won't, so perhaps we shouldn't try, and let the individuals themselves decide. Of course, there are those who put forward extreme preparation that might be passed over, but since we can't adequately measure and predict, we aren't really doing anyone a disservice. Plus, our college educated ranks should more closely resemble the ratios of race in the population.
Of more concern to me is Justice Roberts deference to power and existing power structures. Jeffrey Toobin writes:
In every major case since he became the nation’s seventeenth Chief Justice, Roberts has sided with the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff.
As I've observed elsewhere, individuals can rarely do as much damage as groups, and perhaps our most egregious violators are our nation's corporations, often acting without regard to safety, social needs, or respect for the long term environment.
But I'm not a lawyer. So what concerns me most about Roberts' view is not that he may be wrong, but that he may actually be right - That his interpretation of our nation's laws is consistent with the intent of our nation's laws. For over 200 years the common individual of America has been fighting against entrenched power, has been fighting for the right to live and excel on their own merits, has been fighting to be free from exploitation by powerful controlling groups. And again and again, fearful that if the masses have the same opportunities, the same privileges, that they will undermine the powerful, laws have been passed and judgments made that keep power in the hands of the few. Although there are anecdotal stories about 'self-made men', vastly more common is the 'success' of those who started out with money, privilege, and advantage.
Between our laws and a sympathetic Chief Justice, it is likely to remain that way.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Strike One - You're Out!
Anyone else catch the interview with AIG CEO Edward Liddy on 60 Minutes last night?
After admitting that it was perhaps just 20-30 people who brought AIG to the brink of collapse, it seemed to me that he struggled a little to explain why they still worked for the company. Although 2 have tendered their resignations, the remainder are allowed to continue on, and Mr Liddy even mentioned that perhaps the company still had need of their expertise. Wow.
But isn't that how it is? We coddle those who make mistakes at the top, while we 'throw the book' at those who make mistakes at the bottom. "There, there - you relied too heavily on flawed models..." vs "Three strikes and you're out!"
There will be those who will complain that comparing fraudulent financiers to drug dealers is an unfair or at least very unequal comparison. I would agree. The amount of social upheaval and damage caused by a single drug user is tiny compared to the damage caused by an unscrupulous financier. We can't afford to give them three chances - One, and they should be out!
Keep explaining, Mr Liddy. We're not buying. And as 85% owners of the company, we want them out!
After admitting that it was perhaps just 20-30 people who brought AIG to the brink of collapse, it seemed to me that he struggled a little to explain why they still worked for the company. Although 2 have tendered their resignations, the remainder are allowed to continue on, and Mr Liddy even mentioned that perhaps the company still had need of their expertise. Wow.
But isn't that how it is? We coddle those who make mistakes at the top, while we 'throw the book' at those who make mistakes at the bottom. "There, there - you relied too heavily on flawed models..." vs "Three strikes and you're out!"
There will be those who will complain that comparing fraudulent financiers to drug dealers is an unfair or at least very unequal comparison. I would agree. The amount of social upheaval and damage caused by a single drug user is tiny compared to the damage caused by an unscrupulous financier. We can't afford to give them three chances - One, and they should be out!
Keep explaining, Mr Liddy. We're not buying. And as 85% owners of the company, we want them out!
Monday, May 11, 2009
From Poo to Power
I've been reading 'The Big Necessity' by Rose George - a book on human waste (not trash, mind you, but defecation). It is an amazing chronicling of waste disposal around the world, its attendant difficulties, and why it is so important to get it right (disease mitigation primarily, plus water conservation).
Throughout the book are various ingenuous ways waste is used to generate gas (for cooking and lighting) or electricity in addition to fertilizer. So, this segment on NPR caught my ear: The Denver Zoo is installing a waste gasification plant on-site that will turn 'Poop to Power'.
Although the payback will take a number of years, this has got to be a better approach than moving the waste to a landfill (carnivore) or even the composting that is done with herbivore waste. Listen for the full story, and take note of just how much 'poo' an elephant makes on a daily basis!
Throughout the book are various ingenuous ways waste is used to generate gas (for cooking and lighting) or electricity in addition to fertilizer. So, this segment on NPR caught my ear: The Denver Zoo is installing a waste gasification plant on-site that will turn 'Poop to Power'.
Although the payback will take a number of years, this has got to be a better approach than moving the waste to a landfill (carnivore) or even the composting that is done with herbivore waste. Listen for the full story, and take note of just how much 'poo' an elephant makes on a daily basis!
Social Security Notes
With the release of tomorrow's report, Social Security will once again be on everybody's mind, especially those that would like to trim, if not gut, the current program under the rubric that we can't afford it.
As one who knows many individuals who, despite efforts to save and prepare, found themselves on the short end and use (not abuse!) SS for their retirement (and even some cases that used it many years before retirement when a spouse died young) - I find myself a fan. Sure it takes a little of my income, but it takes the same little of everyone's income, and in return we have a floor through which we cannot fall regardless of life's vagaries.
But the rich don't see it that way: It's just an entitlement of the poor, and they hate paying money to the poor. Never mind the social good it does, never mind the relative pittance it is to their incomes....
So, some numbers, and a very good plan for maintaining Social Security for the next 75 years.
And access to your Senator when the hatchet jobs start coming in! Let 'em know you care! Keep Social Security alive.
As one who knows many individuals who, despite efforts to save and prepare, found themselves on the short end and use (not abuse!) SS for their retirement (and even some cases that used it many years before retirement when a spouse died young) - I find myself a fan. Sure it takes a little of my income, but it takes the same little of everyone's income, and in return we have a floor through which we cannot fall regardless of life's vagaries.
But the rich don't see it that way: It's just an entitlement of the poor, and they hate paying money to the poor. Never mind the social good it does, never mind the relative pittance it is to their incomes....
So, some numbers, and a very good plan for maintaining Social Security for the next 75 years.
And access to your Senator when the hatchet jobs start coming in! Let 'em know you care! Keep Social Security alive.
Counter-Intuitive Reasoning
That the recent economic downturn is due in large part to a bubble in housing values seems incontrovertible. That the housing bubble was due in large part to fraud in the financial sector again appears incontrovertible. That the fraud was the outgrowth of a lax environment brought about by the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999 and the rise of extreme libertarian thinking at the Federal Reserve, again, seems above argument. Greed rules, and given an outlet, will take it.
Our economy grew fine from 1933 until 1999 while Glass-Steagall was in effect. The ensuing bubble and economic disruption caused by its deflation would seem like something we'd like to avoid in the future. I know that I can see no reason why regulating the financial sector again wouldn't be the most prudent approach.
Now, I can understand that those who grew wealthy during the last decade (at the expense of a large portion of America!) would oppose regulation. I can understand why those who intend to make finance their vocation might oppose such regulation. And, I can understand why those who hope to make CEO (or at least VP) at a large corporation might oppose regulation - regulation would be lowering the ceiling for all of these individuals.
But what I don't understand is when the common worker takes up the call against imposing regulation on this sector. Why, when it is our hope for reasonable retirement that has been so cratered by the actions of a greedy few, wouldn't we ask that it can't happen again? Why, when our pensions are in dire straights due to cross investment in derivatives and default swaps, wouldn't we ask that such instruments be banned? Why, when we know of at least one of those 6 million American's who has recently lost their job, wouldn't our own empathy force us to ask for future protection?
Too many of those I know, who have the same stake in a stable economy as I, are still under the influence of the ideas that 'we' can't solve our problems. That 'we' can't impose regulations and stabilize the economy. That 'we' can't act in our self-interest - that to do so would somehow prevent those who, through their own self-interest, really drive the economy and trickle down benefit to all.
'We' of course, is acting in concert as the government. Somehow, in the land of Jefferson, we no longer believe in democracy. We believe in John Galt, in greed, that our fortunes are all tied to those few that drive it for the rest - and if they misbehave a little, it's okay.
That has got to be one of the all-time greatest victories of propaganda.
Our economy grew fine from 1933 until 1999 while Glass-Steagall was in effect. The ensuing bubble and economic disruption caused by its deflation would seem like something we'd like to avoid in the future. I know that I can see no reason why regulating the financial sector again wouldn't be the most prudent approach.
Now, I can understand that those who grew wealthy during the last decade (at the expense of a large portion of America!) would oppose regulation. I can understand why those who intend to make finance their vocation might oppose such regulation. And, I can understand why those who hope to make CEO (or at least VP) at a large corporation might oppose regulation - regulation would be lowering the ceiling for all of these individuals.
But what I don't understand is when the common worker takes up the call against imposing regulation on this sector. Why, when it is our hope for reasonable retirement that has been so cratered by the actions of a greedy few, wouldn't we ask that it can't happen again? Why, when our pensions are in dire straights due to cross investment in derivatives and default swaps, wouldn't we ask that such instruments be banned? Why, when we know of at least one of those 6 million American's who has recently lost their job, wouldn't our own empathy force us to ask for future protection?
Too many of those I know, who have the same stake in a stable economy as I, are still under the influence of the ideas that 'we' can't solve our problems. That 'we' can't impose regulations and stabilize the economy. That 'we' can't act in our self-interest - that to do so would somehow prevent those who, through their own self-interest, really drive the economy and trickle down benefit to all.
'We' of course, is acting in concert as the government. Somehow, in the land of Jefferson, we no longer believe in democracy. We believe in John Galt, in greed, that our fortunes are all tied to those few that drive it for the rest - and if they misbehave a little, it's okay.
That has got to be one of the all-time greatest victories of propaganda.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Wow! (Neil Gaiman - American Gods)
Just finished my introduction to Neil Gaiman - by reading his novel American Gods. Wow!
I love mythology, and since this book emulates so well the old Norse and Greek and Egyptian myths, but in a new setting (America!), adds an interesting twist, and wraps it all in descriptive, readable text - I couldn't put it down! And when was the last time characters in a book discussed the philosophy of Julian Jaynes (He of the Origin of Consciousness in the Break-down of the Bicameral Mind)?
Besides the plot and the ability to keep me guessing as to how it might all turn out, I really, really enjoyed Gaiman's prose - his wonderful working of the English language into something exciting, with often surprising juxtapositions. In one sequence, as the protagonist drifts into a dream, and 'Darkness roared.'
Gaiman has roared into my awareness, and I look forward to reading more. Hopefully they are all as compelling!
I love mythology, and since this book emulates so well the old Norse and Greek and Egyptian myths, but in a new setting (America!), adds an interesting twist, and wraps it all in descriptive, readable text - I couldn't put it down! And when was the last time characters in a book discussed the philosophy of Julian Jaynes (He of the Origin of Consciousness in the Break-down of the Bicameral Mind)?
Besides the plot and the ability to keep me guessing as to how it might all turn out, I really, really enjoyed Gaiman's prose - his wonderful working of the English language into something exciting, with often surprising juxtapositions. In one sequence, as the protagonist drifts into a dream, and 'Darkness roared.'
Gaiman has roared into my awareness, and I look forward to reading more. Hopefully they are all as compelling!
Thursday, April 30, 2009
On Torture
A friend asked that I do a post on torture. I’ve been avoiding this, not because I don’t have strong feelings on the subject, but rather, because perhaps my feelings are too strong.
My strongest feeling is one of disappointment, both in those who would conduct such acts, and also in the large number of apologists throughout our society. I recall a conversation we had at work shortly after the Abu Ghraib scandal, and I was literally one voice against many condemning the actions of the guards, the military, and whoever authorized such behavior (although we were not certain at the time.)
Many will advocate torture based upon its efficacy. I hold that is not even the proper question. I’m not an ‘Ends justifies the Means’ sort of person. There is always more than one path to achieve our desired goals, and there are frequently paths that should not be taken, if we want to promote civilization and cooperation.
I recall well my feelings on Sept 11, 2001. The initial shock gave way to fear and frustration: Fear for our future, and frustration that we could seemingly do so little to prevent it (and catch those responsible outside of the ones who died.) Those emotions gave way to anger – anger that someone had caused fear, anger that someone could see it as a life fulfilling action to destroy so much, anger again at our own seeming impotence.
In those moments of extreme anger, I entertained thoughts of counter destruction. We are America, we are powerful, don’t mess with us! We could destroy so much if we chose – We don’t need to find and remove Osama Bin-Laden, we could destroy the entire countryside where he hid, and ensure that he would not survive.
But, we know better. Wholesale destruction is not the answer – it would make us exactly one and the same as those who carried out the terrorism of 9/11, exactly the same as those who would plot and carry out future acts. They felt justified in killing – how would it be any different if we built up justification for our own killing, and then carried it out?
The only way out is for us to remain true to our ideals: Our belief in the Rule of Law, our belief in the innate goodness of people, our belief that we can lead lives that others will desire to emulate, and in so doing, peacefully bring others (people and nations) into alliance.
The terrorist acts were criminal acts. Since they involved the indiscriminate taking of human life, they were the most heinous and immoral of all criminal acts. We are justified in prosecuting those responsible, justified in unearthing the evidence necessary to convict them, justified in hunting them throughout the world.
But, we are not justified in committing criminal acts of our own. We have established standards of conduct to ensure that evidence is properly obtained, that accused are treated decently, that individual rights of freedom are only curtailed when we have evidence, not at our whim.
“This is war!” cry the apologists. “This is different!”
What is war, except the coordinated criminal activity of a nation? Instead of one or a few individuals, it is thousands participating in the destruction of property, the discriminate and indiscriminate killing of people (homicide!). Those are criminal acts, and there can be no justification. Individuals captured during the prosecution of a war are deemed the same rights as other criminals: Captivity, but fair protection from the elements, food, and their captors will refrain from causing bodily harm. We’ve upheld these beliefs by signing international treaties.
Specifically, we have agreed to refrain from torturing our prisoners.
The argument has been floated that, technically, we didn’t engage in torture. But, that misses the point. At the company where I work, we have a saying: Not only should we not engage in improper behavior, but we should avoid any behavior that gives the appearance of impropriety. In other words, even if it is technically legal, but would give the appearance that we might be doing something illegal, or covering up something illegal, we should refrain.
There is no justification for torture. If we hold to that, then we have done something to improve the condition of the world. There are other methods of obtaining information. By imprisoning suspected criminals indefinitely, with no prospect for release or charges, we greatly reduced our options. Torture perhaps appeared as the only way. That was a mistake – a mistake of our own making.
That our leaders lacked the moral conviction to avoid torture and also lacked the courage to revise their approach is a mistake that we will have to put behind us. The very fact that they sought opinions to allow their behavior shows that they were concerned about how it would appear; that they were concerned that it may not be legal or justifiable. They gave the appearance of impropriety. They opened the door for the world’s condemnation of us.
To close that door, we must say ‘Never again’. We must re-iterate to our military and our police that torture will not be accepted. We must raise up our voices to our leaders and let them know that the America we want to be does not engage in questionable behavior, does not skirt the law, but upholds the law, not only for our citizens but for people everywhere. If we want to be a country worthy of emulation, then we must hold ourselves to higher standards – even when we are fearful.
There probably is nothing to be gained by attempted prosecution of those responsible. They’ve covered themselves well enough that any legal action would likely be long, drawn out, and of questionable benefit. We could do much more by silencing them and those like them by loudly condemning them, by turning the tide of public opinion against them, thus banishing them from public life; by passing legislation to prohibit specifically the behavior we, and the world, find so reprehensible.
And then we have to live up to it.
I’ll always be disappointed in this chapter of our history. However, if we increase our resolve to adhere to the standards we proclaim, if we realize that sanctioning such actions is wrong, if we bravely follow the laws we set, then we can take pride that we have learned and grown as a nation, as a people, as individuals.
There would be no cause for disappointment in that.
My strongest feeling is one of disappointment, both in those who would conduct such acts, and also in the large number of apologists throughout our society. I recall a conversation we had at work shortly after the Abu Ghraib scandal, and I was literally one voice against many condemning the actions of the guards, the military, and whoever authorized such behavior (although we were not certain at the time.)
Many will advocate torture based upon its efficacy. I hold that is not even the proper question. I’m not an ‘Ends justifies the Means’ sort of person. There is always more than one path to achieve our desired goals, and there are frequently paths that should not be taken, if we want to promote civilization and cooperation.
I recall well my feelings on Sept 11, 2001. The initial shock gave way to fear and frustration: Fear for our future, and frustration that we could seemingly do so little to prevent it (and catch those responsible outside of the ones who died.) Those emotions gave way to anger – anger that someone had caused fear, anger that someone could see it as a life fulfilling action to destroy so much, anger again at our own seeming impotence.
In those moments of extreme anger, I entertained thoughts of counter destruction. We are America, we are powerful, don’t mess with us! We could destroy so much if we chose – We don’t need to find and remove Osama Bin-Laden, we could destroy the entire countryside where he hid, and ensure that he would not survive.
But, we know better. Wholesale destruction is not the answer – it would make us exactly one and the same as those who carried out the terrorism of 9/11, exactly the same as those who would plot and carry out future acts. They felt justified in killing – how would it be any different if we built up justification for our own killing, and then carried it out?
The only way out is for us to remain true to our ideals: Our belief in the Rule of Law, our belief in the innate goodness of people, our belief that we can lead lives that others will desire to emulate, and in so doing, peacefully bring others (people and nations) into alliance.
The terrorist acts were criminal acts. Since they involved the indiscriminate taking of human life, they were the most heinous and immoral of all criminal acts. We are justified in prosecuting those responsible, justified in unearthing the evidence necessary to convict them, justified in hunting them throughout the world.
But, we are not justified in committing criminal acts of our own. We have established standards of conduct to ensure that evidence is properly obtained, that accused are treated decently, that individual rights of freedom are only curtailed when we have evidence, not at our whim.
“This is war!” cry the apologists. “This is different!”
What is war, except the coordinated criminal activity of a nation? Instead of one or a few individuals, it is thousands participating in the destruction of property, the discriminate and indiscriminate killing of people (homicide!). Those are criminal acts, and there can be no justification. Individuals captured during the prosecution of a war are deemed the same rights as other criminals: Captivity, but fair protection from the elements, food, and their captors will refrain from causing bodily harm. We’ve upheld these beliefs by signing international treaties.
Specifically, we have agreed to refrain from torturing our prisoners.
The argument has been floated that, technically, we didn’t engage in torture. But, that misses the point. At the company where I work, we have a saying: Not only should we not engage in improper behavior, but we should avoid any behavior that gives the appearance of impropriety. In other words, even if it is technically legal, but would give the appearance that we might be doing something illegal, or covering up something illegal, we should refrain.
There is no justification for torture. If we hold to that, then we have done something to improve the condition of the world. There are other methods of obtaining information. By imprisoning suspected criminals indefinitely, with no prospect for release or charges, we greatly reduced our options. Torture perhaps appeared as the only way. That was a mistake – a mistake of our own making.
That our leaders lacked the moral conviction to avoid torture and also lacked the courage to revise their approach is a mistake that we will have to put behind us. The very fact that they sought opinions to allow their behavior shows that they were concerned about how it would appear; that they were concerned that it may not be legal or justifiable. They gave the appearance of impropriety. They opened the door for the world’s condemnation of us.
To close that door, we must say ‘Never again’. We must re-iterate to our military and our police that torture will not be accepted. We must raise up our voices to our leaders and let them know that the America we want to be does not engage in questionable behavior, does not skirt the law, but upholds the law, not only for our citizens but for people everywhere. If we want to be a country worthy of emulation, then we must hold ourselves to higher standards – even when we are fearful.
There probably is nothing to be gained by attempted prosecution of those responsible. They’ve covered themselves well enough that any legal action would likely be long, drawn out, and of questionable benefit. We could do much more by silencing them and those like them by loudly condemning them, by turning the tide of public opinion against them, thus banishing them from public life; by passing legislation to prohibit specifically the behavior we, and the world, find so reprehensible.
And then we have to live up to it.
I’ll always be disappointed in this chapter of our history. However, if we increase our resolve to adhere to the standards we proclaim, if we realize that sanctioning such actions is wrong, if we bravely follow the laws we set, then we can take pride that we have learned and grown as a nation, as a people, as individuals.
There would be no cause for disappointment in that.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Banish Larry Summers?
Too often, I feel that very little original work gets published: Bloggers just link, add a few comments, and that passes for commentary. It's easy, and tempting, however, I promise to not allow my blog to slip down into that. I'd like to create thought provoking originals of my own.
That said: Sometimes, someone just comes along and says what I've been thinking but does it so much better, with more wit and style than I can generate, that you should just read the original.
(Thanks to Naomi Klein!)
That said: Sometimes, someone just comes along and says what I've been thinking but does it so much better, with more wit and style than I can generate, that you should just read the original.
(Thanks to Naomi Klein!)
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Causes of Population Growth
While reading 'The End of Poverty' by Jeffrey Sachs some time ago, a world population chart that he presented got me to thinking. The chart shows a nearly stable world population from 1 CE to around 1000 CE, a slight increase in growth until 1500 CE, accelerated growth from 1500 to 1700 CE, and then the 'hockey stick' of growth: 900 million people in 1700 to 6.5 billion people today - a scant 300 years later.
In other reading, two significant events occurred that appear to coincide with the increases in growth rate: After 1500 the exploitation of coal as an energy source, and after 1700, the exploitation of oil. It seems a perfectly causal event: More exploited energy leads to more food production which leads in turn to more population. We did see the mechanization of farming, especially after 1800 in the US, which allowed 1 farmer to produce food to feed much more than just his family.
However, something about this explanation doesn't appear to fit the facts: As far as I am aware, the exploitation of coal and oil did not occur at the same rate in China and India, the two world population leaders. According to statistics, China's population rose from around 100 million people in 1735 to 300 million by 1785, rose to 400 million by the middle of the 19th century, and stands above 1 billion people today.
Rose George, in her book 'The Big Necessity', offers a clue. She writes that the Chinese have a 4000 year history of spreading their excrement on their fields as fertilizer, and, despite its offensive odor, it is very, very good at renewing the productivity of the farm. As the value of 'night soil' rose, so did the efficiency with which it was collected and distributed (until very recently the majority of Chinese used buckets to collect their waste, which was set out in the morning for collection, rather than dumped in the street like Europe). She continues: "In the vicious circle of night-soil fertilizer production, more people were produced and more people produced more night soil, which produced more crops, which fed more people. (p118)"
As their population has outstripped this method of fertilization, China has moved to rely on petroleum based fertilizers, further increasing food production and population. But it does provide another piece of the puzzle related to our massive population expansion worldwide.
In other reading, two significant events occurred that appear to coincide with the increases in growth rate: After 1500 the exploitation of coal as an energy source, and after 1700, the exploitation of oil. It seems a perfectly causal event: More exploited energy leads to more food production which leads in turn to more population. We did see the mechanization of farming, especially after 1800 in the US, which allowed 1 farmer to produce food to feed much more than just his family.
However, something about this explanation doesn't appear to fit the facts: As far as I am aware, the exploitation of coal and oil did not occur at the same rate in China and India, the two world population leaders. According to statistics, China's population rose from around 100 million people in 1735 to 300 million by 1785, rose to 400 million by the middle of the 19th century, and stands above 1 billion people today.
Rose George, in her book 'The Big Necessity', offers a clue. She writes that the Chinese have a 4000 year history of spreading their excrement on their fields as fertilizer, and, despite its offensive odor, it is very, very good at renewing the productivity of the farm. As the value of 'night soil' rose, so did the efficiency with which it was collected and distributed (until very recently the majority of Chinese used buckets to collect their waste, which was set out in the morning for collection, rather than dumped in the street like Europe). She continues: "In the vicious circle of night-soil fertilizer production, more people were produced and more people produced more night soil, which produced more crops, which fed more people. (p118)"
As their population has outstripped this method of fertilization, China has moved to rely on petroleum based fertilizers, further increasing food production and population. But it does provide another piece of the puzzle related to our massive population expansion worldwide.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Bigger Than Greenspan
Can we blame Alan Greenspan for failing to take action during the bubble economy of 2002-2007? The basic evidence presented earlier would indicate that we could. But, I'd like to point out a few things that might make us change our mind.
The first is the very nature of inflation itself. Inflation is especially bad to a lender, and actually pretty kind to a borrower. If the value of the dollar is falling (inflation), then the value of a loan is also falling, and the balance sheet of a lender is taking a hit. This seems to me a primary reason that banks hate inflation, and why congress has given the Federal Reserve a mandate to keep it under control.
The second is the falling stock market. During the period from late 2000 into 2004, the stock market was in a generally downward trend. It was coming off its unsustainable highs of the late nineties, when p/e ratios had risen to over 40 to 1. The stock market value should track fairly closely with the economy has a whole: The value of a stock is exactly the expected future value of its dividends, and those in turn, in the aggregate, are a reading of the future value of the economy. Unless the economy is growing at 8-10%, the Dow Average shouldn't be, either.
And the third reason is what would have happened if Mr. Greenspan had taken stronger action, especially by raising the interest rates. First off, he would have slowed economic growth even more. Second, he would have lowered the value of the dollar, diminishing exports. And third, he would have caused many Americans to lose their jobs.
And, if he had done as Joseph Stiglitz advocates by controlling the 'liars loans', and the complex derivatives, he would done even more to raise the ire of the nations new wealthy.
As if the uproar that would have come from all of that wouldn't have been enough, he would have trampled, at least to some degree, the profits of the financial industry who were busy creating new debt instruments and enriching themselves by taking an ever larger share of the new money that was being created. I think that Mr. Greenspan would have found himself thrown out of office, and vilified for damaging an already 'weak' economy. Alan Greenspan had very little (if any!) incentive to do the things that needed to be done.
So, blaming the individual, although it often makes us feel good, is counter-productive in this particular case. Instead of holding out hope that the 'right' individual will be able to make the system work, we need to blame the office. And, it appears that we need a change in the office of the Federal Reserve so that it's chairperson can be the regulator that we need them to be to oversee a sustainable economy. I would be very curious to see ideas and debate on how Congress (for the Reserve is a creation of Congress) could change the charter of the Federal Reserve to strengthen it so that it supports the interests of all America, rather than just the Financial Sector.
Sources:
http://www.the-privateer.com/chart/dow-long.html
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=after_the_fall
http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2009/01/stiglitz200901?currentPage=1
The first is the very nature of inflation itself. Inflation is especially bad to a lender, and actually pretty kind to a borrower. If the value of the dollar is falling (inflation), then the value of a loan is also falling, and the balance sheet of a lender is taking a hit. This seems to me a primary reason that banks hate inflation, and why congress has given the Federal Reserve a mandate to keep it under control.
The second is the falling stock market. During the period from late 2000 into 2004, the stock market was in a generally downward trend. It was coming off its unsustainable highs of the late nineties, when p/e ratios had risen to over 40 to 1. The stock market value should track fairly closely with the economy has a whole: The value of a stock is exactly the expected future value of its dividends, and those in turn, in the aggregate, are a reading of the future value of the economy. Unless the economy is growing at 8-10%, the Dow Average shouldn't be, either.
And the third reason is what would have happened if Mr. Greenspan had taken stronger action, especially by raising the interest rates. First off, he would have slowed economic growth even more. Second, he would have lowered the value of the dollar, diminishing exports. And third, he would have caused many Americans to lose their jobs.
And, if he had done as Joseph Stiglitz advocates by controlling the 'liars loans', and the complex derivatives, he would done even more to raise the ire of the nations new wealthy.
As if the uproar that would have come from all of that wouldn't have been enough, he would have trampled, at least to some degree, the profits of the financial industry who were busy creating new debt instruments and enriching themselves by taking an ever larger share of the new money that was being created. I think that Mr. Greenspan would have found himself thrown out of office, and vilified for damaging an already 'weak' economy. Alan Greenspan had very little (if any!) incentive to do the things that needed to be done.
So, blaming the individual, although it often makes us feel good, is counter-productive in this particular case. Instead of holding out hope that the 'right' individual will be able to make the system work, we need to blame the office. And, it appears that we need a change in the office of the Federal Reserve so that it's chairperson can be the regulator that we need them to be to oversee a sustainable economy. I would be very curious to see ideas and debate on how Congress (for the Reserve is a creation of Congress) could change the charter of the Federal Reserve to strengthen it so that it supports the interests of all America, rather than just the Financial Sector.
Sources:
http://www.the-privateer.com/chart/dow-long.html
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=after_the_fall
http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2009/01/stiglitz200901?currentPage=1
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Get Mad!
William K. Black was on Bill Moyers last week, and had this to say.
For those of you, like me, who don't know who William K. Black is, he was a regulator during the 1980's S & L crisis (or scandal), and has just written a book "The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One."
He is observant and sharp in his criticism of the Financial Industry. He calls it for what it was: A massive fraud perpetrated by the heads of the banks and investment houses on America. And he wants congress and America to get outraged and get them out.
If for some reason you still think that people who took the loans are to blame (either wholly or partially), you really need to read this interview.
My favorite exchange (emphasis mine):
Read the whole thing. It's worth it. Then let's figure out together how to get the wheels of justice turning. Maybe Elizabeth Warren will get madder and help us out.
For those of you, like me, who don't know who William K. Black is, he was a regulator during the 1980's S & L crisis (or scandal), and has just written a book "The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One."
He is observant and sharp in his criticism of the Financial Industry. He calls it for what it was: A massive fraud perpetrated by the heads of the banks and investment houses on America. And he wants congress and America to get outraged and get them out.
If for some reason you still think that people who took the loans are to blame (either wholly or partially), you really need to read this interview.
My favorite exchange (emphasis mine):
BILL MOYERS: This wound that you say has been inflicted on American life. The loss of worker's income. And security and pensions and future happened, because of the misconduct of a relatively few, very well-heeled people, in very well-decorated corporate suites, right?
WILLIAM K. BLACK: Right.
BILL MOYERS: It was relatively a handful of people.
WILLIAM K. BLACK: And their ideologies, which swept away regulation. So, in the example, regulation means that cheaters don't prosper. So, instead of being bad for capitalism, it's what saves capitalism. "Honest purveyors prosper" is what we want. And you need regulation and law enforcement to be able to do this. The tragedy of this crisis is it didn't need to happen at all.
Read the whole thing. It's worth it. Then let's figure out together how to get the wheels of justice turning. Maybe Elizabeth Warren will get madder and help us out.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Curiosity
Curiosity overcame the little girl. Grasping the first banister picket, she pulled herself up onto the outside ledge of the staircase. Hand over hand, she climbed higher and higher, towards the plant perched six feet up on top of the display case.
Just before the stairway reached the case, a transition occurs, and the ledge, previously rising on a continuous slope, takes a vertical step of its own. Reaching this, the girl stopped. She looked down, and realized just how high she was. Fear replaced curiosity, and she screamed.
Her Dad came running, and retrieved the young girl from her perch. Her arms now clasped tightly and securely around his neck, she whispered, “I was scary, Daddy.”
“Yes, honey, sometimes you are,” he thought. “But I love you anyway.”
Just before the stairway reached the case, a transition occurs, and the ledge, previously rising on a continuous slope, takes a vertical step of its own. Reaching this, the girl stopped. She looked down, and realized just how high she was. Fear replaced curiosity, and she screamed.
Her Dad came running, and retrieved the young girl from her perch. Her arms now clasped tightly and securely around his neck, she whispered, “I was scary, Daddy.”
“Yes, honey, sometimes you are,” he thought. “But I love you anyway.”
Monday, April 6, 2009
Genes and Culture
This article caught my eye today, likely because I just finished a book on genetic detective work. It would appear that using genetics to map movements of prehistoric people will likely become more common, and certainly overturn more long held ideas. As Sykes points out in the Seven Daughters of Eve, the long held belief that early farmers spread across Europe and displaced the indigenous population is wrong from the genetic evidence: Only 17% of current Europeans can trace their mitochondrial DNA to those early farmers in the fertile crescent. Instead, as the farmers spread, their ideas spread even faster through cultural transmission, and everyone became farmers.
I would predict that we will see more of this as previous archeology that traced people movements based upon pottery and other artifacts will also be displaced by new genetic information that the ideas for the designs and tools spread faster than the actual people (except, of course, to regions where there were no people inhabiting.)
I also predict that we will see a vocalization of bigotry and racial prejudice as genetic evidence uncovers more of the inter-connected web of humanity, and breaks down concepts like race and (racially driven) superiority. Those who want to hold onto the conceit that they are descended exclusively from some superior ancestor will resist the new information, perhaps even speak out against this new science, attempting to block it in some way.
Humanity just hasn't been around long enough to develop sufficient genetic changes to actually make groups genetically different. And superior just doesn't even make sense when talking about genetics. As Richard Dawkins so aptly points out in “The Ancestor's Tale”, one cannot say that any species is more evolved than any other: All current non-extinct species have had just as much time to evolve, indeed, are all evolved to the same extent that 4 billion years of evolution can give them. Each is fit for its niche. It is human arrogance that projects a design and a hierarchy onto the species of the planet. It is plain conceit that places humanity at the culmination of all evolution.
And so the attacks on this that I anticipate are unfortunate. For as we come to understand more about how we came to be dispersed upon the world and how similar we are, the more we will recognize the power of culture to spread ideas and shape thinking. This should give us more reason to discard our old myths about innate superiority, with all their attendant injustice, and work towards more reasonable culture-wide and world-wide solutions to the various problems we face.
I would predict that we will see more of this as previous archeology that traced people movements based upon pottery and other artifacts will also be displaced by new genetic information that the ideas for the designs and tools spread faster than the actual people (except, of course, to regions where there were no people inhabiting.)
I also predict that we will see a vocalization of bigotry and racial prejudice as genetic evidence uncovers more of the inter-connected web of humanity, and breaks down concepts like race and (racially driven) superiority. Those who want to hold onto the conceit that they are descended exclusively from some superior ancestor will resist the new information, perhaps even speak out against this new science, attempting to block it in some way.
Humanity just hasn't been around long enough to develop sufficient genetic changes to actually make groups genetically different. And superior just doesn't even make sense when talking about genetics. As Richard Dawkins so aptly points out in “The Ancestor's Tale”, one cannot say that any species is more evolved than any other: All current non-extinct species have had just as much time to evolve, indeed, are all evolved to the same extent that 4 billion years of evolution can give them. Each is fit for its niche. It is human arrogance that projects a design and a hierarchy onto the species of the planet. It is plain conceit that places humanity at the culmination of all evolution.
And so the attacks on this that I anticipate are unfortunate. For as we come to understand more about how we came to be dispersed upon the world and how similar we are, the more we will recognize the power of culture to spread ideas and shape thinking. This should give us more reason to discard our old myths about innate superiority, with all their attendant injustice, and work towards more reasonable culture-wide and world-wide solutions to the various problems we face.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Sigh
Mike Littwin of the Denver Post writes a smart, satirical article relating to news coverage of the Financial Meltdown, the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, and the latest Teleprompter brouhaha. He accurately points out the difficulties understanding the elements that caused the financial problems, and even more, the disagreements that are occurring in what plans will move us forward.
It’s all tough for a citizen to understand, and we count on our news media to inform. True, there have been many useful articles to that end, although I have yet to encounter any in a newspaper (hmmm…..), but, since the study of economics can consume a lifetime of research, penning these articles is hard. Reading them likewise. It all takes effort.
And so, as Littwin points out, the press devolves into a debate about President Obama’s use of the teleprompter, because it is easy and trivial. National Watchdogs? Informers of the Citizenry? Defenders of Democracy? Arrgh! No!
Good job, Mike. Focus our attention back where it matters: How are we going to clean up the financial mess? Prevent its reoccurrence? What’s our exit strategy for Afghanistan? What do we need to know and do to make it possible?
And then I scrolled down to the comments, expected to see more of what I wrote in the previous paragraph. I was (sadly) mistaken. Post after post of anti Obama, ant-government screed (and anti-Littwin thrown in for good measure.)
There is so much potential in the Internet. We can have dialogues with people we’ve never met, or those closer to home who need a little time to digest and respond to what we’ve put forth. We can add data to strengthen arguments, point out where we think data has been mis-interpreted, or even argue for a different conclusion. Through it all, we can become a smarter and better informed citizenry, better able to carry out our civic duty and advance our society to what we’d like it to become.
But, we’ve never accomplished much when we rant and yell and call each other names. Sadly, articles like Mr. Littwin’s need to be written, and re-written, and written again, as a constant reminder to focus on the important, the hard, the meaningful. The comments he received just prove how many more times it will have to be said.
It’s all tough for a citizen to understand, and we count on our news media to inform. True, there have been many useful articles to that end, although I have yet to encounter any in a newspaper (hmmm…..), but, since the study of economics can consume a lifetime of research, penning these articles is hard. Reading them likewise. It all takes effort.
And so, as Littwin points out, the press devolves into a debate about President Obama’s use of the teleprompter, because it is easy and trivial. National Watchdogs? Informers of the Citizenry? Defenders of Democracy? Arrgh! No!
Good job, Mike. Focus our attention back where it matters: How are we going to clean up the financial mess? Prevent its reoccurrence? What’s our exit strategy for Afghanistan? What do we need to know and do to make it possible?
And then I scrolled down to the comments, expected to see more of what I wrote in the previous paragraph. I was (sadly) mistaken. Post after post of anti Obama, ant-government screed (and anti-Littwin thrown in for good measure.)
There is so much potential in the Internet. We can have dialogues with people we’ve never met, or those closer to home who need a little time to digest and respond to what we’ve put forth. We can add data to strengthen arguments, point out where we think data has been mis-interpreted, or even argue for a different conclusion. Through it all, we can become a smarter and better informed citizenry, better able to carry out our civic duty and advance our society to what we’d like it to become.
But, we’ve never accomplished much when we rant and yell and call each other names. Sadly, articles like Mr. Littwin’s need to be written, and re-written, and written again, as a constant reminder to focus on the important, the hard, the meaningful. The comments he received just prove how many more times it will have to be said.
Monday, March 30, 2009
The Seven Daughters of Eve
Thought I would step into the world of genetics, or more precisely, the world of mitochondrial genetics. I spent several enjoyable evenings reading Bryan Sykes account of his research into the DNA carried by these intracellular hitchhikers, and what it indicates about our ancestry.
Quickly, mitochondria are the little entities that exist within each cell and give the cell the ability to use oxygen to produce energy. They are passed only from mother to children, no mitochondria take a ride on the male sperm. Also, mitochondria do not undergo any kind of DNA recombination; Their strands are passed identically down to children (except for the occasional mutation.) Therefore, mitochonrial DNA represent an unbroken maternal line leading back. The rate of mutations gives us a distance, in time, when two lines separated.
One of the things that was bothering me as I read the book was his focus on the genetics of Europe and Europeans. The Seven Daughters are the Seven women, at various times in the past (from 45,000 to less than 15,000 years ago), whose strains of mitochondria are still present in Europeans today. Certainly those aren't the only strains worldwide, I kept thinking. And towards the end, Dr Sykes reveals that so far 33 strains, or clans as he dubs them, have been identified world-wide.
Through the markers in our mitochondria human migrations can be plotted, and some surprising placements come to light. That Neanderthals and early humans did not mix can be ascertained, also that the Polynesians spread from West to East (Thor Heyerdahl notwithstanding). But, even more, the full mixing of peoples throughout history; that there was not just one, but perhaps two waves of people who moved into the Americans from the Bering Straight. And, where we often define 'race' as a distinct group, the research indicates that there are substantial portions of each population that have mitochondria bearing markers more common to other populations. We are all related back to these 33 women, and our relatives have widely dispersed throughout the globe.
Professor Sykes gets high marks for making science come alive in this engaging book. I really enjoyed both his descriptions of the work to get DNA out of old bones, and his accounts of having to defend his team's initial conclusions. He takes the challenges seriously, and provides convincing research to defend his claims, which have now been widely accepted. That he turned some previously held ideas on their head and increased our understanding of the human tale makes for some pretty exciting reading.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Mr Greenspan: Hero or Villain?
Over the last year there has been considerable debate about if, and if so, to what extent Alan Greenspan is to blame for our recent economic woes. I've pretty much sat on the sidelines on this one, feeling myself unskilled to pass judgment. But no more. Reflecting on what I've learned on monetary policy (as exercised by the Federal Reserve, or just Fed), and the role money is playing in our current slowdown and attempted rescue, I've developed some insights.
During an earlier essay I developed an outline of how a sudden, and drastic, contraction of the monetary base has influenced our current downturn. A reasonable question that can be asked is: “Proceeding the contraction, was there a visible over-expansion (bubble) of the money supply that should have triggered actions by the Fed?”
It is a reasonable query, because this is how the Fed works to regulate the money supply. When inflation is low and unemployment high, the Fed reduces interest rates in the hopes that by allowing for an increase in the money supply, production will increase, which will require hiring, which will boost the economy, leading to lower unemployment, larger profits, and a positive trade balance. If the economy heats up too much, and inflation becomes present, the Federal Reserve puts on the brakes by raising interest rates. The higher rates make it more expensive to borrow, and require an anticipation of larger spreads to make it economical to do so. Thus, lending is reduced, the rate of increase of the money supply is diminished, and inflation is controlled. This is the basic monetary policy followed by the Feds.
It's not a perfect policy, as many economists will point out. Raising interest rates has the unfortunate side effect of throwing people out of work, with difficult consequences for those individuals. And lowering the interest rate in the hopes of generating growth can be akin to 'pushing on a string' in the words of one notable economist (John K. Galbraith). Consider: Business does not borrow money just because it can, but because it anticipates a reasonable return on the investment, which predicates an increase in sales. If future sales don't seem plausible, business won't borrow, regardless of the interest rate.
It also predicates that all inflation is caused by too rapid increases in the money supply. What about energy inflation: That inflation caused because of reduced availability of the energy to drive production, and the co-commitment increase in the costs of almost everything?
Nevertheless, this is the stated policy of the Federal Reserve, and Alan Greenspan its overseer for a long time. Let's look at the events of 2000-2007, and see what was happening, and answer our question about whether Mr. Greenspan should have recognized what was occurring and taken some action.
If we look at inflation figures for the time span in question, we see that inflation is low, and remained low for the entire period. We see an Average value of 3.01% for the entire period, with it ranging from 1.07% to a high of 4.69%. However, since the median is 2.79%, there are more months under the average than above. The worst period, from May through Aug 2006, is the only period to average above 4%.
Mr. Greenspan and the Federal Reserve kept interest rates low throughout this period, and based on the inflation figures, they should have. (The Federal Funds Rate stood at 5.50% on Jan 1 2000, and after a brief raising to 6%, dropped steadily during 2001-2004 to bottom at 1% in 2003, and then climbing slightly thereafter, reaching 5.25% in June 2006, and then falling during 2007.) Mr Greenspan exonerated?
I don't think so. If the Consumer Price Index were the only place we could spot an inflating money supply, then yes. However, that is not the case. There are at least three additional areas where an inflating money supply (inflation) can be spotted, and with his background, I would argue that Mr. Greenspan should have noted all three, and taken action.
The first was the growing trade imbalance, notably with China. In a sense, there really is no trade in-balance: If goods are predominately flowing one way, then money is predominately flowing in the opposite direction. To sustain an overall import / export imbalance requires the creation of enough money to cover the difference. The US-China trade deficit (from the US standpoint) stood at $83 bn in 2000 and 2001, and then increase at over 20% yearly to end up $256 bn by 2007. That is a total increase of almost 300%. Since the US economy wasn't growing at that rate, that should have been a flag. (US GDP grew from $9817 bn in 2000 to $11539bn in 2000 dollars by 2007 – an overall increase of just 17.5%, and to $13807 in real dollars, again just 40%).
The second was vastly increasing government deficit. Recall, deficit spending effectively enters money into the economy. The greater the deficit, the greater the increase in money supply. As the budget surpluses of the 1990's ended, and grew to yearly deficits approaching $400bn, something was going on.
The third indicator of inflating money supply was the rapid run up of housing prices, well above trend levels. Data compiled by Robert Shiller of Yale shows that housing increasing by over 10% per year, when historically it ran much closer to the CPI value – just 4% per annum during 1980-2000. Of course, this makes sense: The banks were making housing loans at an unprecedented rate, pushing up the rate of money increase, and driving housing prices proportionally. Additionally, housing prices historically run 3 to 1 on income. By 2004 they had risen to 4 to 1, and beyond in some markets. A clear flag something was amiss.
It becomes clear that the Federal Reserve should have been much more aggressive in raising interest rates during the time period. A rapid run up of interest rates would have possibly slowed the housing growth, perhaps even pushing the 'bad' loans into foreclosure at a faster rate, and revealed the weakness of the Collateralized Mortgage Backed Securities. Perhaps an aggressive stance vis a vis the interest rate would have unwound the unsupportable Credit Default Swaps before the companies got too far into them.
That's not all the Fed could have done. Recognizing the problem would have allowed Mr Greenspan to speak out on it – to use his pulpit as the nation's foremost economist to warn, stridently, about what was going on and the unsustainability of it all. But, he didn't do that either.
Of course, if no-one had recognized the issues, we could let Mr Greenspan off the hook. But, read this from 2004, and convince yourself that Mr Greenspan couldn't see what was going on.
So. Mr. Greenspan is the villain many say he is. All very neat and tidy.
But, there is a catch with foisting the blame on Mr. Greenspan's shoulders. Can you see what it is?
Sources:
http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/CurrentInflation.asp
http://www.the-privateer.com/rates.html
http://www.uschina.org/statistics/tradetable.html
http://www.bea.gov/national/index.htm#gdp
http://www.econ.yale.edu/~shiller/data.htm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/crisis/tradedeficit/tables/budgetdeficit.htm
During an earlier essay I developed an outline of how a sudden, and drastic, contraction of the monetary base has influenced our current downturn. A reasonable question that can be asked is: “Proceeding the contraction, was there a visible over-expansion (bubble) of the money supply that should have triggered actions by the Fed?”
It is a reasonable query, because this is how the Fed works to regulate the money supply. When inflation is low and unemployment high, the Fed reduces interest rates in the hopes that by allowing for an increase in the money supply, production will increase, which will require hiring, which will boost the economy, leading to lower unemployment, larger profits, and a positive trade balance. If the economy heats up too much, and inflation becomes present, the Federal Reserve puts on the brakes by raising interest rates. The higher rates make it more expensive to borrow, and require an anticipation of larger spreads to make it economical to do so. Thus, lending is reduced, the rate of increase of the money supply is diminished, and inflation is controlled. This is the basic monetary policy followed by the Feds.
It's not a perfect policy, as many economists will point out. Raising interest rates has the unfortunate side effect of throwing people out of work, with difficult consequences for those individuals. And lowering the interest rate in the hopes of generating growth can be akin to 'pushing on a string' in the words of one notable economist (John K. Galbraith). Consider: Business does not borrow money just because it can, but because it anticipates a reasonable return on the investment, which predicates an increase in sales. If future sales don't seem plausible, business won't borrow, regardless of the interest rate.
It also predicates that all inflation is caused by too rapid increases in the money supply. What about energy inflation: That inflation caused because of reduced availability of the energy to drive production, and the co-commitment increase in the costs of almost everything?
Nevertheless, this is the stated policy of the Federal Reserve, and Alan Greenspan its overseer for a long time. Let's look at the events of 2000-2007, and see what was happening, and answer our question about whether Mr. Greenspan should have recognized what was occurring and taken some action.
If we look at inflation figures for the time span in question, we see that inflation is low, and remained low for the entire period. We see an Average value of 3.01% for the entire period, with it ranging from 1.07% to a high of 4.69%. However, since the median is 2.79%, there are more months under the average than above. The worst period, from May through Aug 2006, is the only period to average above 4%.
Mr. Greenspan and the Federal Reserve kept interest rates low throughout this period, and based on the inflation figures, they should have. (The Federal Funds Rate stood at 5.50% on Jan 1 2000, and after a brief raising to 6%, dropped steadily during 2001-2004 to bottom at 1% in 2003, and then climbing slightly thereafter, reaching 5.25% in June 2006, and then falling during 2007.) Mr Greenspan exonerated?
I don't think so. If the Consumer Price Index were the only place we could spot an inflating money supply, then yes. However, that is not the case. There are at least three additional areas where an inflating money supply (inflation) can be spotted, and with his background, I would argue that Mr. Greenspan should have noted all three, and taken action.
The first was the growing trade imbalance, notably with China. In a sense, there really is no trade in-balance: If goods are predominately flowing one way, then money is predominately flowing in the opposite direction. To sustain an overall import / export imbalance requires the creation of enough money to cover the difference. The US-China trade deficit (from the US standpoint) stood at $83 bn in 2000 and 2001, and then increase at over 20% yearly to end up $256 bn by 2007. That is a total increase of almost 300%. Since the US economy wasn't growing at that rate, that should have been a flag. (US GDP grew from $9817 bn in 2000 to $11539bn in 2000 dollars by 2007 – an overall increase of just 17.5%, and to $13807 in real dollars, again just 40%).
The second was vastly increasing government deficit. Recall, deficit spending effectively enters money into the economy. The greater the deficit, the greater the increase in money supply. As the budget surpluses of the 1990's ended, and grew to yearly deficits approaching $400bn, something was going on.
The third indicator of inflating money supply was the rapid run up of housing prices, well above trend levels. Data compiled by Robert Shiller of Yale shows that housing increasing by over 10% per year, when historically it ran much closer to the CPI value – just 4% per annum during 1980-2000. Of course, this makes sense: The banks were making housing loans at an unprecedented rate, pushing up the rate of money increase, and driving housing prices proportionally. Additionally, housing prices historically run 3 to 1 on income. By 2004 they had risen to 4 to 1, and beyond in some markets. A clear flag something was amiss.
It becomes clear that the Federal Reserve should have been much more aggressive in raising interest rates during the time period. A rapid run up of interest rates would have possibly slowed the housing growth, perhaps even pushing the 'bad' loans into foreclosure at a faster rate, and revealed the weakness of the Collateralized Mortgage Backed Securities. Perhaps an aggressive stance vis a vis the interest rate would have unwound the unsupportable Credit Default Swaps before the companies got too far into them.
That's not all the Fed could have done. Recognizing the problem would have allowed Mr Greenspan to speak out on it – to use his pulpit as the nation's foremost economist to warn, stridently, about what was going on and the unsustainability of it all. But, he didn't do that either.
Of course, if no-one had recognized the issues, we could let Mr Greenspan off the hook. But, read this from 2004, and convince yourself that Mr Greenspan couldn't see what was going on.
So. Mr. Greenspan is the villain many say he is. All very neat and tidy.
But, there is a catch with foisting the blame on Mr. Greenspan's shoulders. Can you see what it is?
Sources:
http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/CurrentInflation.asp
http://www.the-privateer.com/rates.html
http://www.uschina.org/statistics/tradetable.html
http://www.bea.gov/national/index.htm#gdp
http://www.econ.yale.edu/~shiller/data.htm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/crisis/tradedeficit/tables/budgetdeficit.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)