MPI Directory

What's Wrong with the Senate

Ezra Klein puts up a letter from the LBJ library regarding the passage of Medicare as a way of showing the unprecedented nature of the filibuster today.

I read the letter before he added his commentary though and assumed that the "what's wrong with the Senate" referred to the fact that out of just the couple Senators named it included two Kennedy's, Al Gore's dad, and Evan Bayh's dad, and he was making a point about the fact that the Senate is (has always been maybe, I don't know?) the most important old boys club in America and frankly most don't give two craps about the vast majority of Americans so long as they get 52% of the vote every six years.

The Economists Have it Out

I spent 30 mins of my very precious time (I'm not claiming to be high and mighty, just that given my recent work load that's directly 30 mins of my sleep time) to read about the all-out-war among economists, started by a NYT article written by Paul Krugman (How Did Economists Get It So Wrong?), and followed by John Cochrane's and David Levine's responses.

There are actually many more ripples caused by Krugman's article -- just do a simple google search and you'll have more than you'll ever wanna read.

I'm clearly not in a real position to respond, given that I don't know much about macroeconomics, and that I'm nowhere near where all these guys are in terms of accomplishment. I'll just give my humble two cents:

1. To be honest, I've lost most of my respect for Krugman since he's gone "mainstream." Call it my obsession for the beauty of mathematics, he has basically just gone "intuitive" with all of his arguments -- which, don't get me wrong, given his intellect he still convinces most people -- and the formal logical arguments are muddled and unclear at best, and the premise in which the arguments are made is not any more realistic than the models of the macroeconomists that he so fiercely attacked.
   
2. I don't claim to cure the world of AIDS or feed all starving children in my work -- as a theorist, I only assert that my models have a flavor of and may advance the understanding of how some things work in the real world. I know some macroeconomists go a little wild with data to show that their model works, but even from my very moderate understanding, they are very well aware of their limitations, and there is very far from a consensus even within the neoclassical school.
3. Don't get me started on behavioral guys. I have no problem with behavioral economics per se, but I think that the field as it stands right now is giving itself a bad name. One: the assumption (irrationality) implies all possibilities -- hence you're always right (you gotta be); two: running with this assumption gives you absolutely no predictive power. And from what I understand we're not in the business of story-telling and simply booking-keeping historical events related to economics.
   
4. Calling people names and making personal attacks are just not cool... we're not in kindergarten anymore, and doing so only serves to weaken your arguments
   

Getting the Moderates Onboard

I am someone who is pretty stubborn in his principles and self assuredness, so I can appreciate the continuing holdout by folks like Blanche Lincoln and Ben Nelson on health care. But if I were Harry Reid trying to whip up the last of the democratic votes for the impending bill this is how I would approach it.

I think a commitment to bipartisanship is important. But it must be shared by both parties or it become a case of bargaining against oneself and gamesmanship. The republicans in the gang of six - except possibly olympia snowe, but I'm still not even sure of that - have spent the past few months mocking kent conrad and max baucus. Despite his giving them every opportunity to participate to the point of excluding democratic voices, they were in front of cameras making a mockery of the only man willing to give them a voice and a pen.

Why were they able to do this?  Because they assumed that a hand outstreched in friendship is incapable of being retracted. And in doing so they took that goodwill and dedication to doing the right thing for the American people - the most sacred task of those wise men and women we send forward - for granted. Rather than participate, they have abdicated.

And thus, with the cecession of the republican party from our governance, the only remaining partner for moderates to negotiate with is senators rockefeller, schumer, and the progressive wing of their own party. Within that dynamic the end result is much further from ben nelson's beliefs than our traditional orientation.

So, participating in the republican ruse on health care may better align the outcome of this bill with their moderate beliefs. But enabling them to walk a path to irrelevance may be even more dangerous to achieving their vision on the great work that is still to come.

Posted via email from dmaten

The Public Option

Some folks are now reporting that Senator Reid si going to kill the public option from the Senate health care bill. At the same time, CBO has come out with a score for the two public options and found a strong one would save $110b over ten years (and a weak one $25b).

How does a public option save money? Basically it would reduce the amount of subsidies we need to give out by driving down the cost of insurance through increased competition. With that in play, it seems like a pretty easy middle ground would be to put in place a trigger that if in five years private insurers hadn't bent the curve such that subsidies are $11b a year lower than projected then the public option would kick in. Obviously the devil is in the details, and you would need to keep the heat on. But essentially it is a you find it or we will kind of ultimatum.

Make sense or am I missing something?

Social Media

I am sure someone else has already come up with this, but just as a self reminder of a random thought I had this morning. While social media is new, social marketing has been around forever. Just think of those sunday afternoon football parties at bars sponsored by budweiser around the country. The aim is to create a venue for social interactions, generate some fun for those who meander in, then hope they link that the ad signs on the wall and the occasional free beers they get from the girls in tight outfits.  Maybe even do some fun branded games or get some marketing research.

With social media it is the same thing. It is all about creating a playground for people to come. Then worry about getting your message through, because if it isn't fun nobody will come anyway.

Posted via email from dmaten

Afghanistan

The big afghanistan review is out from general mcchrystal and unfortunately it is exactly what I expected, and the lessons of general patreus have been fully internalized among the current crop of combatant commanders.

The old saying goes when you have a hammer every problem looks like a nail. Well, our services (or at least the army and marines) have discovered the screw driver. Unfortunately they haven't realized it can be turned in either direction.

In afghanistan the problems are that the government is too corrupt, the afghan forces are not combat effective, afghan/coalition troops are unable to provide population security in regions with taliban forces, coalition troops keep killing civilians and alienating the population, and there is uncertainty about our level of commitment. The solution (according to mcchrystal) is more resources for the afghan government (more money to skim), increased training for afghan forces, and more coalition troops (which may help immediately with population security but will also increase the pace of civilian casualties and increase incertainty of our role over the long term - see Vietnam). This somehow constitutes a new "strategy," even though he concedes we are already doing all of these things. Somehow doing them "more aggressively" will be "revolutionary to our effectiveness".

Later, mcchrystal writes about the need to "redefine both the fight itself and what we need for it." But again, there is nothing new here other than the need for even more troops. Yet over the past year, as the number of troops has already risen by tens of thousands, we have been going backwards. It is in the face of these troop increases that we land upon this decisive moment. And in response all we get is something that reads like a mckinsey report; as though using words like innovative, improve, and strategy in concert with new, redouble, and change has the capacity to unilateraly shift the so-called "center of gravity".

The report does have a useful analysis section. It breaks down the insurgency into three groups. It makes the important connection that the Taliban's strength draws primarily from the fact that they are not corrupt and unaccountable like the central government, that they realize they cannot reclaim control while the country is occupied by a substantial ISAF force, and that they are at most nominally allied with "al qaeda" for pragmatic reasons. But it then casts aside these important nuggets of insight with empty talk about how, somehow, bringing in the 101st airborne division will make the afghan government less corrupt. Worse, it suggests that the ISAF forces should be given more money and autonomy to buy off locals with economic support, which only exacerbates the lack of coordination, undermines the government, and increases the opportunities for corruption.

The fatal flaw of the plan lies in the hubris of the plans author. To hear the man previously charged with running our dark prisons talk about the need to change the "opeational culture" is disturbing on a moral level. But more so, all his discussions of "aligning" (i.e. unifying) the various commands in play and stepping up the operational tempo against the Taliban while simultaneously making friends assumes a totally unrealistic level of judgement, control, and opportunity by every grunt out in the mud.

I am impressed by how thoroughly mcchrystal deploys the term "failure". It is everywhere, imminent, and always paired with our choices. This goes back to the lessons of patreus. Make anything other than your options equal "defeat" and hide behind your uniform. If there is anyone americans respect it is the uniformed services, and if there is anything we hate it is losing. The result is you can back even the president into a corner with no where to go but for your plan.

"Micro-Blogging"

I have tried Twitter for a few weeks now, and while I like what it does for business & people getting news & ideas across, I reject labeling Twitter "micro-blogging".

It is impossible to come up with any coherent argument together with what you're actually trying to argue in less than 140 characters. (unless we're talking about cryptic ones like "I think therefore I am"). I've tried many times, starting with what I wanna say, then try to trim it to under 140. Hasn't worked once -- for an actual argument, I repeat. Not just "ate dinner today, was nice seeing friends" type "blogs".

I see Twitter as more of a headlines news source and friends chat space. If you look lots of posts include links which takes you to another page for details. Not that there's any problem with it, it's just not a blog. But then again, maybe I'm just ignorant and too narrow about its definition. But I sure hope no one's been writing blogs based primarily on posts like "ate dinner today, was nice seeing friends"??

Another thing, Twitter takes WAY too much of my time. It's no one's fault but mine, but anyway... :)

Debate on the Rationality of Voting

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/08/is-voting-rational.html



It annoys me when ppl start trying to attach bogus numbers to an even more bogus concept of "how much is my vote going to be worth?"



Remember that we're looking BACK now and calibrating these numbers. There is no way any voter, however informed he might be, will be able to come up with numbers for possible legislation differences and the resulting costs for each candidate, compounded by the complexity of the legislative process that depends on the composition of re-elected members. Even the politician and his / her team can't give you realistic numbers beyond their own hopes / guesses, which are often way off from what actually gets passed. You can assume that voters use the numbers that politicians announce via platform promises, but then each voter tweaks it based on his/her subjective beliefs. It's just all a stinking mess, not tractable in reasonable models that one can dream up, much less so in the head of the average voter.



My personal view of why people vote is a combination of subjective beliefs about one's likelihood to matter (I think most people won't get this number right, and to be honest I think many voters are slightly deluded, esp after Florida 2000), and the belief that voting is a right that many before us have fought so hard for, and should therefore be cherished. Well, maybe just in my simple mind...

The Sadness, Doubled

I saw the news of Eunice Kennedy Shriver's passing today (may she RIP), and stumbled upon the tragic story of Shriver's sister Rosemary Kennedy. I hardly ever paid any attention to the history and family tree of this big American Political family, and had not known that Rosemary Kennedy existed until today.

Well, perhaps it wasn't a random coincidence that I didn't know she existed... When I put Rosemary Kennedy in Google search, here are the top 3 returns:

Wikipedia
Newsmax.com - Rosemary Kennedy's Inconvenient Illness
Fatboy.cc - Rosemary Kennedy

Long story short, Rosemary Kennedy had a mental illness that was not well understood or accepted / tolerated, especially in a respectable family like the Kennedy's. She was given a lobotomy at 23, and had since been reduced to the mental and physical capacity of a 2-year-old, and had remained in an institution until her death at 86.

It's an incredibly sad story, and though slightly upset by how Rosemary Kennedy was essentially put away and isolated from the rest of her family, I can understand that it was from a time much different from today. While there is still a ton to be done, I'm proud to say that we as people have slightly progressed since then (at least in terms of how people with mental illness or developmental disabilities are viewed and treated).

An interesting note came out of the Washington Post's obituary for Eunice Shriver today, which makes me think that facts / details about what happened to Rosemary Kennedy are still very much a point of contention. The earlier version of the obit, which can be found (I'm pretty sure in its full and original form) in Kansas City's The Star, writes:

Because medical opinion held that visits from family members would be too upsetting for someone in Rosemary’s condition, no one visited her for years. She died in 2005.

The obit was revised by afternoon in Washington Post's website:

Family members were initially told not to visit because medical opinion held that such interruptions would be too upsetting for someone in Rosemary's condition. According to a spokesman for the Special Olympics, Shriver and her siblings later became frequent visitors to St. Coletta and included Rosemary in family gatherings and other activities. Rosemary Kennedy died in 2005.

Maybe I'm never under public scrutiny and can never understand... why care so much about what the public thinks? Wasn't that what at least in part led to Rosemary Kennedy's unfortunate story?

I want to go on the record as foretelling that the Red Sox will be under .500 the rest of the way and finish third (or maybe even fourth) in the East. I love 'em, but that's just the way it is going to go down.

Disease Diagnosis & Social Norms

Last week I saw a TV segment (was it ESPN?) on surfer Clay Marzo and his battle with Asperger's Disease. The two pieces of information that struck me the most (and still sticks in my mind) about the story are:

1. When asked looking back now whether she would want to change any part of her son's behavior or who he is (with respect to Asperger's I would assume), Marzo's mom said "no"
2. Marzo still goes to therapy sessions to help him learn how to interact with others

While I can understand that a mother takes and loves her son as he is, going to therapy to cope with Asperger's necessarily implies an attempt to change a person, be it on the superficial behavioral level, or a deeper, more subconcious level. It leads me to thinking about disease diagnoses and how that has changed over time.

People who know me know my view about "recent disease discoveries" (ahem inventions) like ADD, ADHD, Dyslexia, and other learning disabilities. I'm much more fond of the old school diagnosis "I'm just not that smart with books" -- which, really, is OK. Everyone's good at different things. I don't care if there's a physiological (neurological) explanation to this. I am born shorter than average, and there's clear physiological evidence to prove it. If we really choose to go down this road, it would be discriminatory not to give me extra boosts and assistance in sports and gym class because I just naturally can't be as good as and compete with others.

With mental / behavioral diseases, I am much much more sympathetic to people suffering from the diseases, but to a certain extent I still object to the direction we're heading medically. The determination that some behaviors are "abnormal and anti-social" is, well, arbitrary and unfair (for me, anti-social does not mean vandalism or killing people (as it is used sometimes); that's just plain criminal). Whatever happened to the celebration of diversity? Does it only apply to the issue of race?

I know people will throw me studies and evidence suggesting that certain group behaviors, or groups with like-behavior individuals, yield better "group outcomes", and so from a macro perspective, we should set behavioral norms and promote adherence to them. But let's move past this macro let's-treat-everyone-like-numbers approach for a second and really think about what it means for each of us individuals.