Enemy of the People

I still say structural

2010-12-20T13:52:00.000-08:00

From the Atlantic online: Today's report provides data for the major retailers through the third quarter. Net sales and profits have both increased year-over-year. Sales rose by 5.5%, and profits jumped by 7.5%.

During this 12-month period, however, the industry added just 80,000 jobs.This hiring increased the retail sector's labor force by just 0.6%. That isn't much compared to the 5.5% increase in sales.

So if revenues and are growing, why isn't hiring as quickly? It must not have to. Remember, over this period profits rose by 7.5%, an even larger margin. This means that most retailers didn't need to bring on more workers to satisfy the consumer demand that they experienced. Indeed, they made more money by hiring fewer of their workers back. In other words, they were likely overstaffed to begin with.

Technology and cultural changes in service expectation hadn't fully registered in retail (and I believe elsewhere) because of the stickiness of employment.

More on Structural Unemployment

2010-10-19T13:10:00.000-07:00

Well, all the good folks are lining up against my argument that the current unemployment rate is likely to be structural, advocating more measures to expand demand through government actions (mainly fiscal). Let me reiterate my thought that absent permanent measures to increase the income of the bottom 80% (and for credentialing let me reveal that I am not a member of these four income quintiles), that no amount of temporary stimulation will work and the fiscal imbalances resulting from deficits that do not add truly productive capacity or prevent the erosion of current productive capacity (well chosen infrastructure and research; education and training that is aimed specifically at worker capacity, not the vague goal of throw-money-at-schools) will simply add to the problem down the line. The demand shortfall is not mainly a matter of the un- and underemployed in the current economy which can be remedied by employing them. It's a matter of the low current income and doubtful prospects of the higher numbers of people who currently do have jobs. Job insecurity would remain.

Further, I still believe that the bulk of value-added that would feed a higher level of demand would still fly overseas, for energy and manufacturing, would be used to build additional productive capacity or secure resources and to purchase through debt a call on any future productive power in this country. Finally, since I'm coming to appreciate money as signal, the conservative critique that temporarily ramping up the wattage sent indiscriminately down the wire risks distorts the economy that rises to meet it.

And the ironic point is that this doesn't even reflect what would be the true structural issue if people weren't thick as bricks: most of their money (like most of their lives) is pissed away on the hedonic treadmill. What if folks realized that even for ever-expandable leisure demand, that a $2.00 deck of cards and three good friends would give them as much pleasure as half their net discretionary expenditures. (Smaller houses, less and lower-food-chain meals, efficient cars, a limited but well-chosen wardrobe, and just less impulse-purchased crap would also). Now that would produce some serious structural unemployment.

Have I Said This Before?

2010-05-27T03:54:00.000-07:00

Over the past few weeks the evidence has been mounting that much of the current spike in unemployment is structural, despite its abruptness - the productivity numbers back this up. Companies are realizing latent gains from IT and a shift in cultural norms that allows a much lower level of human service in the services industry, with the downturn having dissolved some of the stickiness of employment,

Sooooo - next half-baked and more macro-ish theory: the current structure of the economy does not distribute income widely enough to sustain the domestic consumer demand upon which the economy demands, even with American's willingness to undersave for their future requirements, and even at the current level of interest rates, they do not have the means to acquire and service more debt. In addition, the wage differential with the developing countries is still so wide that an export-driven manufacturing economy doesn't seem likely, although Germany has managed it, albeit for a smaller base and with more support for industrial training.

Illustration

2010-02-21T09:31:00.000-08:00

People's imaginations tend to be both material and conservative or historical. Thus when they think of money in its strictest sense, they picture bills and coins - and perhaps even gold bullion. They think "The United States of America" is the physical thing they've seen depicted on a map, with the addenda of Alaska and Hawaii, and informed by tales of the Founding Fathers. That both things are primarily abstractions, and in their more important senses verb-y rather than noun-ish distorts their understanding in particularly unfortunate ways.

One More Time

2010-02-21T06:55:00.000-08:00

You have something broad and philosophical to say? Run it through Wittgenstein; run it through Nietzsche. if there's anything left, I'll look at it.

What I mean about creativity and economic divergence

2010-02-12T17:27:00.000-08:00

This

Very impressive looking Korean plug-in car. Designed in Irvine, California by a few very bright, creative American boys and girls.

And where will the much more numerous industrious, skilled factory workers live who will, with the help of similarly brilliantly designed robots, assemble whatever comes of this concept?

Taking Gandhi from the Babies

2010-02-03T09:22:00.000-08:00

Yo! Lefties! Quit fighting a losing battle for gun control. Arm yourselves and start making threatening noises about what you think would be worth pulling the triggers for. Also: get plenty of practice. Some of your opponents actually know how to use the things.

2010-01-30T09:48:00.000-08:00

From Lyle Deniston in SCOTUS blog:

The final briefs seeking to shape the Supreme Court’s coming decision on the reach of the Second Amendment’s protection of gun rights suggested Friday that states might be free to violate other parts of the Bill of Rights, if too narrow a view is taken of the constitutional liberties that state and local governments must respect. If gun rights are singled out as the only constitutional rights unshielded from states, counties, and cities, then no other rights are safe, according to the new briefs.

Like or loathe guns (and I do not do guns myself), I think the pro-gun briefs are right. The biggest mistake about Constitutional questions is a tendency of all sides to believe that all the document really says is: "Do good things. Do not do bad things."

Employment, wage gaps and creative thinking

2010-01-18T16:23:00.000-08:00

While creative thinking is often a welcome trait, for most actual jobs the return it offers to employers is far below that of other traits, including leaden, uncomplaining stoicism. An educational system that stresses it as the goal will tend to produce higher returns for a few, and lower for everyone else. And the expectation gap will be even greater than this implies.

Not the only one

2010-01-12T03:11:00.001-08:00

with an allergy to collective nouns in a policy discussion.

Well, no

2009-12-22T07:01:00.000-08:00

As has been pointed out by many global village atheists: while the totality of All There Is may generate phenomema we can experience but not understand because of spatial scale (things are scaled too big or too small for us to access), temporal scale (things happen too quickly or slowly ditto) or ultimately unavailable for other reasons (composition/dimension/complexity), that doesn't add up to "Therefore: [Insert Bronze Age myth here]."

Still thinking about unemployment

2009-11-10T12:33:00.000-08:00

In addition, firms typically reorganize their job assignments after layoffs and discover that the same work can be performed with fewer workers and this, too, can slow the recovery period for employment relative to output. - Mark Thoma

If I'm right about productivity gains, this "typical" discovery will be more pronounced this time and unemployment very stubborn, particularly for some professions.

More on that productivity thing

2009-11-09T07:52:00.000-08:00

The productivity figures are in line with what I suspected, that we are in the midst of seizing genuine productivity gains through forced lay-offs. But let me add another point: one of the reason that employment is sticky is agency cost. In larger concerns line-managers do not have the incentive to cut costs by firing their own people. At a minimum, somebody ends up doing more work, often the manager. It takes pressure from above or the outside to get it to happen.

Also why I see productivity gains in government as being only the result of increased work and legislature-limited resources. Huge amount of untapped IT productivity gains there.

Unpleasant economic thought

2009-11-01T10:06:00.000-08:00

Judging from the work i actually see during my day job, I believe that the potential productivity (labor-saving) gains from IT have been understated because:

Like prices, employment is sticky. For a number of reasons, people don't usually get canned because of productivity gains, particularly in the small enterprise service sector where they are more difficult to quantify and may not represent full positions. The gains may simply mean more idle time.

But once those positions are gone due to a downturn like the current one, employers have little reason to reinstate them.

Basic Logic Lesson

2009-11-01T09:15:00.000-08:00

A successful economy implies full employment
A successful economy implies maximum production of goods in demand

does NOT mean

Full employment implies maximum production of goods in demand

NOR does it mean

Maximum production of goods in demand implies full employment

Note: the premises were introduced as a definition implied by some current discussions, NOT because they represent the only or a complete definition.

Nasty Prediction on Employment

2009-10-10T05:02:00.000-07:00

Most of the commentary on employment has centered around when and at what level unemployment will peak, and how many jobs will be created at what rate during the recovery. I think an even greater concern is the quality and compensation of the new jobs. When I look at (1) educational divergence, (2) skill (or credential)-based wage differentials, (3) the decline of unions, (4) globalization trends in trade, (5) the compensation in the sectors that have lost high-paying no-education-required jobs (e.g., construction and manufacturing), (6) the economic incentives to the application of productivity gains to lowering employment rather than increasing output, and (7) my estimation that any modest recovery in those sectors will be extended past the point that wages will remain sticky, it looks to me like the crisis represents another ratchet downward for the blue collars and IT-outsourceable and lower ranks of the white collar. Political solutions are either long-term and not even begun (e.g., real educational reform that MAY even need to include broadly targeting aspects of our culture and youth culture in particular) or that benefit only favored groups (sector tariffs and subsidies).

Libertarianism

2009-09-05T07:11:00.000-07:00

While I didn't respond to a request on Angry Bear on what Libertarians really believe (because I don't do Platonic definitions and was uninterested in the prospect of the usual squabbles over doctrinal purity). it did clarify my thinking. As always, the most important question to ask about a moral system is the ground value. (The question of the genealogy of the morals is important too, of course, but necessarily ancillary). If a Libertarian believes that choice/freedom is important in itself, as a ground value constituting or compatible with a terminal value, that's an implied definition of justice . If a Libertarian believes choice is important because it leads to the greatest sum of human happiness (or some other terminal value), then their attachment is instrumental. if they believe it's both a terminal value in itself and required for some other terminal value, they're probably fooling themselves out of preference for the first.

Late edit: After recently reading a few essays on contemporary professional discussions on ethics and metaethics, I realize I could have used "deontological" and "consequentialist" above. But, ya know, while I appreciate the value of ethos credentialing, not to mention the value of taxonomies in getting papers cranked out, they really don't add anything to the analysis above. Even apart from the jargon obscuring matters for non-philosophers, it tends to drain the discussion of emotional impact and move away from practical choices. Or should that be "praxis?"

Thought on Ted Kennedy

2009-08-27T04:57:00.000-07:00

The effusive praise comes from either people who liked his politics or politicians who admired his skill, all public posturing. If character is what you are when no-one is watching - or no-one but your cronies - it's hard to see Edward Kennedy's as anything but a void.

Celebrities. Ah, America - keep patting yourself on the back of being the land of the free and the home of the individual. It's actually true in a way, although not to say it's anything exclusive to America. And not that most American bother with freedom or individuality themselves.

Thoughts on PRC dollar reserves

2009-06-20T08:02:00.000-07:00

One macro interpretation the US-PRC trade imbalance has been that the Chinese are simply importing demand to create employment, maintaining reserves in foreign currency/bonds to sterilize the imbalance from a domestic demand perspective. From this perspective, the Chinese might as well shred a certain percentage of their gains and effectively that's what their waiting around for the inevitable (in my view) depreciation of the dollar versus hard assets does. This is apart from the question of the dollar value versus the managed renmimbi or other currencies.

I don't buy it as a long term strategy, but it's clearly a path to short term stability and managed growth, at some opportunity cost. But why perfectly savvy economists seem to think "sunk cost" doesn't also apply to the worth of the Chinese reserves beats me. It's true they would not only be the first but also the last out the door in the event of a run on the dollar (because of their massive reserves would take a long time to unwind), but those dollars can be translated into hard assets now, on a continuing basis.

The other point is that labor-absorbing economic pyramid projects (in the Egyptian sense) are always available to a command economy if you don't care whether your investments stimulate returns (or not for a couple of thousand years). The PRC military could provide this kind of demand.

Stockmann's Law

2009-05-24T07:46:00.000-07:00

The rate of diffusion of capital ownership leads, and is directly proportional, to the diversification of the income of the former capitalist owners into labor differentials, alternate capital structures, and influence-enabled government rent seeking.

Why I think so: the economic elite has enormous advantages, including education, position, resources, and comparative cohesion and agility. Members (on average) will strive to maintain and increase their relative advantage over the mean. If the ownership of equity or bonds or land becomes widespread, they will attempt to find other ways to promote this relative advantage. The notion that by the time any information has become public, it is largely worthless for investing purposes can be expanded to the idea that over the long run, this is true of investments themselves. They become Ponzi-ized as the original capital holders sell to the masses and invest elsewhere.

What evidence do I think is relevant: compensation differentials between corporate levels; executive compensation through incentives that do not reflect return to equity holders; special interest legislation that benefits privately- or narrowly-owned companies; hedge funds and similar capital structures that employ leverage and contra-capital (derivative) structures that exploit agility and sophistication; the reduction of clearly undervalued enterprises as investment opportnities.

Do I really think this: well, not exactly - I believe that true linear relationships in economics are largely imaginary, and that real functions have gaps and leaps. And this is also a pretty broad generalization.

What this means: the price of any value that involves active and adaptive opposition is eternal vigilance. Liberty is just a subset of this.

First Amendment Establishmentarianism

2009-05-09T07:17:00.000-07:00

Reading about a Jewish school's threatened lawsuit because of moot court competition was scheduled on the Sabbath clarified my thinking: any public accommodation specifically for religion violates the anti-establishment clause of the First Amendment because it requires governmental determination of what constitutes a "religion," as opposed to individual or group preferences based on moral, aesthetic, social, or historical grounds, thus "establishing" religion. Of course governmental action that targets a religious belief (e.g. deliberately scheduling a competition to disadvantage those who observe the sabbath) would violate the free practice and equal protection requirements of the Constitution.

The Stimulus: Me Personally

2008-01-19T23:26:00.000-08:00

Without addressing the macro arguments on the proposed economic stimulus package, I can offer the following personal observation on the design. Not presuming to speak for the other folks in my income bracket, for this taxpayer those class warrior Democrats who want an income cap on eligibility are right: I would save rather than spend any tax rebate and therefore would not provide any demand stimulus to the economy. And again leaving aside whether President Bush's proposal to include business incentives to investment (and hence presumably down the road to increase the supply of goods to end users) makes any sense in a period of demand decline and resulting over-supply, I can also cheerfully add that if I don't place the hypothetical rebate in a high-yeilding cd in a weak institution with FDIC insurance (making the USG insure the higher than market return money on money it gave me), if i were to do it today I'd be likely to invest it in a specific foreign stock or foreign ETF, which presumably doesn't do much for the American economy or those workers who depend on it.

On the Clinton Candidacy

2007-10-30T07:29:00.000-07:00

Moment of clarity for me today. I would, against all my populist instincts, vote for the immediate family family member of an exPresident for the that office if they represented one of the following, in the order of importance:

1. Stood for expanding the interpretation of individual rights enumerated in the Constitution or certain other "rights" that may or may not be implied in the IX Amendment that I would like to be treated as absolute. Abortion "rights" are not among these. Mrs. Clinton, the co-sponsor of an anti-flag-burning amendment does not qualify.

2. Stood for reducng the power of the Federal Government in relation to the States, other than as a guarantor of the expansive protections in the 14th Amendment as interpreted of citizen's rights in the States, including the overweening influence exercised by the earmarking of Federal funding to State policies.

3. Stood for reducing the power of the Presidency in the 21st Century in relation to the power of the Congress, especially the use of force abroad, as well as primary responsibility for the first detailed draft of the Federal budget.

I will not vote for that immediate family member even if I were to agree with their stance on the prosecution of a war abroad by volunteer forces; the return of the fiscal discipline of the (Bill) Clinton years; a more progressive and transparent tax code; or even a significantly more pro-environmental stance. Not that Ms. Clinton stands for all these things. I would, of course, vote for a different Democratic candidate who espoused these ideas even if he or she didn't embrace my favorite 3. The only political aristocracy I will accept is one in service to my idea of liberty.

The draft

2007-08-10T21:23:00.000-07:00

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Frequent tours for U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan have stressed the all-volunteer force and made it worth considering a return to a military draft, President Bush's new war adviser said Friday.

Army Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute is the president's war adviser. Several retired generals turned down the post.

"I think it makes sense to certainly consider it," Army Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute said in an interview with National Public Radio's "All Things Considered."

Man oh man - please let the Right (not Rangel) try to reinstitute it, I beg of you. Just let them try.

Unless I'm overestimating Americans once again...thinking like a hippie...

Teachy preachy

2007-06-20T07:01:00.000-07:00

Moral discourse is either sociological or hortatory. Descriptive or prescriptive. Antimoral discourse may, of course, be analytical.

Losing my country is like

2007-04-13T05:37:00.000-07:00

Because I have the same self-hysteria that afflicts most people, my first stab for a comparison was like losing a limb But how self-importnat - not to mention, how would I know.

But more than losing a parent.

Heartbreaking at the time. Losing a girl? The first love?

No, that wasn't it. It was like losing all girls.

Hey, but how would i know tha, anymore than in my four-limbed state to claim a limk to amputation.

But i can extrapolate from experience, with justice. It's just monogamy minus one.

Not a leftist

2007-04-08T00:28:00.000-07:00

And neither was he:

“Of the enemies of true liberty, war is perhaps the most dreaded because it compromises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds are added to those of subduing the force of the people.

“No nation,” Madison concluded, “can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”

And neither is he from whence I swiped this.

Irritated Observation

2007-03-30T05:40:00.000-07:00

Why are the liberal elites elite? Well, on average, they're better'n you. Not better'n me, on average, statistically speaking. But definitely better'n you.

Q's workshop

2007-03-27T04:51:00.000-07:00

Talking with a friend about stuff he saw in a major R&D lab with one of the tech companies ten years ago - cool stuff like a complete computer, soft enough to roll into a little bundle. Still not out, for whatever reason - probably the problems with manufacturing technology - they didn't find a way to mass-produce it at a profit.

It's like a child's dream of pirate's treasure - fabulous shinies, locked chests, still buried.

As Stravinsky allegedly said, "Nothing fails like success." The stuff that never makes it beyond prototype reaminsmore intriguing than the things that ultimately get only the easy indifference breed by familiarity.

Federal Bail Out and Foreclosure Alternatives

2007-03-22T23:47:00.000-07:00

So, surprise, surprise - I am in favor of a very specific form of government assistance to the increasing number of mortgage holders who simply cannot pay their mortgage: not piling on. As I understand it (and that may be somewhat inacurately), most loan forgiveness becomes a taxable event. Let's take a hypothetical example from the high-middle estimates of the extent to which 2005-6 housing prices represented a bubble. Borrower cannot make payments on a $450,000 mortgage and the house that (with lender agreement) is short-sold for $300,000. Borrower then owes taxes on $150,000, unless completely insolvent - tens of thousands of dollars. I would guess this is also the case if the lender decided to forgive a percentage of the loan (say, $100,000) in order to reach a level at which the borrower actually had an acceptably high chance of making the payments.

So, if Senator Dodd and Clinton et al. want to help, they ought to start by getting rid of this provision in the tax code as applied to a single primary residence - in all fairness, the borrower hasn't "made" any money in this deal. And the loss to the Treasury is hypothetical, like the borrower's ability to pay.

But I recommend a concommitant change: a return to something close to the status quo ante for the treatment of capital gains on the sale of ALL primary residences, not just the ones that
benefit from this tax forgiveness. Capital gains would remain tax free so long as all gains go back into a primary residence (and there could be flexibility about this meaning equity or total cost), with the possibility of the return of the one-time exemption to allow for one trade-down to assist labor mobility and those downsizing or leaving the home-owning ranks entirely.

Of course I'd also like to see the end to the mortgage interest exemption in the name of general simplification and fairness, but that's not integral to the above trade-off.

While I'm thinking about it: if the above high-but-not=off-the-charts-looney scenario were actually relevant (33% drop in value, assume nonrecourse loan, assume inability to pay), then the lender and the borrower could have a prima facia common interest in leaving the "homeowner" in place, even at the cost of a radical write-off of the loan becuase of the transaction costs and the possibility that the borrower could actually afford fixed payments and the new, lower value - or even something a bit above the value, to reflect their own interest in remaining in their home. It could also reset the appraisal (lowering the property tax assessment) and allow for a more orderly progression to lower housing prices 9and therefore costs). Bummer about all the lost equity for all (us) other owners, but those are the breaks - it would happen anyway, and potentially in a more ugly fashion.

Of course this would also lead other borrowers to want the same thing, and to be willing to play brinksmanship with their mortagge holder to get it, but that's between those two parties. Don't see there's a role her for the kind offices of Dodd and his friends.

Noodling on the Bill of Rights

2007-03-21T22:40:00.000-07:00

So why would I be willing to commit to action on behalf of the First Amendment to the Constitution but not the Second?

Well, I suppose it's because First Amendment rights remain to my ideas of freedom more than gun ownership (let alone well-ordered militias.) When I look rules that would oppress me in democracies other than the United States, they involve lack of fundamental commitment to dissent and nonconformity, to freedom of expression as a matter of principle, and as a final rather than instrumental value. Whether or not private gun ownership is permitted, or the extent to which it is regulated, doesn't seem to correlate at all, let alone as some sort of hypothetical counterweight to the state's ability to organized violence, and positively irrelevant to the other ways in which it swindles or coerces compliance.

Similarly, while search and seizure rules, the right to an attorney, and habeus corpus appear to me central to individual protection, I just don't feel the same way about a citizen's right to not inciminate himself, which implies an adversarial - or at least nonparticpatory relationship - between a state and its citizens beyond what I think is necessary. If I can be compelled to tattle on someone else in service of the state, I don't see why I shouldn't also have an obligation to give a full and frank account of my own conduct in criminal matters., in the presence of my attorney and in a court of law, although still free from violence or the threat of violence.

Unintended Consequences

2007-02-11T16:19:00.000-08:00

So, the Iraqi insurgents are fighting for my freedom. Every American soldier they kill makes the unprovoked invasion and all the costs that much more unpalatable to Only-Americans-Count Americans, along with the assaults on my civil liberties in the name of a War Against Terrorism. And a even clearer failure, particularly a failure under the current administration, might give us another 20 years of partial immunity to this kind of adventure that we had after Vietnam. Sure, the Sunni nutcases would love to oppress me much more thoroughly than "my" own Christian leaders, but somehow I suspect that my resolve, along with my "fellow" Americans would stiffen to steel in that case.

And, of course, that the volunteer American military, particularly the long-suffering USMC (and not the USN or Air Force) may pay the price of any return of the missing parts of my freedom is true. But in this case not by killing - by dying. I'll not be so ungrateful as to thank them.

Note on Ethics

2006-11-11T15:08:00.000-08:00

Combine the Golden Rule and turn the other cheek and, according to a simple extension of game theory, in practical terms you have magical thinking.

The distinction between the methods religion, science, and magic dims if you consider the rewards and punishments of the afterlife (or "karma" for that matter, since there's no practical way to track, even leaving aside multiple incarnations) the dark matter/energy of this ethics, desperately seeking balance or more-than-balance for the magic that doesn't seem to work otherwise.

And thus you have - the Sermon on the Mount.

Nietzsche again. Disturbing that every time I turn a corner I find he - or Ludwig W. - got there first.

On Experts

2006-11-09T17:01:00.000-08:00

It's not that the Emperors have no clothes; it is just that they don't notice when they have taken them off.

And the Counterargument to Representation

2006-09-27T12:32:00.000-07:00

Four out of five high school students felt they knew enough to give opinions on this 215-year-old list of rights. And among them, 55% thought the First Amendment goes too far in granting rights.

That's a turnaround from two years ago, when 57% expressed support for the First Amendment and its enumerated rights.

This reversal is so surprising that you want to find a flaw in the question wording or the methodology. But they were big samples: more than 100,000 in 2004 and nearly 15,000 in '06. The question was in a self-administered form that replicated the wording of the amendment and reminded students that it "became part of the U.S. Constitution more than 200 years ago."

and

Meanwhile, we can take small comfort in the fact that a bare majority of high school students, 54% (up from 51% in 2004), believes that newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of a story. They are more interested, however, in freedom for raunchy music: 69% agreed that "musicians should be allowed to sing songs with lyrics that others might find offensive."

I wonder how the attitude to our most basic liberties would correlate with, say, standardized test scores. It would be good to know if our education system is simply failing, or is actively counterproductive.

The few words I can choke out nowadays

2006-07-29T22:56:00.000-07:00

We don't want to be led. We want to be represented.

Pro-Congress Post

2006-02-19T18:26:00.001-08:00

In keeping with my current regime of proving all my ideological tendencies wrong: this little news event, with both the Republican chair and ranking minority in bipartisan agreement, on the side of genuine science, and with a note of fiscal responsibility, while NASA falls back on the golden Cold War fright-call of the loss of "leadership" if most of its budget isn't sunk in manned exploration, without parsing exactly what those astronauts are supposed to be doing, with a rigorous cost-benefit analysis.

So saith this starS-in-eyes type.

Anti-Libertarian Note

2006-02-15T03:53:00.000-08:00

In penance for taking a quizzie and scoring moderately high on the Libertarian axis:

Property is a creation of government, or at least at the most primitive and limited level, of artificial and probably unstable social norms. It is not an apriori term, and I'd like to believe the story that "the pursuit of happiness" was a deliberate and substitution for "property" in the Declaration of Independence. Possesions, of course, aren't social constructions - but that's where "stole it fair 'n' square" has real meaning.

The guarantee of "private property" is a mutual pact, and even in a perfectly transparent system, the condition of holding title must be subject to social utility.

A Modest Proposal

2006-02-09T02:39:00.000-08:00

President Clinton perjured himself, but a greater crime is that we do not give more of our Presidents the opportunity to do likewise. Clinton was hauled up on a matter utterly trivial to the interests of the Republic. What if we required a President to present his budget, the blueprint of most of the U.S. Government's activities for the forthcoming fiscal year, under oath, including:

- That the economic projections represented the best estimates of his Council of Economic Advisors, some of whom actually have professional reputations to lose, and had not been adjusted upward to make the numbers look better.

- That all changes for the revenue-raising mechanisms the President thought advisable have been included, and if he did not include provisions, for example, to modify the Alternative Minimum Tax, then it was because he opposed doing so, in comparison with maintaining the revenue and spending provisions of his budget as submitted.

- That he faithfully included all likely expenses in his projections, including a modest contingency fund, and if he did not include provision for, as an example, any military activity in Afghanistan and Iraq beyond FY-2007, it was because he believed such activity to be unlikely.

But, in the face of all this honesty, how would we keep the opposition from its own dishonest grandstanding, e.g. over the proposed elimination of the Social Security $255 death benefit.

First Amendment berserker

2006-02-04T16:28:00.000-08:00

At the risk of losing my recent membership in the responsible, radically moderate (and quite select) John Spruce Society:

While recognizing the importance of freedom of the press and expression, U.S. State Department press officer Janelle Hironimus said these rights must be coupled with press responsibility.

"Inciting religious or ethnic hatred in this manner is not acceptable," Hironimus said. "We call for tolerance and respect for all communities and for their religious beliefs and practices."

Listen, Hironimus, you cow. And Rice for that matter:

Okay, as I choke down the the notion of the foreign affairs arm of the United States government using the word "responsibility" and presuming to lecture the free press of what it may consist, let me say this: if diplomacy and the military might of the United States is to be used for anything, it should be used in the defence of our constitutional rights, and among the most prominent of these is freedom of the speech and the press. Goverments cannot define "responsible," because they are interested parties. You must defend them all, from all enemies, domestic (well, except yourselves, of course) and foreign. You took an oath.

You talk about "transformational democracy?" Do you really think that any
democratic virtue is more important than letting the other guy have his say, regardless of how offended to you are? Is there a more important lesson?

How serious am I about this? For a dozen reasons, philosophical and practical, I opposed the invasion of Iraq and continuing operations there. But if any nation assisted action against for an American citizen publishing a caricature of Mohammed, I would support converting that country to the Luminous Republic of Glassistan. Bin Laden's grievances cited as cause for the 9/11 attacks -- factually accurate -- were at least arguably hostile acts against the rights of Muslims; the "right" not to be offended emphatically excluded.

How serious am I about this? I think it was criminal that Britain hid Rushdie instead of setting up a series of sting operations to kill anyone who would have assassinated him for The Satanic Verses.

And I say this as someone who does not believe Islam is inherently more prone to terrorism than Christianity, Buddhism, atheism or any other belief system, or any more inherently intolerant. I also say this as someone who loathes most of Rushdie's work, including the Satanic Verses. You know that old line about disagreeing with someone but defending their right to say it to the death? I wouldn't presume to courage I've never had to demonstrate, but I approve of the sentiment. Especially if we're talking about the other guy's death, the one who would abridge that right.

Of course the conservatives in the Congress and this administration who would amend the First Amendment to specifically outlaw flag-burning because this political act offends their feelings clearly understand from where the denizens of the outraged Muslim street are coming.

But, wondering: do Ann Coulter's "Invade, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity" and Pat Robertson's advocacy of assassinating Hugo Chavez constitute a classic example of "fighting words," especially as influential memebrs of a representative democracy, and are therefore quite outside First Amendment rights? Like the Arabs or Venezuelans would be within their rights to, ah, silence them, in pre-emptive self-defence?

But let me say for the record, in my view: Mohammed was a liar; Allah is largely a myth; the Hadith are likely forgeries; Islam is full of the detritus of desert polytheism.

Yeah, Like That

2006-02-01T03:40:00.000-08:00

Congressmen are generally very generous in providing support for a basic EOP position: that while it's possible, even obligatory, for thoughtful folks to vote against a candidate, a vote for anyone running for political office is, at best, a sad compromise with one's principles.

Anyway, apropos of the Asset Bubble thing below, this by the Honorable Senator Jim Bunning, R-KY on Alan Greenspan:

During his tenure at the Alan Greenspan has done an admirable job. However, he has always erred on the side of raising rates. I am not alone in this opinion. History is showing that he made mistakes in raising rates for too long.

I don't agree, but it's certainly an arguable position. But not if you also want to point out:

Yes, Chairman Greenspan's tenure held relatively low inflation with a growing economy. But his record on the economy came about from the creation of a record market bubble that ultimately popped. Then there was a housing bubble. It led to an unbalanced recovery fueled by soaring housing costs that resulted in record household debt.

Right. Sound position (see The Economist), although again not necessarily correct. But this implies that rates were not raised quickly or substantially enough to prevent the formation of the bubbles, or early enough to let air out without a painful correction in valuation.

And the contradiction illustrates the difficulty Greenspan would have had in responding to Problem B when he was already getting complaints about Problem A. And his attempts to jawbone the bubbles down with quite accurate remarks about "irrational exuberance" and "frothy" markets? Well, Herr Bunning
also states:

Aside from being addicted to rate increases, another one of my qualms with Chairman Greenspan was that he talked about everything under the sun - from trade deficits to budget deficits, tax policy to fiscal policy, and even the nation's oil patch.

For dinner conversation, these would be fine topics to discuss. But the Fed's jurisdiction is supposed to be purely monetary policy. Hopefully, his successor, Ben Bernanke, will be a different kind of chairman in these respects. He should stick to monetary policy and not interfere with fiscal issues, which rattle markets and get the bulls and bears into a tizzy.

So, not talking about asset bubbles. And, most of all what really hurts is when Greenspan points out that a profligate fiscal policy (set by Senator Bunning and his colleagues) constrains the Fed's monetary policy options, especially in regards to lowering those nasty high rates without re-igniting inflation. Pointing out further that such fiscal policy immediately prior to the beginnings of exploding entitlements due to demographics and the cost of medical technology within medical access Americans are willing to accept will make monetary policy even more problematic in the future: well, I think that's just being a Fed Chairman. Anyway, QED political constraints at the Fed. It also puts a sock in my mouth regarding my usual complaint about Greenspan - that he should have been screaming bloody murder at the deficits.

Oh, and this is also the Senate, which delayed the expensing of stock options (e.g. a more accurate although not perfect accounting procedure) by threatening to hamstring the SEC.

My position: the idolatry of Chairman Greenspan is overdone. He had limited tools and hence limited decisions to make; his was the strongest voice on the Fed, but there was strong consensus among the Governors. He neither created nor specifically encouraged the tech advances (and corporate bloodletting) that gave America productivity gains it hadn't experienced in several decades. But, like a good physician, first he did no (or little) harm.

Asset Bubbles

2006-01-26T14:23:00.000-08:00

The Economist has long urged that the Fed watch for asset bubbles, rather than simply the rate of traditional inflation. In the late 90's, the magazine was concerned with stock prices; now, it's home prices.

My thought: the situations are dissimilar enough that I could oppose intervention on stocks and support it on house prices.

1. An attempt for the Fed to impose its sense of fair value on the stock market - rather than trusting to market forces - may be defensible intellectually, but could have been fatal politically to the Fed's independence, which is always at least subtly under pressure by the Congress and the Executive branch, particularly with the chorus (at the time) or Respectable Opinions that said (1) the market had been undervalued historically compared to other asset classes because rick was overestimated and hence the risk premium excessive; (2) we had entered a new era, with IT-driven productivity growth and the absolute need for enormous Boomer generation to start accummulating savings. The fire would have come from both the Left (heirs to the Cross of Gold speech) and the Adam Smiths of the Right. The fight-inflation mandate had broad, although not universal, support. Also, there were not clear losers from the stock market rise - late investors might get fewer shares for their money, but their focus tended to be on return, not absolute sale price. The market was the very definition of elastic. If it was the Fed which deflated or restrained the market, the accusation that it had betrayed investors would have been as loud as the cry that the German government failed its army in WWI.

2. The housing market has different constraints. Unlike treating 50 shares and a 100 shares at different times as being similar investments, half a house is clearly a different thing, especially with the expectations due to the rising size of new homes. Entry is much more difficult, even eased with zero percent down mortgages and similar risky investments. There are very clearly losers in the game: new entrants, those moving from low cost to high cost areas, and those at risk or going underater or being unable to service their mortgages. Increased costs of servicing the loans has an eventual long-term impact on money available for consumption and productive investment. Funding consumer purchases with equity is ultimately unsustainable. The downside of a dramatic market reversal is greater than the 2000 stock market bubble bursting, with ripple effects from a consumer spending downturn from tightened credit and a great increase in foreclosures, harming both the lending institutions and, most dramatically, the potentially homeless - or at least assetless. And then there's the implicit government guarantees of Fannie and Freddie Mac. Any, a soft landing seems to be required here.

Besides, since housing is ALSO a consumer good, not merely an investment, its properly weighted position in inflation considerations as a very substantial portion of the outlay of the average American: well, there you go.

Orwell-ish note

2006-01-15T16:36:00.000-08:00

The similarity betweem "inequality" and "inequity" is particularly unfortunate, not because they have nothing to do with each other, but because they do - without being anything close to identical. People tend to eradicate important semantic differences because they find keeping too many in mind is simply too taxing on their poor befuddled brains, and when the words themselves adhere, well - it's all over for reasoned conversation.

Crime and Punishment I - Remorse

2005-11-07T23:38:00.000-08:00

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051107/ap_on_re_us/arsenic_death

Ann Miller Kontz drafts an eloquent mea culpa talking about just how remorseful she is for killing her husband, her daughter's father, with a motive somehow connected with an affair she was having at the time.

Now the important part: the remorse comes after years of denying any involvement in the murder, in the course of a plea bargain when it became likely the prosecutors had sufficient evidence to convict. After the issue of whether the statements made by her dead lover (he committed suicide) to his attorney were still protected by attorney/client privilege went to the North Carolina Supreme Court (twice), and were ultimately released, implicating her. She plead guilty to second degree murder rather than the first degree murder of which she was clearly guilty.

This is after she blithefuly remarried. "Miller" is a relict of the man she killed.

Now, I'm sure she would like us to believe that she was actually ripped up inside all the while, keeping a brave face so her daughter would not have to live with the knowledge that her mother very intentionally killed her father with arsenic (aka: the truth). All the benefits accruing to our Ann herself (freedom, new family) were a byproduct of her sacrifice for her daughter. Undoubtedly she engaged in personal mortifications of the flesh and spirit on a regular basis.

This just happened to be the story today. We've seen the "remorse" a thousand times by people implicated beyond extrication, usually after they have forced some commonwealth to spend enormous effort and money that could have gone elsewhere to bring them to heel, as in this case - an offense against their fellow citizens, if nothing else: continuing evidence of bad faith.

Remorse means you will make a sacrifice to make what amends you can, to your victim, to society which you injured in a variety of ways, to the truth if you've lied. It does not mean pleading guilty to a lesser crime than you have committed, which will STILL keep you in prison until your child is grown and - one would hope but humans are contemptible things - your new unmurdered husband will have moved on.

Crime and remorse? True remorse? Live-changing remorse rather than oops-I-really-screwed-myself regret? It happens - with about the same ratio of gold to lead in the earth's dirty crust.

Social Security - Savings and Retirement III

2005-10-28T18:21:00.000-07:00

A last few notes and a proposal on resolving the crisis:

A plan for private retirement accounts that increases the total current-year U.S. Government deficit by an amount equivalent to the accounts does not increase the national savings rate. The later adjustment to the Administration's plan - combining the accounts with a guarantee of unreduced benefits for lower income recipients - actually decreases total savings over debt.

Pushing money into capital markets without regard for additional capital requirements tends to reduce the real return on capital invested in these same instruments, whether stocks or bonds. Bonds yields are inverse to demand. Funds flowing into stocks may drive the prices up by demand alone, but reduce the genuine price/earnings ratio. It is the productive power of capital that makes the investment unique - creating "savings" by driving up prices as a strategy actually works more clearly with fixed-sum items such as land or antiques or tulips with unique manifestations of the mosaic virus, and secondarily with commodities such as gold which reach new equilibrium prices by tapping more expensive sources of the material. When a company can simply dilute its stock, or effectively dilute it through mergers and acquisitions that historically subtract value, then the investment can lose value, and this is one strategy available to managers seeking their own interests when returns on capital fall. Note also that if the value of an asset is measured solely by demand, and the asset is meant to be sold to finance retirement, demographics still dictate a retriement problem - if the baby boomers need to pull money out as they retire, demand for stocks is reduced and therefore demand-driven price appreciation.

Clear paranoid note on labor and capital: standard rhetoric assumes labor is the little guy and capital is the big guy, and the pattern of stock ownership in the US bears this out. However, if the pattern shift and a much higher amount of stock is held by the majority of the people (probably through institutional means, especially "private savings accounts") look to the well- organized wealthy minority to find other ways of maintain their economic dominance - through executive compesation or other measures. One of the interesting things about bankrupt companies is that the capitalists are wiped out completely (stock owners) or receive small or negative returns (bond holders of varying precedence), while the "executive "laborers" may make out very well indeed, through golden parachutes and transition incentive plans.

Proposal.

The first step in resolving the social security problem is to actually build on a principle that's makes actuarial sense. Here's one: in the first year that social security payouts would exceed social security payouts under the current, the total amount that is paid out is reduced until its in balance.
My preference is that this exclude the revenue from the bonds the social security trust has purchased with previous surpluses, since doing so would make the transition more gradual by not delaying it. The surplus is treated as a national asset and it is only slowly eroded by inflation. This plank isn't essential and is unlikely since it actually involves discipline in the present in favor of the future, not a popular strategy.
Okay, now the fun part: Congress can now deal with the shortfall however it feels best, with any formula - it can raise payroll taxes to increase the money available for payouts; it can cut benefits or the rate of benfit increases evenly; it can favor lower income recipients or longtime recipients; it can delay retirement age; it can tax or means-test benefits. The only thing it can't do it cook the books and spend money that it doesn't have the guts to raise.

As far as private accounts is concerned, there is one hard way to increase the national savings rate, if that's actually a good idea: make retirement accounts on a tax-deferred or Roth basis mandatory, by payroll deduction. You want people to save 5% of their income - there ya go. People who aren't savings would allasudden have less money to spend - but, frankly my dears, that's the only thing saving is. There are no free lunches.

Social Security - Savings and Retirement II

2005-10-13T20:07:00.000-07:00

Ah, how sad - I spend so much time away from this post that the private accounts issue seems to have vanished for now. One does not wage an unpopular campaign of Social Security reform when one's approval ratings dip below 40%, especially with key Congressional allies having difficulties of their own.

Hmm, now what? I wasn't opposed to private accounts, especially since the most public case against them comprised arm-waving alarmism and grandstanding and there is an actuarial problem with Social Security as currently configured. I just wanted to point out the flaws in some of the unexamined economic assumptions.

}deflates{

Okay, less ponderously then, a few more points, mainly drawn from various issues of The Economist:

Ben Bernanke, while a Federal Reserve governor, talked about a global savings glut. postulating too much savings relative to what's needed for productive investment for the current level of consumption.
Capital flows have tended to be from Japan, the oil producing nations, China and other developing countries toward America, financing the government deficit and American consumption.
The high savings rate - liquid, not re-invested in capital - of American corporations indicates that they have more than adequate internally-generated capital; continued low long term interest rates as a result of the savings or liquidity glut make access to additional capital relatively inexpensive.
Companies that have a high rate of capital spending average a lower rate of return on that spending. Law of Diminishing Returns.
Keynes described how a higher investment rate economy-wide could actually lead to lower production, by suppressing demand. If a company cannot sell its products at a price that produces a good return on capital invested, it doesn't -- or shouldn't -- invest the capital.

So, if private accounts or other such proposals increase the rate of American savings and decrease current consumption, what might happen?

And For the numerically underwhelming but still annoying Wrath o' God Guys

2005-09-01T21:54:00.000-07:00

Natural disasters as punishment for something or other?

What's the matter - your God fresh out of angels with flaming swords? Modern versions could come equipped with both GPS and biometrics. They would be a little more selective, don't you think? A little more choosy about who gets an early date with their Judge?

Am I Really This Bitter?

2005-08-31T05:57:00.000-07:00

Watching the Katrina coverage and hearing people alternately invoking God and prayer, and asking for help from us mortals.

Not a chance.

I know this God - the omnipotent one, the one who spared you from the wrath of the hurricane while not others for His unknown but Really Good reasons. You believe that? Go ask Him for new food and shelter and new stuff. Cut out the middle man. Or maybe you won't, since the aid is likely to come from your fellows rather than miraculous McManna, but you can always annoint them angels on earth. Tools of the Divine Will, using "tools" in the most up-to-date sense.

There are various theological justifications why it might be good for me to decide to succor you, storing up treasure in heaven and all that, but that's between me and Him. Either get a religion that's not so philosophically bankrupt, or jess keep prayin'.

I guess the answer to the title would be yes. Will resume the more measured treatment of Social Security anon.

Social Security: Savings and Retirement I

2005-08-06T16:01:00.000-07:00

Looseleaf elementary thoughts that can be collected into a conclusion. Most important concept: production (more goods) versus distribution (where the goods go.) I doubt you'll find this as Marxist/ian as the terminology might suggest. Skip 1 if you're pretty sure you remember how capital works.

1. In the abstract, savings represents a socially-legitmated call on future production, which is labor using capital, and while an individual's savings may have originated in labor, it has become capital. The actual economic value to society of the savings is therefore only the additional goods made possible by a higher level of production through more or better means and/or the redirection of the means of production to capital goods that will enable yet higher production in the future.

1a. Hmm, on reflection, I thought of something else: in an inflationary environment, an individual's savings which is stuffed into a mattress doesn't contribute in that way, but, to the extent it would otherwise have gone to consumer goods, it represents a voluntary foregoing of the goods for which they would otherwise compete, lessening inflationary pressures in what amounts to an act of distributive charity. The level of inflation dictates just what a sacrifice this might be, as the value of the matress-stuffing erodes. However, assuming that the inflation partly represents inadequate production relative to capital-enabled means, to the extent the money-in-mattress would have been available as an investment to increase production, the sacrifice damages both the saver and society. Mattress-stuffing in a deflationary environment has the opposite dynamic in relation to consumer and capital goods, damagingl in the first and helpful in the second, as it decreases the funds available for needless investment and therefore raises returns.

2. Okay, so we hear that Americans don't save enough. On an individual (not corporate basis) the savings rate is at an all-time low and periodically threatens to go negative, meaning we as a collective of individuals may go into hock. Add in corporate earnings accumulation and the savings rate looks better (Citibank and Exxon are more frugal than thou); subtract the Federal budget deficit and it looks worse.

3. Retirement connection: as a generation, we're real slackers in terms of making babies, slightly buoyed by higher reproductive rates among some subgroups (middle class white American rates look European), and somewhat more buoyed by an increased rate of immigration, since immigrants tend to come in at working age and with, if with dependents, with young dependents and their fertility rates once here tend to be higher than native-born Americans. The pyramid scheme that allows the current level of Social Security payments versus payroll tax receipts collapses without a continually expanding base of wage-earners. This would likely be the case even if productivity rates exploded, since social security is currently indexed to wage income growth rather than simply to the cost of goods. If labor benefits and therefore the percentage payroll tax increases, so do the benefits owed.

3a. Oh, and to show I'm even-handed despite being of one of the generations that will receive a lower level of benefits: while the preBaby Boomers will, on average, end up collecting much more in Social Security than their contributions plus accumulated interest, they also on average have shelled out far more of their own money to raise the current large generations of wage earners than they will receive. Speaking economically, we were great investments for society but lousy investments for our parents. Not true for the childless, of course, although they did kick in for public education, capital investments that will outlast them, etc. I will leave it to you to consider whether you've made the noneconomic returns to your parents worth their dough Probably better not to ask them: it's either fishing for compliments of uncertain sincerity or potentially very depressing. Anyway, no resentment here of our elders. I'm happy to have elders because when I don't, I'll be old myself, something preferable only to the stark alternative and eventually not even that.

Creation Science IV - Why I am a Jerk

2005-05-06T10:46:00.000-07:00

In the most orthodox of Darwinisms, everything is precisely mathematical:

A small percentage of the time, through the random process of genetic drift, a given organism's genetic make-up will deviate significantly enough from its immediate progenitor that there is a modest physical effect.
In a small percentage of this small percentage, the change will add to the organism's chance of surviving, or reproducing, or both.
Over time this small change will establish itself in the genotype of the group by the working of probability, to be succeeded by another small change.
Rinse and repeat.
A sufficient number of small changes results in speciation.

Voila! Evolution by Creeps. (Say hello to Richard Dawkins, approximately) For me, at least, this is one of the most elegant, beautiful formulations in science, and I mark it as a loss of one of my rivers out of Eden that I am no longer among the orthodox.

A competing theory is Punctuated Equilibrium (Stephen Gould et. al.), which holds that species tend to remain stable, and that evolution occurs rapidly and in RELATIVELY short periods of time. Well, despite the order in this entry, the Creeps actually started the ennui-dispelling epithets by calling this Evolution By Jerks. They averred that it amounted to a misreading (more accurately, I think, it should be termed an over-reading) of accidents of the fossil record that resulted in apparent gaps in transitional forms.

Of course one might simply state that it was God the Designer, for his own inscrutable purposes and unfathomable timing, Who steppeth on the evolutionary gas every so often, but still requires a fair number of generations to go from a to b. Have I not discussed that already? As a side note, one instance where we have plentiful transitional forms is in the homo genus and its immediate ancestors - largely because we as a hamans are most interested in our immediate relatives, so time and money is spent in that direction. Interesting that humans - the case of greatest concern to the Creationists - is a case where orthodox Darwinism works very well. Incremental improvements in brain capacity, manual dexterity, and upright posture would be features of random-ish mutation and natural and sexual selection.

So why am I a Jerk? (shuddup, Cyndie)

1. Core Philosophy of Science: Predictive (not explanatory, read CS II) power of the fossil record: EBJ would say that, despite millions of years difference between estimated dates of fossils within an era (not fossils in the same find), you will be more likely to find yet another T Rex or, say, an Allosaurus, than an entirely new form transitional between the two (example only - beats me if these two are even related.) You are more likely to find either a Triceratops or Styracosaurus than a common ancestor other than yet another Protoceratops. EBC doesn't account for this, and an alternate explanation that somehow these species were more likely to hang out in fossil-producing circumstances than intermedate forms doesn't provide any testable predictions.

2. Mathematics: Richard Dawkins (a Creep) cited a mathematical study that showed that a small set percentage improvement of survivability/reproduction of randomly generated changes could lead to enormous cumulative differences. True, but inevitably: some changes or sets of changes will lead to sharply higher rates of rates of s/r than others - favorable adaptations could not have identical values. This, in turn, would lead to sharply faster or slower changes of the genotype.

3. Environment: One-time events occur that sharply change the odds of survival and/or the specific traits that would be selected, like catastrophe, an out-of-control feedback mechanism in another competing/predatory/preying species or migration to new environment (e.g. an island). These would accelerate the mathematical process within a process, but would be even more significant if there really is a meta-genetic trait that makes random mutations more or less likely in a given population. A mutation in favor or mutation. In a stable environment, a tendency to mutation (weak genes?) would generally be selected out since most of mutations are disadvantageous. A radically stressing changed environment means that organisms willing to try something, anything have a better chance of producing a solution, that will be reinforced in the s/r feedback mechanism.

Some open questions:

Is genetic heritage entropic or inert? In other words, does a species need evolutionary pressure to maintain complexity, like a kite, requiring some kind of need-to-survive wind to stay aloft, or does a genotype at rest stay at rest? Do eyes vanish in cavefish and the ability to fly in birds in predation-weak environment reflect only the cost to maintain those traits when they become no longer advantageous, or also a tendency toward simplication when not disadvanteous?
Does parallel evolution as in placental and marsupial animals like flying squirrels (which reminds me, do the immutability-of-species people think Australia is some kind of Divine pun - that He knew that people would call it Down Under and he thought putting pouches on ALL the mammals, otherwise an incredible coincidence, was really a good joke?) give us something against which to test mathematical models of evolution, much like twin studies are used to separate hereditary and environmental factors in humans?
Are there any larger-organism-to-gene feedback mechanisms that actually work, without getting all vulgarly Lamarkian? I can't find (sorry Tom) the recent news story on an organism's ability to repair misinherited genes, sort of the opposite or complementary to the meta-mutation idea above), but it was suggestive.
If there is a meta-mutational tendency, are there multiple varieties that favor selective and specific changes within a genome (say, on the set of genes that controls the size and shape of forelimbs), or only generally?
Can mathematical models (Heinlein the glib fascist said "If it can't be expressed in numbers, it's not science - it's opinion.") resolve some of these issues, bearing in mind that, as in geology, superhuman time frames are key to evolutionary science.

Creation Science III - The Mind of God

2005-03-13T16:17:00.000-08:00

When asked what Creation showed about the Mind of God, J.B.S. Haldane reportedly replied, "An inordinate fondness for beetles."

How resonant! Repeat the general problem with deducing a consciousness of (by definition) infinite subtlety and depth, but then add in more commonsplace observations. Unless one starts with benevolence (as understood by us) and omnipotence as given, then bends the all the evidence in that direction, one simply could not come to a deduction of this standard model. Would Voltaire's Candide become part of a Creationist unit, learning across the curriculum? And does it make sense to teach design without considering the nature, the final, telelogical cause of such a design? Do we really want to give, say, the Manichaens and Gnostics a new lease on life, because, after all, they would certainly have a more superficially persuasive cause than orthodox Christian Pangloss. Perhaps we could use Robert Frost:

I found a dimpled spider, fat and white,
On a white heal-all, holding up a moth
Like a white piece of rigid satin cloth --
Assorted characters of death and blight
Mixed ready to begin the morning right,
Like the ingredients of a witches' broth --
A snow-drop spider, a flower like a froth,
And dead wings carried like a paper kite.

What had that flower to do with being white,
The wayside blue and innocent heal-all?
What brought the kindred spider to that height,
Then steered the white moth thither in the night?
What but design of darkness to appall?--
If design govern in a thing so small.

Because: if God is the eschatological ground, then asserting that God is Good is not a statement, it a a performative utterance, of allegiance, a comment on oneself, aligning the speaker with underlying order of the universe - it cannot be a moral limitation on the Absolute. Of course it may also be a whistling past a very literal graveyard, also a rather forlorn performance.

Creation Science II - Theology of Science

2005-02-26T07:15:00.000-08:00

Reading Earth: An Intimate History, about the long slow movement of tectonic plates, sundering supercontinents and rejoining them again and again, over billions of years, about the emptiness of the Hadean times, and the nearly brainless life of the preCambrian and Cambrian eras, and I thought about a God with great or infinite powers and all the time in the world. And I thought about various Arguments from Design and Complexity.

The most extreme Creationist position is that everything we think we're learning from geology and paleontology is wrong, and that the world really was created in 4004 B.C. or some other comparatively recent date. The strictly empirical arguments they offer are generally shallow or incoherent, but the more profound and interesting theological ones cast our knowledge and perceptions of the mundane world in terms of an paranoiac epistemology like nothing so much as the worlds of the greater Phillip K. Dick. Given the Bible as literal and absolute, any merely physical contradiction (especially one that has been theorized in that provisional, always subject to revision or rejection, scientific method) can be disregarded, as a test by God of our faith or a check on our pride of intellect, or as a deceit by the Devil, which God permits for these same reasons.

In his Meditations after Descartes started for the quest of knowedge ab ovo, he went from the Cogito Ergo Sum to God by way of an Ontological Argument, and then he needed to establish whether our perceptions of an external world should be considered suspect. By way of answering, "Yes!" he considered and discarded the concept of an Evil Deceiver, since by his lights a Perfect Being (required by his Ontological Argument) could not practice (nor, by implication, countenance) such dastardly deceit.

In theological terms, I have to admit a strong bias in favor of the consistency of the extreme Creationist argument. Even assuming Descartes' argument is valid, determining the morals of a Transcendant Being on the basis of moral preference implied by "fair play" is ultimately (notice the word!) indefensible, whereas treating the literal meaning of the Bible as sort of an Ubik (Stays Crunchy Even in Milk) at least makes narrative sense. It's a take-it-or-leave it-and-go-to-Hell proposition, strikingly similar to the reason why Occam's argument was against rational theology rather than religion.

And I recognize that I'm just being churlish and vindictive when I want people who accept it not to pick and choose, but to reject all the fruits of the scientific method (e.g. antibiotics.)

It's actually the less extreme version of the Arguments from Design and Complexity that I find as incoherent as Descartes. In these, God intervenes in nature, not just in individual lives or human history, at one or more points of significance (suitability of the Earth; creation of life; the development of species; the first human), or more-or-less continually, guiding His creation.

My reaction to this - again, acknowledging that telling The Ultimate Ground of the Universe what He is permitted to do on the basis of my feeble reason is silly: why the elaborate setting of geological time if He is going to do the Deus Ex Machina thing? It's like constructing a stage set that looks like a cathedral, but is plywood and two-by-fours from the other side. Given infinite capabilities and (literally) all the time in the world, why wouldn't He create a world that could develop from the rules He set at the very beginning? Are we saying God couldn't do this, or that He didn't because he wanted us to have some hint of His existence? But why then buried under all the uncertainty for generations of souls - because, from our perspective at the beginning of the 21st Century, life and intelligence could have arisen naturally, along the lines suggested by biochemistry and various forms of the Theory of Evolution. Disproof will have to wait for later generations - leaving the rest of us in the lurch. Again, unlike science or Biblical literalism, it does not cohere, as a method or a story.

Creation Science I - Philosophy of Science

2005-02-21T18:03:00.000-08:00

It's not science. Not because it is wrong, but because it can't be wrong.

Let's not make the common mistake that a science provides a correct set of statements about the world. A science provides nothing more - and nothing less - than a heuristic, a conceptual framework and method for making predictions about what we're likely to find and where to look. And the glory of science is that these predictions can fail to pan out, and one of G.K. Chesterton's Father Brown stories made the point that honesty about failure was the special heroism of science. Karl Popper talked about falsification as the essence of the scientific method. You cannot prove a theory, but you can disprove it OR disprove the offered alternatives. In a later development, Thomas Kuhn described the paradigm shift, that theory yielded to theory not because it was wrong, but because the accretions of minute corrections required to make something square with the data made it more unwieldly and less useful than another alternative. - not because a theory was falsified, but becuase This is what makes that brilliant dismissal by Freeman Dyson so biting: "Not even wrong."

Suspended over this from a horsehair is the very sharp razor donated by William of Occam.

Creation "science" can't be disproven, is untestable, because it cannot make a prediction other than, "You will never be able to connect all the dots, and where the dots do not connect, there is God."

Again, this might even be right, say we pious agnostics, but it cannot be wrong.

Before an Inauguration

2005-01-16T18:43:00.000-08:00

Applauding a politician, any politician - hard enough to understand, but standing in 20 degree weather to do so.

Even if I were celebrating the defeat of someone else who would have been to be my leader - why don't those two words horrify anyone, the presumption we would follow someone, let alone someone we "know" only through millions of dollars of professional spin? - why wouldn't the satisfaction be at home, quietly, not cheering the man who represents the price one paid to avoid a greater evil?

I know. I know. There are more of them then there are of us, those same people that - for whatever reason - admire First Ladies and Dead Blonde Princesses, Failed Speculators and Football Coaches. I expected to fail to understand masochists and the serial murderers of children, fail my Terence test when I try to stretch my imagination to feel as they do, because much that is human is alien to me.

To be honest, there's much else I just bracket and use as a given, also uncomprehended. But whatever my fellow Americans, my fellowman are, they are egoless. So what's with being such self-subrdinated, lackeys and claquers, unpaid?

Evil Genius and Evil Twin

2004-12-03T05:33:00.000-08:00

If you really intend to examine your life, you need them both. Absent your own personal/internal Socrates, of course (Socrates in the dialogues not being a real Socrates in this sense.)

The best the other side(s) have to offer: the intellectually honest, learned, clear, sane, cant-free: your Evil Genius, the Moriarty to your Holmes (or the Holmes to your Moriarty). If you don't think anyone who thinks very differently from you fits this description, then...

Hmm, I can't even think of what to suggest you do. Because I don't care about you.

Don't go to the easy and the popular and the cheap on the other side. You don't have to set up straw men - this lowest-common-denominator world will offer them first. But go to your Evil Genius, and gaze into the Abyss, and see if the Abyss gazes into you. Don't approach them as a debater, an advocate, looking for their weaknesses - not at first, or only in passing. Look to their strengths and assent to everything you can. Now see where you are.

And go to the worst of your ideological allies, your Evil Twin, your doppleganger. The Half-Orc you. Look at them caricature your principled stand and cheapen it with fallacies and bathos. See them take your most cheished thoughts ad adsurdum, and realize that if you remain consistent you'll be heading down that path as well. Convex make-up mirrors don't just distort - they magnify, so you can see your blemishes. Look at who you might be. Tolstoy talked about not arguing with the opposite side, because the rhetorical acts inherent in it tend to falsify and exaggerate your arguments. You lie. I say: let someone else do it for you, before you get tangled in your own rhetorical web.

Rinse. Repeat. The rest of your life.

Late thought: if you can't think of anyone on your side who strikes you as despicable and/or moronic, I hope the implication about you is both obvious and somewhat troubling. Even if you believe, as R.A. Lafferty ironically put it: "Salvation is better than smart answers."

First Principles

2004-11-30T17:58:00.000-08:00

Any reciprocal ethical system, where the demands and conditions are the same for all parties, depends on the phrasing of the principles it seeks to mediates. The Golden Rule - do unto others as you would have them do unto you - and the slightly more sophisticated Kantian Categorical Imperative - act as if your actions were general practice - are as amenable to this as the rest. Consider:

Destroy great evildoers.
Destroy those you know to be are great evildoers.
Destroy those a certain level/type of evidence proves to you are great evildoers.
Destroy those whom a certain authority declares to be great evildoers.

Now consider the ability of those in power to define the terms of the debate by using even less tranparent rules, and always in their own favor. Consider how few Orwells are among us.

In the Ruins of My Study

2004-11-28T13:01:00.000-08:00

Despite the former window now littering the horizontal surfaces of my room, there's plenty of room on the desk and chair to unpack my cryptic sentences. Upon request.