American Paradox

See http://www.boingboing.net/2007/11/07/mlb-rips-off-fans-wh.html

This is precisely what I fear with DRM technologies. You don't ever have a property interest in what you are buying. Plus, you can never be certain how much you are benefiting the actual "owner" of intellectual property when you purchase DRM-addled media from a conglomerate. It's not clear to me that these technologies have any use other than polluting the market with low-quality, hard-to-use, hard-to-transfer media that is not cost-justified.

That's all.

"What a new progressive movement needs can be simply stated: more socialism."


Sadly, this article about the problems of Progressive politics could have been really good. Instead, it castigated democratic capitalism (the predominant Anglo-American form of government) as not socialist enough. What the article failed to note was that by saying such, it was really saying that democratic capitalism was not controlling enough.

Let's take the characterizations the author (Ronald Aronson, whoever he is) makes about what he variously terms "individualism" or "capitalism." Aronson says that "unequal schools, the rising costs of higher education, the growing gap in living conditions between well-off and poor, the abolition of the estate tax encouraging a plutocracy--all heighten the system's unfairness." These specific complaints about our capitalist democracy are grossly misplaced -- Aronson would be better off complaining about health care quality and access, or perhaps the Iraq war. But on these grounds he has little to stand on.

School Inequality: We currently have a massive public school system, with a mandate from the Supreme Court to integrate (albeit flagging in its potency, see e.g. the recent desegregation decisions in Seattle and Kentucky), and a huge investment by local communities (based on property taxes, mostly) and states to sustaining equal public access to education. What we also have is a flawed "opt-out" system for parents wishing to place their children in private or religious alternative schools for the betterment of their children. These alternative schools can generally only be afforded by the upper-middle and upper-class. Why is this? The left wing is insistent that everyone attend public schools, and that no state money go towards any alternative schools. They maintain this despite the fact that government-run schools are precisely the weakest schools in the nation, as well as some of the strongest. The problem is that it is hit or miss. You can live in a place with excellent public schools (suburban Minneapolis-Saint Paul) or you can live in a place with terrible public schools (examples abound, but inner city Minneapolis is an example I am familiar with).

So what is the private, capitalist solution to this problem? Make vouchers available for the poor and working class, to send their children to public schools (who would then get the money) or alternative private/religious options of the parents' choice. This is an option based on enabling the freedom of educational choice for the lower classes -- and it is opposed in a knee-jerk fashion by the left. Why? It undermines the left's insistence that everyone go to public schools, and that the only solution to the failure of the public schools in many rural and inner city areas is to pour more money into those failing programs, as though money itself will save the day. So I'm not sure what is "progressive" about Aronson's implied assault on school choice proposals other than the huge "progressive" taxes that would be needed to support more "equal" schools.

Rising cost of higher education: This is spurred by excessive government subsidization of student loans, as well as the foolish insistence of the left that "everyone should go to college." Nothing could be further from the truth: there are many people I know who should not have gone to college, because their career goals will only be held back four years by attending, because their careers do not require college degrees, or because they wish to be entrepreneurs and college is a waste of investment. Thus, the artificially higher demand for schools, combined with the artificially high amount of loan support for students of lesser means (which may be a good egalitarian policy with a flawed execution) means that colleges are free to raise tuition at will. Higher demand = higher aggregate price in the market for higher education. Simple economics predicts this, ceteris paribus. It's unclear how Aronson's socialist policies would change this system, except to encourage price ceilings on higher education, with disastrous results (rationing, lower wages for professors, leading to supply problems).

Gap between rich and poor, growing: I used to think the existence of a wider "gap" itself was a bad thing. Then I asked myself, "Why?" It turns out that everything I worry about regarding such a gap has to do with how the poor are doing, not with the existence of the gap itself. There can be a gigantic gap between trillionaires and those without jobs, but if in that hypothetical society the unemployed and working poor are still doing quite well, then who cares? So the point is empowering the poor's earning potential and making sure consumer goods are cheap for them to purchase, not in worrying about some "gap." And as capitalist democrats would point out, a freer market gradually lowers the price of basic commodities (see: Wal-Mart, Target, CostCo, et al.) for everyone, including the poor. Individualist policies also promote the poor by lowering taxes to negative values (the EITC, for example), and preventing price floors from artificially lowering the aggregate demand in the labor market (not adopting "living wage" programs, for example). So, absent some evidence that these denigrated "market-based" or "individualist" solutions actually make the poor worse off, I don't see what Aronson is getting at.

The Estate Tax: This is a restraint on the transfer of investments across generations. Basically, Aronson wants government control of inheritance, letting elected politicians decide who is "too rich" to pass on his full wealth to his children. In contrast, individualists claim personal freedom as the source of appropriate policy in this area: individualists of any wealth should be able to pass on their wealth. It's a social choice, between freedom and control-based-on-envy. Hard to make, but there is no presumption in favor of control. I'm not sure Aronson actually wants to put this argument to the American people, most of whom do not subscribe to the "wealth should be punished" philosophy of leveling.

Conclusions: I'm not sure the specific "socialist" controls on economic and social choice that Aronson favors would make people better-off. It seems to me that what he is opposing in all these areas is wealth-generating freedom of choice, in favor of top-down control of people's decision making made by expert bureaucrats and politicians. In fact, that is precisely the problem with full-blown and even marginal socialist efforts. Real democracy usually rejects such efforts over time when they are proven failures.

"...Tell Bill Clinton to go and inhale" - Cypress Hill, "I Want to Get High"

Given the widespread dissatisfaction with our Nation's drug laws, you would think that some intrepid news organization would be trying to find out which of the candidates for President in 2008 will be receiving the "drug vote." But alas, no one will cover this area because it is simply too controversial for the middle-aged white suburban housewife -- the target audience of evening news programs. Apparently these are the only people on the planet who still believe that a minimum of 15 years in prison is proportionate to the offense of selling two ounces of marijuana, a substance without a meaningful LD-50.

How widespread is the dissatisfaction with drug laws? Why are people dissatisfied? According to Citizens Against Prohibition, there are at least 40 million Americans who believe that drug prohibition is the wrong policy for America. This might be because even the conservative, Government propaganda-oriented agencies that track usage information estimate that 20% of Adults between 20 and 59 have tried Cocaine "or other street drugs" during their lifetime. In other words, of those people who have tried illicit drugs of any type (a lot of Americans), a large majority of them probably do not view the consequences of their drug use as exceeding the costs of proscribing it. But even so, there are plenty of people who have never used illicit drugs who believe that prohibition is a losing strategy for American public policy.

People who know virtually anything about the effects of the great Drug War in this country also tend to be in favor of its ceasing immediately, or at least fading away into a drug abuse treatment regime, not a criminalization regime. There are probably four reasons for this that I can think of, of the top of my head (though research would certainly disclose more):

1. The high levels of enforcement in drug interdiction at our borders has the undisputed economic effect of increasing the cost of drugs due to artifical scarcity (lower market supply --> higher market prices), which means higher profits for drug sellers, higher levels of crime by users to attain the funds necessary for now-high cost drugs, and more violent conflicts with law enforcement.
2. Drug prohibition has the same effect as alcohol prohibition for so-called "minors" under the Age of 21, leading to secretive use (to avoid detection by zealous law enforcement agents) and avoidance of treatment for complications and addiction, as well as making illicit drug use "cool" among Teenagers and college students, simply because it is forbidden.
3. The distinction between abuse of legal drugs (alcohol) and illegal drugs (marijuana, primarily) is very hard to make medically, and there is significant evidence that drugs such as marijuana are far less physically addictive than alcohol, and have less deleterious effects on the development of liver disease or cancer.
4. Drug enforcement is statistically very racist, with higher penalties for drugs that African-Americans more commonly use (e.g., crack cocaine) than for drugs that rich, white investment bankers typically use (e.g., powdered cocaine), differences that have never been rationally explained by anyone in law enforcement or the legislature.

Who gets the "Drug Vote"? Which major candidate, then, should an advocate of repealing prohibition favor? Analysis is hard, particularly since both the mainstream parties in the United States (Democratic and Republican) are firmly in favor of drug prohibition and the waste of billions of federal tax dollars on creating a crime-ridden distorted market for substances the American people want and will always want. But here are some thoughts on the major candidates for office in 2008:

Hillary Clinton: Probably in favor of the status quo, given her husband's strong support of the Drug War, and no indications that she would do anything to upset her attempt at courting the "moderate" American housewife for her electoral strategy.
Barack Obama: More likely than most candidates to feel some sympathy for the facts. Having worked as a lawyer and also being African-American, Obama has probably seen the horrible effect of federal drug policy on inner-city Black America, and can also appreciate the economic nonsense that is the Drug War. He has also admitted to smoking Marijuana in his autobiographical book, "Dreams of My Father." However, these speculations are easily countered by the fact that little is known of Obama's positions except that they are always moderate and centrist, which would tend to support continuation of a vigorous form of prohibition.
John Edwards: Because Edwards has always declared positions that are socially moderate but economically fairly letist, it is hard to tell where he falls on the drug war. For instance, he says he is "not quite there yet" in response to his wife's support for civil unions between homosexuals. It's not entirely clear what that means, but before one is ready to roll-up the Drug War, one probably would be ready first to support civil unions, which have majority support in the country and are on the upswing in any event. However, he has received some plaudits from drug legalization groups for his positions on drug legislation, has voted against increased penalties for drug dealers, and has admitted to using drugs in the past. Edwards has also directly addressed the disparity between crack-powder drug sentencing in this country, something few politicians have addressed. On the other hand, he did very little in the Senate to move towards an end to prohibition.
Rudy Giuliani: Undoubtedly a hard-liner against the drug war. In any case, he has to be, since his other stances on social issues are far too liberal for the conservative base (hints of pro-choice and pro-gay-rights).
Mitt Romney: Unclear, but again the fact is that no Republican can be elected and stay alive very long with supporting a full-on war against drugs. It just won't happen in this country.
John McCain: Track record of supporting pro-drug war legislation. Pretty clear on this point. Wants to increase penalties -- however that would be possible? -- for selling drugs.

So who gets the drug vote? I would say either Obama or Edwards, at this point. There is no sure-fire way to tell, but only those two show any inkling of a possible interest in reconfiguring inane government expenditures that lead to far more problems than they solve.

Labels: 2008 Campaign, drugs

Senator Brownback has written a defense of his decision to raise his hand at the recent Republican candidates debate when the question was asked, Who among you does not believe in the theory of evolution?

Good news, on the one hand. We always want the most fringe beliefs to stand out so they can be defeated by reasoned democracy. But let's break down Brownback's N.Y. Times column:

"IN our sound-bite political culture, it is unrealistic to expect that every complicated issue will be addressed with the nuance or subtlety it deserves."

So he's learned from the George Will school of political journalism, Technique #1: Always begin a column with a platitude no one will disagree with. Then proceed with the crazy.

"The premise behind the question seems to be that if one does not unhesitatingly assert belief in evolution, then one must necessarily believe that God created the world and everything in it in six 24-hour days."

That's a fair point, but let's be honest about what we're talking about: People who reject Evolution almost invariably do because of religious convictions about creation. Why dodge the scary truth that you disagree with science because it scares you, Brownback?

"I believe wholeheartedly that there cannot be any contradiction between the two [faith and reason]."

This is mind-boggingly stupid. I might say that I believe that Loki is guiding President Bush in his war-making efforts. But the fact is, reason tells me there is NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that Loki is guiding anyone's actions, or that Loki exists. An act of "faith" would be believing in Loki, let alone praying to him, despite the evidence or in the face of a lack of evidence (Note: it is not clear that any Norsemen ever prayed to Loki either, but this is a moot point). Isn't ignoring empirical evidence or a lack thereof per se unreasonable?

"More than that, faith — not science — can help us understand the breadth of human suffering or the depth of human love."

Actually, science has made a lot of strides towards understanding human love (as mediated by a series of chemicals that mostly have to do with the overriding urge for us to get laid, repeatedly) and human suffering (you could say the entire field of psychiatry is devoted to understanding human suffering scientifically).

"If, on the other hand, it means assenting to an exclusively materialistic, deterministic vision of the world that holds no place for a guiding intelligence, then I reject it. "

Most "believers" in evolution are perfectly content to think it is possible for a deist God to have created the singularity that began the universe, defined scientific laws, and then pressed the green "GO" button, while he stepped back and watched the supernovae. Brownback clearly has never spoken to a scientist who believes in evolution so that he would understand this subtlety. Wait a second -- I thought the whole point of this column was to delve into subtleties?!?

"Yet I believe, as do many biologists and people of faith, that the process of creation — and indeed life today — is sustained by the hand of God in a manner known fully only to him."

Seriously? "[K]nown fully only to him"? First of all, that's unproveable and not the subject of science. Macroevolution at least CAN be proved, though we don't have the instruments or the record for it at the present time, but discovering truths knowable only to some divine being who gives no evidence of his presence in this universe is very different. Where is this "hand of God" and why does it demand to be capitalized?

"I am wary of any theory that seeks to undermine man’s essential dignity and unique and intended place in the cosmos."

At least he tacitly admits that he rejects scientific theories because he has a predisposition to rejecting anything that conflicts with his faith. Too bad it's the wrong answer.

"While no stone should be left unturned in seeking to discover the nature of man’s origins, we can say with conviction that we know with certainty at least part of the outcome. Man was not an accident and reflects an image and likeness unique in the created order."

Reading this column is like watching a train wreck in slow motion. It's gratingly unpleasant, just like nails on a chalkboard -- the slower you read and the more you digest, the more you want to vomit. And it builds to this crescendo, where Brownback states with self-certainty that man was "not an accident." God, who allegedly endowed him with his penetrating insight and ability to reason, is laughing maniacally right now. Of course that is because the one true God is Loki, and anyone who disagrees clearly does not understand when science fails the human mind.

But seriously, who among us wants to believe that humans are purposeless beings, "accidents"? There is probably no psychological or material benefit to believing this unless... the evidence you have points to its being true. This is to say that scientists who believe that humanity has no purpose and was not created, probably did not come to that conclusion lightly or without trepidation. Whereas, believing in a Christian God-created universe makes us suspicious of bias: death is not the end of life, but a continuation thereof or perfection thereof; all moral quandaries were solved long ago and written into a perfect book by agents of God; and all questions to which there are not answers are left unanswered because God does not want us to have the answers. There you have it: no death, no moral problems, no reason to ask questions. Might we understand if some scientists, using their ability to reason, were skeptical that people who really, really want to believe these three consequences of Christian mythology might harbor biased conclusions about how the rest of the world works, especially in evaluating scientific theories that challenge their accepted memes?

Labels: creationism, election, evolution

If you have ever given a damn about free speech rights, artistic license, and rational decision-making by school administrators and the police, read this story.

So apparently this student in the suburbs wrote a "disturbing" essay that involved a school shooting, a subject which coincidentally has been in the news lately. This student did not specify any intent to commit a crime such as a assaulting or killing anyone, and intended the essay to be a joke, based on the "free writing" assignment he had been given by his teacher. A joke in bad taste? Maybe. But that should not lead to an arrest!

We have to expend police resources on investigating this? The cops say that "we need to be very vigilant today when we’re dealing with school settings." Or... we could use common sense and realize that someone writing a free writing essay who doesn't have a history of impulsive, criminal, or otherwise psychiatric problems is probably not prefacing a shooting incident. The hyperreactive police can perhaps be excused for acting on their political instincts and fearing retribution from the reactionary suburban public if they did not arrest this individual. Still, what a sad day for education, free speech, and our deteriorating standards of policing.

In any event, the police state would now have us watch what we write, because if we write a story that contains violence or a messed-up protagonist, apparently we become a threat to society.

I was sipping my gin and tonic tonight (heavy on the Bombay Sapphire, mind you) and thinking about how much I respect German soccer. See, culturally, there is some perverse tendency among English announcers (both American and British) to take sides against the Germans, whether it be in the World Cup or just Champion's League matches between German and Italian/Spanish/English squads.

What particularly irks me is that you can be sitting there, watching a match between Bayern Munchen and AC Milan this week -- a big match, mind you, between two powerhouse teams -- and the announcers are just so obviously in favor of the Italian team, Milan. I mean, the game is tight at 2-1 (Milan winning) towards the very end and the announcer is already declaring Nesta, a Milan player, the player of the match. Then BAM! Bayern scores with seconds left in stoppage time, and it is 2-2, a huge upset for Milan. Too bad the announcer barely registers the significance of this. In any event, I was pissed. This seems to always happen when you catch games with German teams playing non-German teams. What I would not give for a German announcer!

And at the World Cup this past summer, none of the big commentators expected the Germans to do very well, even though it was in Germany! Unfortunately for the lowered expectations crowd, Germany went on to finish Third, trouncing -- nay, destroying -- Portugal, the team of the ever-popular Christiano Ronaldo (who is highly overrated). That's right, Germany did better than Brazil.

I just think that German players are some of the least self-satisfied, harder working players in the world, unlike the overrated Brazilians, the diving Spaniards, or the dirty-playing Italians. I've no beef with the English, other than that their national squad cannot play for the life of them right now. If I had a good picture of me in my official German team jersey, I think I would post it. For now, you will have to settle for this...

Labels: soccer

(rambling)

I used to get very exercised by the thought of th widening gap between the richest 1% of this country and the poorest 30% (or any variation on those arbitrary percentages). To some degree, I still do: after all, in certain microeconomic situations, wealth is a zero sum game (though not in the aggregate economy, to be certain), and one robber baron's takings is a direct loss to workers' wages and benefits.

But it occurs to me, among many others, that economic inequality itself is nothing to worry about in the abstract. In particular societies, it can be an ill, of course. But the main thing I worry about is how the poor and the working class are doing. If the poor and working class in a country are able to reliably afford adequate shelter, food, clean water, educations for their children, health care, and find jobs if they want them, then that country is doing well, no matter what the inequality gap is. At least that is my judgment. Inequality can be rampant and amazing, but if the basic needs (of health and vocation) are met for pretty much everyone, who cares?

If, on the other hand, the worst-off and the second worst-off (the working class) cannot reliably obtain these things, then it makes a big difference that there are CEOs raking in $100 million or more in a single year for doing the same job that never used to pay that much, with no evidence of a productivity expansion in executive performance to show for it. That is to say, massive executive pay is wildly out of touch with what rational markets should be producing when it has no bearing to actual performance and only exists as a weird insider deal between Boards of Directors and "superstar" CEOs that has developed relatively recently. It has no bearing on actual performance because firms were doing just fine 20 years ago without paying their CEOs ridiculous sums of money relative to what they are now. So far, what it accomplishes is a wealth transfer from productive enterprise (the firm's capital, workers' benefits/pay, shareholder wealth) to CEOs who, while not needing the carrot, will be happy to buy another super-yacht with the money.

The upshot of this rambling is this: In the modern United States, I don't worry so much about executive pay and the widening gap between rich and poor as much as I worry about the health care crisis, horrible inner city and rural poverty, and the viability of having a high mobility middle class. I think the last part is the saddest of all because it is the promise of America: get an education and a job and work 80 hours a week and invest your money and you too could buy a house and go on European vacations. To the extent that high marginal taxes (ironically called "progressive" despite their dampening effects) have created work disincentives and made it difficult to break into this vision of the upper-middle class, our income tax system is a failure. But that is a topic for another day.

As long as there are ways to capture some of these mega-earnings and use it to fund direct transfer tax credits and grants along Milton Friedman lines (the "negative" income tax, et al.) then there is no reason society should not be attempting such transfers. Maybe the best way to do this is with a consumption tax, because I'm skeptical of progressive income taxes and believe them to be both destructive of income mobility and unfair in principle.

. . .

random biblical quotation to end on: "Deliver me not over unto the will of mine enemies: for false witnesses are risen up against me, and such as breathe out cruelty. " - Psalms 27:12

Labels: economics rant

Due to a convoluted train of thought, I got to reading the First Chapter of Job today. In my opinion, it makes me completely unimpressed with the Hebrew God (Yahweh), and I cannot understand why I would not prefer to worship a much better God like Odin after reading this. Read Job 1:1-22 here.

Job is a ridiculous story, and makes an even more ridiculous point. God is talking to Satan, and Satan challenges God with regard to his servant Job, saying that if God took from Job all that he possessed, then Job would curse God to his face. God disagrees, obviously, thinking Job to be a faithful servant. So what does God do in response to Satan's tacit wager? The God of the Hebrew Bible allows Satan to destroy the home above Job's children with wind, killing them all. God lets Satan send other tribes to come and take all of Job's animals and slay almost all of Job's servants. Job did nothing to deserve this, and there is no indication that this was bound to happen were it not for God's direct intervention in allowing Satan the power to ruin Job's life. The book does not say a single thing Job had done wrong. In fact, God supposedly allows this to come about as a result of a kind of bet with Satan. And God "wins" the bet, as Job does not curse God but instead prostrates himself before the Lord, praying to him -- this, after God was a party to the slaying of his children without reason and caused his servants and animals to be slain or stolen. How petty is the Hebrew God in this? He allows his faithful servant's entire life to be destroyed to prove a point about how faithful his servant is. This story displays three things to me: Job is a coward for not cursing God for malicious behavior that violates God's own Commandments ("Thou shalt not kill [even to win a bet with Satan]"); the Hebrew God is evil, for he has been a party to murder and theft to prove a point to Satan; and Satan ultimately triumphs here, as Satan basically tricks God into allowing him to commit a bunch of homicides and wreak havok on the life of one of God's most faithful servants. And if you don't believe God is guilty of murder, consider that he was aiding and abetting, by allowing Satan to slay Job's children and servants. I'd prosecute the Hebrew God under any modern penal code in a heartbeat, especially given his obvious power to prevent Satan's murders.

Go ahead, read Job 1:1 yourself and tell me that Odin ever did anything as deliberately evil as what God does to Job.

. . .

On a somewhat redeeming note, Job 21:20 does contain this awesome passage: "His eyes shall see his destruction, and he shall drink of the wrath of the Almighty."

Gregg Easterbrook (TNR writer, sometime Slate contributor) published a great article in Slate this past week, on the subject of University Physics departments and their unquestioning acceptance of "String Theory."

The backdrop for this article is the fact that at the top universities, each field of study tends to develop an unquestioned and close-minded paradigm, sometimes manifested as a particular theory of framework within which everyone must work. At least in some departments, there are two or three major frameworks, so that there is still intellectual rigor and argumentation. According to this article, that has not been the case for decades in theoretical physics. And based on my intuitions and perceptions of people I've known who are interested in physics, that is a dead-on accurate claim.

I used to be a theoretical physics nerd, and read lots of quasi-popular books on the subject. I remember when a friend of mine (similarly inclined) introduced me to the concept of 11-dimensional string theory, which purported to explain practically everything in theoretical physics that was interesting to a young physics nerd. It sounded great.

Apparently, I wasn't the only one -- university physics profs have adopted this idea as gospel, and according to the author of the new book mentioned in Easterbrook's article, a young physicist is committing career suicide if he disputes the model! All this without any evidence to speak of for the "theory."

I am pretty sympathetic to these types of claims, if only because academic types do tend to create an entrenched wayof thinking and defend it tooth and nail against interlopers, critics, and entrepreneurial thought by younger faculty. I've seen this happen in numerous fields, such as law and medicine.

Anyway, the article is a good read, if only to update you on the state of theoretical physics in the academy. I find experimental physics far more exciting these days - particle accelerators, new forms of matter, materials science - stuff that might actually help the world and our understanding of nature. Theoretical physics has sadly become a bit like priests in the ivory tower, dispensing their wisdom and silencing any critics of their 11-dimensional theory of being, time, and everything. At least, so it seems. I'd love to read a rejoinder by someone, showing that physics departments are far more open and critical of String Theory. But so far - nada.

I don't have a rant today or anything, so I thought I would post neat links and news items:
Good links or news items
Dumb state senator believes God saved him, implying God purposefully killed the other 47 passengers. And you wonder why Christianity gets a bad rap among the intelligentsia, when people say shit like this...

Too funny, middle-aged man walks through airport security with a vibrator in his pants, confuses TSA. Read the whole entry.

Salon's excellent article on "Forbidden Thoughts about 9/11." This should have been published in 2002, but even Salon lacks those cajones!

My new favorite random distraction online: Commercials I Hate.

British Police stop photographer under Anti-Terrorism Law, log his activities. The Western "War on Terror" has become such a ridiculous trope that it is not even worth hypothesizing about anymore - the truth is stranger than fiction.

That's all for now.