California is considering a single payer health care system. Unlike Vermont, which is a small market, a successful single payer system in California would be strong evidence that the plan is viable in a broader US context.
In the long run, containing health care costs is a major issue. While I am sure that there are alternatives to the US and Canadian systems, it is hard to argue with the better outcomes and lower costs of a single payer system. I suspect that they are even more attractive to a state like California which has a long history of budget issues.
Sunday, May 22, 2011
The end of the world as seen by Basil Wolverton
With another failed doomsday prediction in the news, I thought this might be appropriate.
To anyone over forty, Basil Wolverton was the artist behind those unforgettable comic caricatures that were featured on countless magazine covers and posters, drawn in what Wolverton himself called "spaghetti and meatballs style."
But Wolverton's favorite subjects were directly or indirectly biblical. As an elder in Herbert Armstrong's Radio Church of God, Wolverton was immersed both in scripture and in the apocalyptic conclusions Armstrong drew from it.
Wolverton produced a number of wonderful drawings based on Bible scenes. He also provided the amazing illustrations for Armstrong's pamphlet "1975 in Prophesy." Here are a couple of examples. (You can see more at Mippyville.)
p.s. Wolverton was also a huge (and acknowledged) influence on R. Crumb. This story has some particularly good examples of some similarities.
To anyone over forty, Basil Wolverton was the artist behind those unforgettable comic caricatures that were featured on countless magazine covers and posters, drawn in what Wolverton himself called "spaghetti and meatballs style."
But Wolverton's favorite subjects were directly or indirectly biblical. As an elder in Herbert Armstrong's Radio Church of God, Wolverton was immersed both in scripture and in the apocalyptic conclusions Armstrong drew from it.
Wolverton produced a number of wonderful drawings based on Bible scenes. He also provided the amazing illustrations for Armstrong's pamphlet "1975 in Prophesy." Here are a couple of examples. (You can see more at Mippyville.)
p.s. Wolverton was also a huge (and acknowledged) influence on R. Crumb. This story has some particularly good examples of some similarities.
Weekend pop culture blogging -- comic strip edition
Monty by Jim Meddick.
Nice photomontage effect, by the way.
Nice photomontage effect, by the way.
The headline alone makes it worth clicking the link
But if you have any interest in the rabbit hole of intellectual property law, you should read the post as well.
While you're there, check out this one as well.
Both from Dean Baker.
While you're there, check out this one as well.
Both from Dean Baker.
Saturday, May 21, 2011
How to lie with statistics -- the category category
It's amazing the conclusions you can manage if you get to define your own categories.
From Krugman:
From Krugman:
So it’s good to have Mike Konczal reminding us that Pinto’s definition of “subprime-like” mortgages is just something he made up — and that it turns out that his supposed high-risk categories weren’t that risky at all, that in fact they look more like traditional conforming mortgages than like true subprime:
Dana Goldstein actually visits LA
Which is a bigger deal than you might think. LA County is a huge (over 4,000 square miles) but most visiting journalists (and more than a few who actually take up residence) see only a tiny and highly unrepresentative sliver of the area.
Goldstein has actually made it out into the town and is getting a glimpse of LA the way most Angelenos see it.
Now if she just makes it to Al and Bea's.
Goldstein has actually made it out into the town and is getting a glimpse of LA the way most Angelenos see it.
Now if she just makes it to Al and Bea's.
Preblogging energy
James Kwak has a follow-up to his previously noted biomass post. I'll be referring to both in a post I'm working on:
Wow. Power plants have only a minuscule impact on emissions? In 2005, electricity generation was responsible for 73 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions, 21 percent of nitrogen oxides emissions, and 11 percent of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) emissions. And biomass plants are less efficient, per BTU, than plants that burn coal or natural gas.I'll also be mentioning biochar. Here's a relevant passage from Wikipedia:
Biochar may be a substance mostly suited to severely weathered and deprived soils (low pH, absent potassium, low or no humus). Clearly, there is the real potential for carbon sequestration, simply because biochar is so stable and is not accessible to normal microbial decay. Soils require active carbon to maintain micro and macro populations, not the inactive form found in biochar. Biochar can prevent the leaching of nutrients out of the soil, partly because it absorbs and immobilizes certain amounts of nutrients, however, too much immobilization can be harmful. It has been reported to increase the available nutrients for plant growth, but also depress them increase water retention, and reduce the amount of fertilizer required. Additionally, it has been shown to decrease N2O (Nitrous oxide) and CH4 (methane) emissions from soil, thus further reducing GHG emissions. Although it is far from a perfect solution in all economies, biochar can be utilized in many applications as a replacement for or co-terminous strategy with other bioenergy production strategies.If you're curious, you might also want to check out this this NPR story and this news release from Eurekalert.
Weekend Gaming -- that other chess set is just sitting there
Back at the turn of the millennium when I was wasting away in the suburban hell of [redacted], I found myself killing a lot of time at the Borders down the street. Most days there would be a old man sitting at one of the tables with two chess sets set up up side by side with the edges of the boards touching. At the side of the table was a hand lettered sign inviting people to try the new game, superchess.
I never had the heart to tell him that the game he invented had been around for decades. That's not to say chess with twice the pieces on an 8x16 board isn't a good idea. It's a simple but elegant variation on the game and since, unlike most fairy chess, almost all of the moves and rules are unchanged, it stays remarkably true to the original game.
You move your pieces just as you normally would, only over a board that's twice as wide. You can't castle but other than that the only difference is the objective. Here you have two choices. The more common seems to be where the winner is the first to capture both opposing kings but I prefer playing for first blood (first player to capture a king wins).
You can find a more detailed discussion here or you can just grab a couple of boards and jump right in. As a chess variant, it's not as interesting as hexagonal chess but it's still definitely worth a try.
I never had the heart to tell him that the game he invented had been around for decades. That's not to say chess with twice the pieces on an 8x16 board isn't a good idea. It's a simple but elegant variation on the game and since, unlike most fairy chess, almost all of the moves and rules are unchanged, it stays remarkably true to the original game.
You move your pieces just as you normally would, only over a board that's twice as wide. You can't castle but other than that the only difference is the objective. Here you have two choices. The more common seems to be where the winner is the first to capture both opposing kings but I prefer playing for first blood (first player to capture a king wins).
You can find a more detailed discussion here or you can just grab a couple of boards and jump right in. As a chess variant, it's not as interesting as hexagonal chess but it's still definitely worth a try.
Friday, May 20, 2011
"Economists are the rapiest profession going"
Jon Stewart vs. Ben Stein.
It's like Bambi vs. Godzilla would have been been if you came into it really disliking Bambi.
It's like Bambi vs. Godzilla would have been been if you came into it really disliking Bambi.
Andrew Ross Sorkin is not helping
At least not with reporting like this:
But let's assume, just for the sake of argument, that we are talking about taxable income. Even if we make that assumption, the higher rate would only apply to twelve thousand dollars. Please check my math on this, but it looks like going from 33% to 39.6% would mean something around an eight hundred dollar increase.
Eight hundred dollars. Eight hundred dollars to someone who is probably bringing in close to three hundred thousand in gross income. Eight hundred dollars to someone living in a town where dinner for two at a nice restaurant can easily run you four hundred.
It's true that the writers and the editors of the NYT have always been deeply moved by the hardships of Manhattanites but even Sulzberger would draw the line at making this big of a deal over this small an amount of money. That's why Sorkin (in a story rich with specific figures) chose not to run this particular number.
Sorkin's "Rich and Sort of Rich" is standard NYT things-are-complex, both-sides-have-point, look-at-how-objective-I-am journalism, but if you actually clear away rather than add to the confusion about marginal rates and taxable income, the whole story collapses.
Sorkin is a smart and experienced financial journalist which makes this sort of shoddy reporting even less forgiveable.
[Joseph and I have been hacking away at this for a couple of days now. You can find the rest of the thread here, here and here.]
Whatever the policy debates, households at President Obama’s dividing line might be wealthy, but that doesn’t mean they feel wealthy.Are we talking about taxable income here? The writing isn't very clear on this point and I couldn't get the link to work, so I would be inclined to assume that the phrase "household income" refers to the money coming into the household. If that's the case, then Obama's proposed tax increases wouldn't affect Mason at all.
On a Yahoo message board, a poster named Mason, who lives in Manhattan with two young children, said his household income was $262,000. “I understand the need to raise taxes,” he wrote, “but I don’t understand why people like us are lumped in with millionaires and billionaires.”
But let's assume, just for the sake of argument, that we are talking about taxable income. Even if we make that assumption, the higher rate would only apply to twelve thousand dollars. Please check my math on this, but it looks like going from 33% to 39.6% would mean something around an eight hundred dollar increase.
Eight hundred dollars. Eight hundred dollars to someone who is probably bringing in close to three hundred thousand in gross income. Eight hundred dollars to someone living in a town where dinner for two at a nice restaurant can easily run you four hundred.
It's true that the writers and the editors of the NYT have always been deeply moved by the hardships of Manhattanites but even Sulzberger would draw the line at making this big of a deal over this small an amount of money. That's why Sorkin (in a story rich with specific figures) chose not to run this particular number.
Sorkin's "Rich and Sort of Rich" is standard NYT things-are-complex, both-sides-have-point, look-at-how-objective-I-am journalism, but if you actually clear away rather than add to the confusion about marginal rates and taxable income, the whole story collapses.
Sorkin is a smart and experienced financial journalist which makes this sort of shoddy reporting even less forgiveable.
[Joseph and I have been hacking away at this for a couple of days now. You can find the rest of the thread here, here and here.]
Tax Policy
Mark has been discussing the concerns about the hardship that tax increases would inflict on those with an income exceeding $250,000 per year. In part I think that this line of discussion began with Greg Mankiw trying to use himself as an example of a person who might do less labor if the marginal tax rate increased. There were a number of great points brought up as to why this example had issues: see here, here, and here.
There was a second economics professor who also made similar claims although I found them a bit harder to evaluate as the example was not as clear. This argument seemed to be more about how hard this person would find it to make cutbacks rather than a specific example of how he would become less productive.
Yesterday,Noahpinion linked to a great article by Karl Smith that went to the heart of this discussion. The argument was whether tax increases (at the sort of marginal rates we currently have) really depress productivity. Karl Smith made a number of arguments that were worth considering, including:
But the piece is a must read in the entirety. The key argument here, though, is whether the extremely small tax increases that are under discussion (a raise in the marginal tax rate for the highest income bracket from 36% to 39.6%) is really likely to make high income Americans less productive. Because if these tax increases don't disincent work and we accept that government finances really are a mess then the tax hikes seem to be a logical way to "share the cost of these increases".
But I also think that these points don't necessarily go far enough. Are we really convinced that a small decrease in productivity among the wealthy will be that devastating? What is the source of productivity in the American economy? Is it highly paid CEOs, hedge fund managers, lawyers and medical doctors, or is it the majority of workers who drive productivity?
I think it is essential to get this correct. A top down model of an economy (where the people at the top make the key decisions and are responsible for the output) did poorly in Soviet Russia. A bottom up theory of economic gains seems to make a lot more sense and that suggests that small productivity losses among the wealthy are not a serious concern.
It is worth emphasizing that, at this time, I am aware of two proposals to increase the tax rates of the wealthy: increasing the amount of wages on which FICA can be charged and returning to Clinton-era tax rates. Neither of these increases is a vast change in the marginal tax rate of this group. Clearly there are tax increases that would cause issues, but we can handle those when they show up and not now when all of the possible rates under discussion are sane.
The last example that people tend to bring up is innovation and how important it is to reward innovators. Now, as part of a first principle I would like to point out that the innovator is not always the person who profits the most from an invention (consider Nikola Tesla). But it is also worth noting, as Mark points out, that copyright law already provides enormous rewards for intellectual property holders.
So I think we should look to balance harms. Recent events have included layoffs of government workers into a economy with an extremely high unemployment rate. Are we sure that the consequences of a large body of long term unemployed workers will be better than that of small increases in tax rates?
There was a second economics professor who also made similar claims although I found them a bit harder to evaluate as the example was not as clear. This argument seemed to be more about how hard this person would find it to make cutbacks rather than a specific example of how he would become less productive.
Yesterday,Noahpinion linked to a great article by Karl Smith that went to the heart of this discussion. The argument was whether tax increases (at the sort of marginal rates we currently have) really depress productivity. Karl Smith made a number of arguments that were worth considering, including:
Third, high income people don’t seem to be working that much more than low income people despite the fact that a natural propensity towards work can make one high income.
Indeed, the data show us that low income folks used to work a little more, but now they work a little less than high income folks. Yet, if the income and substitution effects were balanced for each person we would still expect higher income people to work more.
That’s because working hard can lead to more education, more experience and more promotions. Being hard working is also associated with having a conscientious personality type which is itself more valuable.
So if someone was simply born with a stronger propensity to work, we would expect that person to earn more income per hour. Thus we when look at the data we should see that all these high income people are working lots of hours.
Yet, we actually don’t see that. We see only a mild effect and even then that effect is not robust over time. Sometimes, high income folks are working less.
But the piece is a must read in the entirety. The key argument here, though, is whether the extremely small tax increases that are under discussion (a raise in the marginal tax rate for the highest income bracket from 36% to 39.6%) is really likely to make high income Americans less productive. Because if these tax increases don't disincent work and we accept that government finances really are a mess then the tax hikes seem to be a logical way to "share the cost of these increases".
But I also think that these points don't necessarily go far enough. Are we really convinced that a small decrease in productivity among the wealthy will be that devastating? What is the source of productivity in the American economy? Is it highly paid CEOs, hedge fund managers, lawyers and medical doctors, or is it the majority of workers who drive productivity?
I think it is essential to get this correct. A top down model of an economy (where the people at the top make the key decisions and are responsible for the output) did poorly in Soviet Russia. A bottom up theory of economic gains seems to make a lot more sense and that suggests that small productivity losses among the wealthy are not a serious concern.
It is worth emphasizing that, at this time, I am aware of two proposals to increase the tax rates of the wealthy: increasing the amount of wages on which FICA can be charged and returning to Clinton-era tax rates. Neither of these increases is a vast change in the marginal tax rate of this group. Clearly there are tax increases that would cause issues, but we can handle those when they show up and not now when all of the possible rates under discussion are sane.
The last example that people tend to bring up is innovation and how important it is to reward innovators. Now, as part of a first principle I would like to point out that the innovator is not always the person who profits the most from an invention (consider Nikola Tesla). But it is also worth noting, as Mark points out, that copyright law already provides enormous rewards for intellectual property holders.
So I think we should look to balance harms. Recent events have included layoffs of government workers into a economy with an extremely high unemployment rate. Are we sure that the consequences of a large body of long term unemployed workers will be better than that of small increases in tax rates?
"This really isn't about the hunting, is it, Bob?"* -- more on just scraping by on a quarter mil
Comments to my recent post on getting by on $250,000 (which was itself basically a comment on this excellent piece by Felix Salmon) picked up on the fact that, for people making a little over 250K in taxable income, the actual increase in taxes paid under the Obama plan would be remarkably small. This raises an obvious question: why do we keep hearing about the hardship on people making less than 300K when hardly any of the increase falls on this bracket?
The answer I suspect has less to do with math and more to do with marketing.
Sympathy for financial hardship is almost always inversely related to wealth and income. It's hard to feel all that sorry for someone who makes more money than you and yet has trouble keeping the bills paid.
For most of us, a quarter million in income takes you to the far outer edge of the sympathy zone. It seems like a lot of money but you might be able to convince some people (particularly, say, well-paid Manhattanites) that it was possible for a non-extravagant family to have a combined income of 250K and still not have much of a buffer at the end of the year.
Unfortunately for people lobbying to keep the Bush tax cuts, that 250K family wouldn't actually pay any additional taxes if the cuts expired. Neither would a 260K family or a 270K family (assuming those numbers are gross). Because we're talking about taxable income and marginal rates, a family's gross would have to be closer to 400K than to 250K in order to see anything more than a trivial increase.
If you're trying to make an emotional pitch for the Bush tax cuts this creates a problem: the only people significantly affected by the increase are those well outside of the sympathy zone. You can't expand the zone (the suggestion that many families making a quarter of a million were just getting by was met with considerable derision. Upping the number by another hundred thousand is a no starter). The other option is to focus on families making between 250K and 300K while downplaying the actual magnitude of the increase on these families.
Of course, that second option does require an overly compliant press corps that will simply parrot the releases of various think tanks without attempting to correct the false impressions they give. Fortunately for the tax cut supporters, that doesn't seem to be a problem.
* punchline to an old and very dirty joke.
The answer I suspect has less to do with math and more to do with marketing.
Sympathy for financial hardship is almost always inversely related to wealth and income. It's hard to feel all that sorry for someone who makes more money than you and yet has trouble keeping the bills paid.
For most of us, a quarter million in income takes you to the far outer edge of the sympathy zone. It seems like a lot of money but you might be able to convince some people (particularly, say, well-paid Manhattanites) that it was possible for a non-extravagant family to have a combined income of 250K and still not have much of a buffer at the end of the year.
Unfortunately for people lobbying to keep the Bush tax cuts, that 250K family wouldn't actually pay any additional taxes if the cuts expired. Neither would a 260K family or a 270K family (assuming those numbers are gross). Because we're talking about taxable income and marginal rates, a family's gross would have to be closer to 400K than to 250K in order to see anything more than a trivial increase.
If you're trying to make an emotional pitch for the Bush tax cuts this creates a problem: the only people significantly affected by the increase are those well outside of the sympathy zone. You can't expand the zone (the suggestion that many families making a quarter of a million were just getting by was met with considerable derision. Upping the number by another hundred thousand is a no starter). The other option is to focus on families making between 250K and 300K while downplaying the actual magnitude of the increase on these families.
Of course, that second option does require an overly compliant press corps that will simply parrot the releases of various think tanks without attempting to correct the false impressions they give. Fortunately for the tax cut supporters, that doesn't seem to be a problem.
* punchline to an old and very dirty joke.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
What Rick Santorum had to say about fiscal responsibility in 2003
From the Hill via Krugman:
“I came to the House as a real deficit hawk, but I am no longer a deficit hawk,” said Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.). “I’ll tell you why. I had to spend the surpluses. Deficits make it easier to say no.”It's important to remember these things.
"The Problem with Biomass, Part 1"
I'll be referring to this in a future post.
From James Kwak:
From James Kwak:
Did you know that my wife is a “high-paid consultant” for the shadowy anti-biomass movement? Neither did I — and I’m the one who handles all of our finances, so I should know.Last night she testified at a hearing held by the Springfield City Council, which is considering revoking the permit of Palmer Renewable Energy (PRE) to build a biomass plant in Springfield. PRE was granted a special zoning permit to build the plant in 2008. Since then, PRE has increased the amount of fuel it intends to burn (meaning, among other things, that more diesel trucks will have to drive in and out to deliver the material) and changed the type of fuel from construction and demolition debris to “green wood chips” (which matters because the plant was initially permitted as a recycling facility).*
My wife, a professor of environmental economics and econometrics, testified about the link between emissions (from power plants and diesel trucks) and illness, particularly asthma. At the hearing, one of PRE’s witnesses claimed not to know where my wife was “getting” the idea that air pollution can cause asthma. (In a newspaper article, PRE had this to say about asthma: “Valberg said there are many theories on the causes of asthma, and that indoor air quality in homes and schools is actually more of concern than outdoor air. For opponents to state that the project will worsen asthma rates ‘is just not scientifically accurate,’ Valberg said.”)
Well. Many, many studies have linked outdoor air pollution to asthma incidence or morbidity (Mortimer 2002, McConnell 2006, Ho 2007, Islam 2007, Loyo-Berrios 2007, Halonen 2008, O’Connor 2008 (summary here); Islam 2008 reviews studies of traffic-related asthma; Patel 2009 reviews studies of childhood asthma) and to bad cardiopulmonary health in general (Samet 2000, Pope 2002, Vedal 2003). I could come up with lots more citations, but you get the point.
...
Recently, the biomass developers have been arguing that they are the victims of a high-paid, high-powered, shadowy network of environmental activists. See for example this Springfield Republican article that largely repackages PRE’s talking points; its lead is “The developers of a proposed 35-megawatt wood-burning plant in East Springfield say the opposition to their project is well-organized, determined and well-funded.” (The Biomass Power Association blames a “small, vocal, extreme minority.”)
Well, I can tell you that my wife drove down to Springfield after work, spent four hours at the meeting, came home late at night, missed dinner, and didn’t get paid a cent.
* There is a legal issue about the standard necessary to justify revoking a permit that has already been granted, but that’s not relevant for this blog post.
Sympathy for the financially inept
Felix Salmon does a great job dismantling the latest wave of "how can I possibly get by on a quarter mil" stories (Jonathan Chait also has a suitably snark-filled take on the subject, though unfortunately it's behind the TNR paywall). Salmon takes apart the bad math, the poor reasoning and the general offensiveness of these articles so thoroughly that there's not much to add on the general level but I do have this one locale-specific observation.
I've lived in LA for a number of years with an income that has bounced from low (parochial school teacher) to high (corporate statistician) to really low (writer and board game designer), so I can tell you from experience that any individual who can't live well in this town on 100K is either incredibly extravagant or ridiculously bad with money. I can also say from experience that you can get by on thirty (barring the unexpected) and be quite comfortable at sixty.
If you're an Angelino and you're a individual who makes six figures or a member of a household with a combined income of over a quarter of a mil and you still find yourself in the red at the end of the year (barring special circumstance like a sudden drop in income, major illness, or the birth of a special needs child), you should admit to yourself that you have a problem and either seek financial counselling or consider finding someone to make your money decisions for you.
I've lived in LA for a number of years with an income that has bounced from low (parochial school teacher) to high (corporate statistician) to really low (writer and board game designer), so I can tell you from experience that any individual who can't live well in this town on 100K is either incredibly extravagant or ridiculously bad with money. I can also say from experience that you can get by on thirty (barring the unexpected) and be quite comfortable at sixty.
If you're an Angelino and you're a individual who makes six figures or a member of a household with a combined income of over a quarter of a mil and you still find yourself in the red at the end of the year (barring special circumstance like a sudden drop in income, major illness, or the birth of a special needs child), you should admit to yourself that you have a problem and either seek financial counselling or consider finding someone to make your money decisions for you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)