When it comes to the horse race, what do the people say?

It's possible to find exceptions but the general consensus among political scientists, poll aggregators and betting markets has generally been that Obama held a small but respectable lead. Journalists, on the other hand, seem to be contractually required to describe the race with some synonym for tied (only breaking the pattern occasionally to talk about Romney's momentum).

With that in mind, this quote from Andrew Kohut of Pew is particularly interesting...

RAZ: The popular vote. Yeah. Interestingly, when you asked voters who they think will win, 52 percent say Obama, just 32 percent say Romney.

KOHUT: Yes. That has been pretty consistent through this election. Obama is seen by average voters as the likely winner of the next election. That's another measure that's been a pretty good indicator of who will win the election. That is the candidate that the electorate thinks will win generally does win.

Life on 49-49

[Following up on this post, here are some more (barely) pre-election thoughts on how polls gang aft agley. I believe Jonathan Chait made some similar points. Some of Nate Silver's critics also wandered into some neighboring territory (with the important distinction that Chait understood the underlying concepts)]

Assume that there's an alternate world called Earth 49-49. This world is identical to ours in all but one respect: for almost all of the presidential campaign, 49% of the voters support Obama and 49% support Romney. There has been virtually no shift in who plans to vote for whom.

Despite this, all of the people on 49-49 believe that they're on our world, where large segments of the voters are shifting their support from Romney to Obama then from Obama to Romney. They weren't misled to this belief through fraud -- all of the polls were administered fairly and answered honestly -- nor was it a case of stupidity or bad analysis -- the political scientists on 49-49 are highly intelligent and conscientious -- rather it had to do with the nature of polling.

Pollsters had long tracked campaigns by calling random samples of potential voters. As campaign became more drawn out and journalistic focus shifted to the horse race aspects of election, these phone polls proliferated. At the same time, though, the response rates dropped sharply, going from more than one in three to less than one in ten.

A big drop in response rates always raises questions about selection bias since the change may not affect all segments of the population proportionally (more on that -- and this report -- later). It also increases the potential magnitude of these effects.

Consider these three scenarios. What would happen if you could do the following (in the first two cases, assume no polling bias):

A. Convince one percent of undecideds to support you. Your support goes to 50 while your opponent stays at 49 -- one percent poll advantage

B. Convince one percent of opponent's supporters to support you. Your support goes to 50 while your opponent drops to 48 -- two percent poll advantage

C. Convince an additional one percent of your supporters to answer the phone when a pollster calls. You go to over 51% while your opponent drops to under 47%-- around a five percent poll advantage.

Of course, no one was secretly plotting to game the polls, but poll responses are basically just people agreeing to talk to you about politics, and lots of things can affect people's willingness to talk about their candidate, including things that would almost never affect their actual votes (at least not directly but more on that later).

In 49-49, the Romney campaign hit a stretch of embarrassing news coverage while Obama was having, in general, a very good run. With a couple of exceptions, the stories were trivial, certainly not the sort of thing that would cause someone to jump the substantial ideological divide between the two candidates so, none of Romney's supporters shifted to Obama or to undecided. Many did, however, feel less and less like talking to pollsters. So Romney's numbers started to go down which only made his supporters more depressed and reluctant to talk about their choice.

This reluctance was already just starting to fade when the first debate came along. As Josh Marshall has explained eloquently and at great length since early in the primaries, the idea of Obama, faced with a strong attack and deprived of his teleprompter, collapsing in a debate was tremendously important and resonant to the GOP base. That belief was a major driver of the support for Gingrich, despite all his baggage; no one ever accused Newt of being reluctant to go for the throat.

It's not surprising that, after weeks of bad news and declining polls, the effect on the Republican base of getting what looked very much like the debate they'd hoped for was cathartic. Romney supporters who had been avoiding pollsters suddenly couldn't wait to take the calls. By the same token. Obama supporters who got their news from Ed Schultz and Chris Matthews really didn't want to talk right now.

The polls shifted in Romney's favor even though, had the election been held the week after the debate, the result would have been the same as it would have been had the election been held two weeks before -- 49% to 49%. All of the changes in the polls had come from core voters on both sides. The voters who might have been persuaded weren't that interested in the emotional aspect of the conventions and the debates and were already familiar with the substantive issues both events raised.

So response bias was amplified by these factors:

1. the effect was positively correlated with the intensity of support

2. it was accompanied by matching but opposite effects on the other side

3. there were feedback loops -- supporters of candidates moving up in the polls were happier and more likely to respond while supporters of candidates moving down had the opposite reaction.

You might wonder how the pollsters and political scientists of this world missed this. The answer that they didn't. They were concerned about selection effects and falling response rates, but the problems with the data were difficult to catch definitively thanks to some serious obscuring factors:

1. Researchers have to base their conclusions off of the historical record when the effect was not nearly so big.

2. Things are correlated in a way that's difficult to untangle. The things you would expect to make supporters less enthusiastic about talking about their candidate are often the same things you'd expect to lower support for that candidate

3. As mentioned before, there are compensatory effects. Since response rates for the two parties are inversely related, the aggregate is fairly stable.

4. The effect of embarrassment and elation tend to fade over time so that most are gone by the actual election.

5. There's a tendency to converge as the election approaches. Mainly because likely voter screens become more accurate.

6. Poll predictions can be partially self-fulfilling. If the polls indicate a sufficiently low chance of winning, supporters can become discouraged, allies can desert you and money can dry up. The result is, again, convergence.

For the record, I don't think we live on 49-49. I do, however, think that at least some of the variability we've seen in the polls can be traced back to selection effects similar to those described here and I have to believe it's likely to get worse.

Elasticity, Plasticity and Creep in polls

I've been thinking quite a bit about polls lately, about what can go wrong with them, and how they might react and even how some of Nate Silver's critics have almost stumbled onto a couple of valid points (albeit ones that Silver has acknowledged).

I'm working on a full post on the subject but in the meantime, here's some background complete with sound track. (hit play now)


One of the things I've been coming up against is what can happen when something moves a poll.

1. Elasticity

Let's say a candidate gives a rousing speech that gets base fired up. It makes supporters more likely to talk to pollsters but it doesn't really change anyone's mind. After a short period the excitement fades and the polls return to their previous position.

2. Plasticity

Another speech, but this this time with enough substance to win over some undecideds. The polls move to another position and stay there.

3. Creep

This starts with an event that would normally cause an elastic shift, but the deformation of the polls is drawn out, either because it's followed by other trivial events or because the timing of the polls makes it seem drawn out or because the media simply decides to dwell on it or (most likely) some combination. Under these circumstances we can easily get a feedback loop where bad polls create the impression of eroding support which causes supporters to become discouraged and money to dry up which causes support to actually erode.

I suspect Romney was experiencing creep in the last week of September.

I'll try to flesh this out more in the next 24. In the meantime, does anyone have any thoughts on the subject?

A very good perspective on the latest Star Wars news

Star Wars has been sold to Disney for 4.05 billion dollars.  George Lucas's high risk decision to push through the difficult task of making the first Star Wars movie appears to have paid off.  While some people are worried about the new owners of the property, I think this piece has a very good perspective on the whole transaction and is definitely worth reading.

When a stag/hare hunt is not a stag/hare hunt

This speculation from a TPM reader got me to thinking...

Regarding dumping money into non-competitive states, here in Dallas nearly every other commercial is an anti-Obama ad from the superPAC, “Restore our Future.” I’m trying to figure out why they’re dumping so much money into the Texas ad market when I’d assume Texas is about as solidly red as it gets. I have two theories: 

1. It’s to build up GOP enthusiasm for down-ticket races.

2. They need to spend some of their donations on something other than lining their own pockets to help keep people from realizing they’re nothing but grifters who have been lining their own pockets with all that political donation money.

This reminded me of the Stag Hunt game where players have to decide whether to stick with a group in hopes of a big pay-off that's dependent on cooperation or go off on their own for a smaller but more likely pay-off.

I don't want to get bunch of emails saying I don't know anything about game theory (which is true but hopefully not relevant here), so to be clear I'm not saying this is a stag hunt, just that this raises some similar tactical questions about diverting resources from a big but unlikely pay-off (the Electoral College) to smaller ones (the popular vote, better down-ticket results).

Strauss and the war on data

The most important aspect of Randianism as currently practiced is the lies its adherents tell themselves. "When you're successful, it's because other people are inferior to you." "When you fail, it's because inferior people persecute you (call it going Roark)." "One of these days you're going to run away and everyone who's been mean to you will be sorry."

The most important aspect of Straussianism as currently practiced is the lies its adherents tell others. Having started from the assumption that traditional democracy can't work because most people aren't smart enough to handle the role of voter, the Straussians conclude that superior minds must, for the good of society, lie to and manipulate the masses.

Joseph and I have an ongoing argument about which school is worse, a question greatly complicated by the compatibility of the two systems and the overlap of believers and their tactics and objectives. Joseph generally argues that Rand is worse (without, of course, defending Strauss) while I generally take the opposite position.

This week brought news that I think bolsters my case (though I suspect Joseph could easily turn it around to support his): one of the logical consequences of assuming typical voters can't evaluate information on their own is that data sources that are recognized as reliable are a threat to society. They can't be spun and they encourage people to make their own decisions.

To coin a phrase, if the masses can't handle the truth and need instead to be fed a version crafted by the elite to keep the people happy and doing what's best for them, the public's access to accurate, objective information has to be tightly controlled. With that in mind, consider the following from Jared Bernstein:

[D]ue to pressure from Republicans, the Congressional Research Service is withdrawing a report that showed the lack of correlation between high end tax cuts and economic growth.

The study, by economist Tom Hungerford, is of high quality, and is one I’ve cited here at OTE. Its findings are fairly common in the economics literature and the concerns raised by that noted econometrician Mitch McConnell are trumped up and bogus. He and his colleagues don’t like the findings because they strike at the supply-side arguments that they hold so dear.

And with Sandy still on everyone's mind, here's something from Menzie Chinn:

NOAA's programs are in function 300, Natural Resources and Environment, along with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and a range of conservation and natural resources programs. In the near term, function 300 would be 14.6 percent lower in 2014 in the Ryan budget according to the Washington Post. It quotes David Kendall of The Third Way as warning about the potential impact on weather forecasting: "'Our weather forecasts would be only half as accurate for four to eight years until another polar satellite is launched,' estimates Kendall. 'For many people planning a weekend outdoors, they may have to wait until Thursday for a forecast as accurate as one they now get on Monday. … Perhaps most affected would be hurricane response. Governors and mayors would have to order evacuations for areas twice as large or wait twice as long for an accurate forecast.'"

There are also attempts from prominent conservatives to delegitimize objective data:

Apparently, Jack Welch, former chairman and CEO of General Electric, is accusing the Bureau of Labor Statistics of manipulating the jobs report to help President Obama. Others seem to be adding their voices to this slanderous lie. It is simply outrageous to make such a claim and echoes the worrying general distrust of facts that seems to have swept segments of our nation. The BLS employment report draws on two surveys, one (the establishment survey) of 141,000 businesses and government agencies and the other (the household survey) of 60,000 households. The household survey is done by the Census Bureau on behalf of BLS. It’s important to note that large single-month divergences between the employment numbers in these two surveys (like the divergence in September) are just not that rare. EPI’s Elise Gould has a great paper on the differences between these two surveys.

BLS is a highly professional agency with dozens of people involved in the tabulation and analysis of these data. The idea that the data are manipulated is just completely implausible. Moreover, the data trends reported are clearly in line with previous monthly reports and other economic indicators (such as GDP). The key result was the 114,000 increase in payroll employment from the establishment survey, which was right in line with what forecasters were expecting. This was a positive growth in jobs but roughly the amount to absorb a growing labor force and maintain a stable, not falling, unemployment rate. If someone wanted to help the president, they should have doubled the job growth the report showed. The household survey was much more positive, showing unemployment falling from 8.1 percent to 7.8 percent. These numbers are more volatile month to month and it wouldn’t be surprising to see unemployment rise a bit next month. Nevertheless, there’s nothing implausible about the reported data. The household survey has shown greater job growth in the recovery than the establishment survey throughout the recovery. The labor force participation rate (the share of adults who are working or unemployed) increased to 63.6 percent, which is an improvement from the prior month but still below the 63.7 percent reported for July. All in all, there was nothing particularly strange about this month’s jobs reports—and certainly nothing to spur accusations of outright fraud.

We can also put many of the attacks against Nate Silver in this category.

Going back a few months, we had this from Businessweek:

The House Committee on Appropriations recently proposed cutting the Census budget to $878 million, $10 million below its current budget and $91 million less than the bureau’s request for the next fiscal year. Included in the committee number is a $20 million cut in funding for this year’s Economic Census, considered the foundation of U.S. economic statistics.

And Bruce Bartlett had a whole set of examples involving Newt Gingrich:

On Nov. 21, Newt Gingrich, who is leading the race for the Republican presidential nomination in some polls, attacked the Congressional Budget Office. In a speech in New Hampshire, Mr. Gingrich said the C.B.O. "is a reactionary socialist institution which does not believe in economic growth, does not believe in innovation and does not believe in data that it has not internally generated."

Mr. Gingrich's charge is complete nonsense. The former C.B.O. director Douglas Holtz-Eakin, now a Republican policy adviser, labeled the description "ludicrous." Most policy analysts from both sides of the aisle would say the C.B.O. is one of the very few analytical institutions left in government that one can trust implicitly.

It's precisely its deep reservoir of respect that makes Mr. Gingrich hate the C.B.O., because it has long stood in the way of allowing Republicans to make up numbers to justify whatever they feel like doing.

...

Mr. Gingrich has long had special ire for the C.B.O. because it has consistently thrown cold water on his pet health schemes, from which he enriched himself after being forced out as speaker of the House in 1998. In 2005, he wrote an op-ed article in The Washington Times berating the C.B.O., then under the direction of Mr. Holtz-Eakin, saying it had improperly scored some Gingrich-backed proposals. At a debate on Nov. 5, Mr. Gingrich said, "If you are serious about real health reform, you must abolish the Congressional Budget Office because it lies."
...                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

Because Mr. Gingrich does know more than most politicians, the main obstacles to his grandiose schemes have always been Congress's professional staff members, many among the leading authorities anywhere in their areas of expertise.                                                                                                                                                                                                

To remove this obstacle, Mr. Gingrich did everything in his power to dismantle Congressional institutions that employed people with the knowledge, training and experience to know a harebrained idea when they saw it. When he became speaker in 1995, Mr. Gingrich moved quickly to slash the budgets and staff of the House committees, which employed thousands of professionals with long and deep institutional memories.

Of course, when party control in Congress changes, many of those employed by the previous majority party expect to lose their jobs. But the Democratic committee staff members that Mr. Gingrich fired in 1995 weren't replaced by Republicans. In essence, the positions were simply abolished, permanently crippling the committee system and depriving members of Congress of competent and informed advice on issues that they are responsible for overseeing.

Mr. Gingrich sold his committee-neutering as a money-saving measure. How could Congress cut the budgets of federal agencies if it wasn't willing to cut its own budget, he asked. In the heady days of the first Republican House since 1954, Mr. Gingrich pretty much got whatever he asked for.

In addition to decimating committee budgets, he also abolished two really useful Congressional agencies, the Office of Technology Assessment and the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. The former brought high-level scientific expertise to bear on legislative issues and the latter gave state and local governments an important voice in Congressional deliberations.

The amount of money involved was trivial even in terms of Congress's budget. Mr. Gingrich's real purpose was to centralize power in the speaker's office, which was staffed with young right-wing zealots who followed his orders without question. Lacking the staff resources to challenge Mr. Gingrich, the committees could offer no resistance and his agenda was simply rubber-stamped.

Unfortunately, Gingrichism lives on. Republican Congressional leaders continually criticize every Congressional agency that stands in their way. In addition to the C.B.O., one often hears attacks on the Congressional Research Service, the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Government Accountability Office.

Lately, the G.A.O. has been the prime target. Appropriators are cutting its budget by $42 million, forcing furloughs and cutbacks in investigations that identify billions of dollars in savings yearly. So misguided is this effort that Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma and one of the most conservative members of Congress, came to the agency's defense.

In a report issued by his office on Nov. 16, Senator Coburn pointed out that the G.A.O.'s budget has been cut by 13 percent in real terms since 1992 and its work force reduced by 40 percent -- more than 2,000 people. By contrast, Congress's budget has risen at twice the rate of inflation and nearly doubled to $2.3 billion from $1.2 billion over the last decade.

Mr. Coburn's report is replete with examples of budget savings recommended by G.A.O. He estimated that cutting its budget would add $3.3 billion a year to government waste, fraud, abuse and inefficiency that will go unidentified.

For good measure, Mr. Coburn included a chapter in his report on how Congressional committees have fallen down in their responsibility to exercise oversight. The number of hearings has fallen sharply in both the House and Senate. Since the beginning of the Gingrich era, they have fallen almost in half, with the biggest decline coming in the 104th Congress (1995-96), his first as speaker.

In short, Mr. Gingrich's unprovoked attack on the C.B.O. is part of a pattern. He disdains the expertise of anyone other than himself and is willing to undercut any institution that stands in his way. Unfortunately, we are still living with the consequences of his foolish actions as speaker.

We could really use the Office of Technology Assessment at a time when Congress desperately needs scientific expertise on a variety of issues in involving health, energy, climate change, homeland security and many others. And given the enormous stress suffered by state and local governments as they are forced by Washington to do more with less, an organization like the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations would be invaluable.

Epidemiological Measures

While the quote below seems political but I actually want to use it to make an epidemiological point rather than discussing politics:

The most important intellectual pathology to afflict conservatism during the Obama era is its embrace of Ayn Rand’s moral philosophy of capitalism. Rand considered the free market a perfect arbiter of a person’s worth; their market earnings reflect their contribution to society, and their right to keep those earnings was absolute. Politics, as she saw it, was essentially a struggle of the market’s virtuous winners to protect their wealth from confiscation by the hordes of inferiors who could outnumber them.
 

One issue that I see over and over again is mistaking the measure for the outcome.  So people will fixate on body mass index as a measure of adiposity.  But doing so classifies Brad Pitt (famous for his muscles) as being either overweight or obese.  It is tempting to use an easy to measure correlated variable in place of the actual measure. 

For two people in the same position, there is a correlation between earnings and work (notice that I did not say a strong correlation).  It is tempting to assume, based on this micro-ordering, that the macro ordering of income is also related to the amount of work done or value created.  But it's obvious that this measure fails or else we would praise unions for working harder than regular workers rather than worrying that they were over-paid. 

I think that this problem is a consequence of us (as a society) wanting to assume clean values to soft and complex constructs.  We will all be better off if we resist this impulse. 

Flexible hours

I was a big fan of flexible hours for staff, when positions needed work done on a non-critical time scale.  But this new trend twards scheduling hours at the last minute and a new focus on part time work seems deeply sub-optimal.  Even the case the article cites as wanting to have part time work:

To be sure, many people prefer to work part time — for instance, college students eager for extra spending money and older people earning money for presents during the holiday season.
 

Having been a working student, let me assure you that a time schedule that changes every week (when my class schedule is fixed) is not an advantage.  Not in the least. 

But the other interesting piece is this:

The widening use of part-timers has been a bane to many workers, pushing many into poverty and forcing some onto food stamps and Medicaid. And with work schedules that change week to week, workers can find it hard to arrange child care, attend college or hold a second job, according to interviews with more than 40 part-time workers.

 Two very interesting pieces here.  One, the use of Medicaid to cover heatlth care expenses really does suggest that it might actually be pro-worker to have universal, basic health insurance.  Whether it is practical or not, that seems to be what employers are pushing for with their actions.  Two, a world where one part time job makes it impossible to hold a second (as schedules shift at the last minute) is deeply worker unfriendly.  I think that full employment would seem to be the solution to this dilemma, as workers could quit jobs that were too inconsistent on a week to week basis. 

  

MedicAid

Paul Krugman discusses the success story of MedicAid:

So Medicaid does a vast amount of good. But at what cost? There’s a widespread perception, gleefully fed by right-wing politicians and propagandists, that Medicaid has “runaway” costs. But the truth is just the opposite. While costs grew rapidly in 2009-10, as a depressed economy made more Americans eligible for the program, the longer-term reality is that Medicaid is significantly better at controlling costs than the rest of our health care system.

How much better? According to the best available estimates, the average cost of health care for adult Medicaid recipients is about 20 percent less than it would be if they had private insurance. The gap for children is even larger.

And the gap has been widening over time: Medicaid costs have consistently risen a bit less rapidly than Medicare costs, and much less rapidly than premiums on private insurance.

How does Medicaid achieve these lower costs? Partly by having much lower administrative costs than private insurers. It’s always worth remembering that when it comes to health care, it’s the private sector, not government programs, that suffers from stifling, costly bureaucracy.

Also, Medicaid is much more effective at bargaining with the medical-industrial complex.
 

I often wonder if the hatred towards programs like MedicAid and Social Security is that they exist as counter-examples to current ideology that the free market is always the best solution.  If so, I think that would be a massive mistake.  The traditional of American Pragmatism has been to do what works regardless of the source and that has been a huge relative advantage.

If anything, we should be expanding MedicAid, not shrinking it. 

When you start a sentence with "one good indicator of a person who’s not so smart," you should be extra careful about what you say next

Andrew Gelman spends some time on this latest quote from Steven Levitt on the rationality of voting:

DUBNER: So Levitt, how can you in your life, when you wander around, tell the difference between a smart person and a not-so-smart person?

LEVITT: Well, one good indicator of a person who’s not so smart is if they vote in a presidential election because they think their vote might actually decide which candidate wins. . . . there has never been and there never will be a vote cast in a presidential election that could possibly be decisive.

Gelman has been riding this beat for a long time, repeatedly pointing out the flaws in this strangely persistent argument. He makes a good case (part of which I basically paraphrase in point one), but there are other problems with Levitt's claims.

Here's a brief and certainly incomplete list of objections.

1. Every vote affects the probability distribution of a race, and since the difference in outcomes is so large, even a tiny change in probabilities can conceivably create a detectable change in expected value

2. Every vote in every race. Except for undervoting, we're talking about the combined impact for the entire ballot.

3. This isn't binary. The margin of a win can affect:

Perceived mandate and political capital;

Officials' decisions (particularly in non-term-limited positions). Congressmen who win by large margins are less likely to feel constrained about unpopular votes;

Funding. A lopsided defeat can make it harder for a candidate or a state party to raise money;

Party strategy. How much effort do you expend finding a challenger against an official who beat you by more than ten points last time?;

Media narrative.It's possible to come back after press corp has labeled you a loser, but it isn't easy.

and finally

4. The system works better with higher response rates. It's more stable and harder to game. Perhaps even more important, it does a better job representing the will of the governed.

That's the top of my head list. Undoubted, I missed some.

Gelman goes on:

I would not conclude from the above discussion that Levitt is not so smart. Of course he’s very smart, he just happens to be misinformed on this issue. I applaud Levitt’s willingness to go out on a limb and say controversial things in a podcast, to get people thinking. I just wish he’d be a bit less sure of himself and not go around saying that he thinks that Aaron, Noah, Nate and I are not so smart.

He's being overly diplomatic. Levitt isn't just misinformed; he's willfully misinformed. In issue after issue (drunk driving, car seats, solar energy) he has used sloppy reasoning to reach a controversial position, then has done his best to turn a deaf ear to those who pointed out his errors. We did get a partial retraction of his claims on driving*, but on others he has doubled down and occasionally resorted to cheap shots at those who disagreed with him.

Levitt is very smart. That's what makes this sort off thing so difficult to overlook.




* Though still leaving potential errors unacknowledged, such as the likely possibility that drivers in accidents are more likely to be checked for intoxication than pedestrians, that a stricter standard might be used, that many of the most intoxicated are prevented from driving and that intoxication is more likely to be noted in official records for drivers

Today's must read

A stirring defense of the welfare state.

In particular, notice the questions about libertarian consistency that are asked.

Empiricism

Felix Salmon is strident:

But when they try to get to the specifics of tax reform, they start falling into blather, asking that it be “pro-growth” (an utterly meaningless phrase), and asking too that it include lower rates and higher revenues.

Maybe they should have just asked for a pony for everybody instead: that would be easier. You can’t have lower rates and higher revenues — not without eviscerating pretty much all of the tax deductions which much of the middle class has learned to rely upon. Mortgage-interest tax relief, the charitable deduction, even the deduction for state and local taxes: pretty much all of them would have to go. That wouldn’t just get blocked by Democrats: it would get blocked by Republicans, too. And because most of these tax expenditures go to the middle class, broadly defined, the one group which would see most of the benefits while bearing very little of the costs would be the top 1%: the very CEOs who signed this letter.

In other words, the letter basically just says “please cut our taxes, raise taxes on everybody else, and cut the benefits they get from Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, which are programs we individually don’t rely upon”. It’s gross self-interest masquerading as public statesmanship.
 

Okay, I think that here is a place where some degree of common sense really needs to return to the debate.  The idea that cutting tax rates improves growth has very little empircal evidence.  The strongest countries around are not necessarily ones with the lowest effective tax rates.  It is true that (in extreme circumstances) these rates can cause troubles, but very little evidence that the United States (or any other first world country) is near this threshold. 

But the idea that I find the most difficult is the idea that lower tax rates could lead to more revenue.  Seriously.  Outside of extreme cases, why would governments ever have taxes if this were true?  People dislike paying taxes.  Governments like to have money.  If not collecting taxes led everyone to have more money at the same time then it is hard to imagine nobody would have hit on this magic formula.  Surely there has to be at least one autocrat who was pro-growth in the past 5,000 years or so? 

Now you can argue that taxes may decrease the overall rate of economic growth.  I am skeptical about this claim, but it is at least not utterly absurd.  But to reduce taxes to increase growth presumes that either growth will be so rapid that these losses will be more than made up for in increased revenue (seems hard to credit as we'd notice gigantic effects like this) or that taxes will later be raised to make up the difference. 

I really wish more readers were as critical of these ideas as Felix is. 

Journalistic Norms and the lack thereof

That's not really true. Every group has norms. Some just aren't as pretty as others.

Case in point, Jon Stewart recounts the furor that started when Stewart suggested that the handling of the embassy attack was not "optimal" to which Obama replied that a situation that led to the deaths of four Americans was never optimal.

The whole thing is worth watching but the most important part comes at the end of the second half when Stewart shows how respectable journalists use Fox News as an excuse to cover flashy stories of no merit.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Market Failures

It is very difficult to figure out the proper fundementals when decisions are mixed with real outcomes for the individuals involved.  A case in point is the argument about whether the current trend for government bonds to yield "zero" is a problem.  On the face of it, this should encourage governments to borrow.  Instead we see a lot of arguments for austerity because, sooner or later, these yeilds have to go up.  But, as has been pointed out, these are extremely liquid and efficient markets.  So it is hard to completely avoid this type of cyncism: 

This is, I think, coherent. But there is, nevertheless, an inconsistency here. Mr Halligan wants the government to do something about the (possible) failure in bond markets - cut spending. But he - and more significantly those who think like him - seem relaxed about the failures in goods and labour markets that cause at least 2.5 million people to be out of work.

It's strange how some market failures demand action and some don't, isn't it? If I didn't know better I'd suspect the right of merely pursuing class interest without regard to intellectual consistency.
 

 This sort of intellectual consistency is something that seems to be sadly absent in a lot of the current thinking about financial issues.  Being out of work is a serious harm to the people involved, even mroe so in the United States (where even more of one's benefits are linked to employment), but I am sure it is no picnic in the United Kingdom, either.


Now, I dislike the Ad Hominen argument because it could be made about any argument, no matter how valid it was should it happen to have the potential to benefit the speaker.  But I do think that we need to have a much cleaner conversation on what we think markets are able to do.  If we think "bubbles" and "irrational exuberance" can occur in financial markets then we really don't believe in the strong form of efficient market theory. 

Now when you project this to areas with information asymmetry (think health care, where prices are opaque, or casualty insurance, where you have to trust the insurer to pay if the adverse event occurs) then it becomes even more silly.  This problem is even more severe once you realize that trust is occasionally broken.  I am sad Karl Smith doesn't really blog any more because he cut to the heart of the matter with this post. 

The assumptions required for markets to simply manage themselves are pretty extreme.  Why does Ragnar Danneskjöld become a pirate on the high seas instead of looting the (much closer) wealth of John Galt?  Does he give the money back if he discovers his victim happened to be a "maker"?  And how would he know? 

So it is worth keeping in mind that this stuff is a) very hard and b) nobody seems to really hold the extreme versions of these views. 

Norms

Worth remembering:

Norms matter. People work for money. But people also work for status, and people work because they take pride in a job well done. Ideas about what kinds of financial success merit high status and what kinds of jobs constitute a job well done are important. A doctor who bragged to you at a party about scoring a great deal on season tickets is doing something very different from a doctor who brags to you at a party about scoring season tickets after swindling a woman out of a bunch of money for unnecessary medical treatments. A doctor isn't supposed to be hustling patients. Everybody knows that.
 

I think that this tendency to neglect the focus on norms has been the major cost of having a very legalistic culture.  I remember this point being brought up in terms of the ability to "discover money" by acquiring a firm and then abandoning all of the previous cultural norms.  If it isn't written down then it doesn't count.  You might have joined ABC chemicals because they had a culture of being understanding when your children were sick.  But the new owners don't care that you took a lower salary because of this -- they ask if you have anything in writing. 

So we now need everything in writing.  But how do you run a culture with such low levels of trust? 

At a higher level, this is also a problem with the Randianism that has infiltrated our culture.  If you use money as a marker of worth, the doctor who swindled a patient (in the exmaple above) is actually morally superior . . . so long as they can't be sued.  How can this be a good way to govern interpersonal interactions?