Wednesday, May 13, 2020

This post was perfect

This is Joseph

I thought that this cartoon captured the spirit of the times perfectly:


It isn't that experts do not have blind spots, they do. But replacing a blind spot with actual blindness seems to be a risky strategy in a crisis.
Posted by at No comments:

Ideological versus partisan -- pandemic edition



 

There has been a ton of research (some of it good, most of it not) on the question of what makes one person ideologically inclined to be conservative and another to be liberal. Lots of issues here, particularly with tying political leanings to some innate trait (never understood why most people with the conservative gene just happened to cluster around areas with agricultural or extraction-based economies), but that’s a topic for another post. Instead, I want to step back and ask is the question meaningful at all..

Many of the best indicators of a person's political position, quite possibly the majority of the best indicators, make  no sense if you approach them in terms of either conservative/liberal ideology or psychology. They fall into place perfectly, however, when you start making the distinction between the partisan and the ideological, particularly when you add a layer of Straussian disinformation and cult of personality dynamics.

We’ve discussed this before, but the pandemic has given us a wealth of new examples.

What possible ideological basis is there for arguing for the relative contagiousness of one virus over another? Or of insisting on the efficacy of a particular drug? And yet, how one answers questions like these have become arguably the defining political positions of the day, particularly in conservative media and the far right.

I’m certain someone out there is working on a painfully epicyclic model to explain this (does R have a spirograph package?), but the picture becomes remarkably straightforward if you approach it in partisan terms.

From a conservative/Republican standpoint, when it comes to a potential collapse in support for President Trump, timing matters more than magnitude. A bad Q3 is worse for them than a terrible 2021 would be. Prematurely lifting lock downs is unlikely to buy them more than a dead cat bounce, but might be enough to avert a GOP bloodbath.

Add to that the constraint of not infuriating Trump. The base is (for the moment at least) personally loyal to him, not to the party, and temperamentally he is more than willing to bring the temple down with him.

Obviously, the memes and narratives of Fox et al. are often ideological and partisan, but when you look at the odd quadrants, you see lots of stories that advance a partisan aim with no significant ideological component, relatively few that go the other way.

This isn't to say that ideology -- it's what keeps the money flowing -- but much of what we talk when we talk politics , particularly in 2020, are non-ideological means to ideological ends, and if we want to keep our thinking clear, we have to know when to make the distinction.
Posted by at 2 comments:

Tuesday, May 12, 2020

Tuesday Tweets -- the wheels come off the Tesla




 

 
Read this thread.



 



 












 

 



        


Posted by at No comments:

Monday, May 11, 2020

There’s a lot to talk about here, and I mean that in the worst possible way.

If I try to address everything at once, I’ll never maintain the momentum to finish. Instead, I am going to have to take small bites.
We can start by picking up where Andrew Gelman left off in his recent post on the return of the red state blue state fallacy. We tend to associate NIMBYism with big cities and big cities tend to be liberal, so op-ed writers often assume liberals are driving NIMBY policies. This sometimes left as subtext, but this piece by Farhad Manjoo (referenced in the Gelman post) pretty much spells things out from the title on.

"America’s Cities Are Unlivable. Blame Wealthy Liberals."

It was another chapter in a dismal saga of Nimbyist urban mismanagement that is crushing American cities. Not-in-my-backyardism is a bipartisan sentiment, but because the largest American cities are populated and run by Democrats — many in states under complete Democratic control — this sort of nakedly exclusionary urban restrictionism is a particular shame of the left.
...

Reading opposition to SB 50 and other efforts at increasing density, I’m struck by an unsettling thought: What Republicans want to do with I.C.E. and border walls, wealthy progressive Democrats are doing with zoning and Nimbyism. Preserving “local character,” maintaining “local control,” keeping housing scarce and inaccessible — the goals of both sides are really the same: to keep people out.
Putting aside the bothsiderism (he's writing for the New York Times. It's probably in his contract.), how does the rest of his thesis hold up?

Two cities are mentioned, Beverly Hills and La Cañada Flintridge. Are either of these what you'd call liberal hotbeds? Let's start with Beverly Hills.

The region overwhelmingly backed Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton in Tuesday’s election — except for one precinct in Beverly Hills.

Here, along Sunset Boulevard in the shadow of the Beverly Hills Hotel, voters picked Donald Trump over Clinton, creating an island of red in a sea of blue.

Even many residents were puzzled about why this particular slice of the Westside went for Trump, especially when some neighboring precincts in the Hollywood Hills, Bel-Air and Westwood went for Clinton by huge margins.
How about La Cañada Flintridge?

La Cañada Flintridge has historically been a Republican Party stronghold. However, in 2004, Democratic Party registered voters increased by 18%, while decline-to-state voters increased by 31%, and registered Republicans declined by 9.3%. In the 2008 US Presidential Election, Democrat Barack Obama received 10 more votes than Republican John McCain. In the 2012 US Presidential Election, most La Cañada Flintridge voters supported Republican Mitt Romney over Democrat Barack Obama. In the 2016 US Presidential Election, approximately three out of every five voters supported Democrat Hillary Clinton over Republican Donald Trump.

Compare that to the county totals.

Year GOP DEM Others
2016 22.41% 769,743 71.76% 2,464,364 5.83% 200,201
2012 27.83% 885,333 69.69% 2,216,903 2.48% 78,831
2008 28.82% 956,425 69.19% 2,295,853 1.99% 65,970

It's possible that progressive Democrats really are the drivers of NIMBYism. Manjoo might just be really bad at picking examples.

(He's bad at other things too, but we'll have to save that for later in the thread.)
Posted by at No comments:

Friday, May 8, 2020

Weekend


I don't actually have a corner that looks that good. I go to the patio for my meetings.



When Andrew commented on The Untouchables being Mamet in Hemingway stupid profundities mode, my first thought was "No, that would be the Edge." According to Les Stroud, the stupidity goes beyond the dialogue.

(And though "the Chicago way" is a contender, the best speech in a bad movie is Roscoe Lee Browne's prayer before hanging in the Cowboys [Originally left out the title, sorry -- MP].)



I never thought about money being heavy.




Now You See Me was also a stupid movie but in the opposite way, thinking it was being clever.





Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, May 7, 2020

Kevin and the Stegosaurus -- special Thursday tweet post


 

  

 

 

 

 


 

  

 




Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, May 6, 2020

"Not like those bumbling polynomial people"


We ran a piece on Monday that made the point that not only ignoring the track records of clowns like Kevin Hassett, but actually putting them in positions of responsibility was a really bad idea. I wrote the post over the weekend, before this story broke.

From Josh Marshall.
One of the most depressing and least surprising developments in the last 36 hours is that the White House is apparently relying on a “cubic model” of the COVID19 epidemic prepared by White House economist Kevin Hassett to craft its crisis response. I have not seen any statisticians or epidemiologists who know precisely what “cubic” refers to the in this context – though there are some promising speculations based on simply plugging in one of the default trend lines (third degree polynomial) in Microsoft Excel. The more relevant point is that, according to The Washington Post, the model predicts the number of people dying of COVID19 in the US will fall to close to zero by May 15th – a scenario that seems all but impossible.

Here I can’t help but note a basic point. Hassett is not a health care economist, let alone someone at the crossroads of behavioral economics and epidemiologists. Indeed, his record as an economist is rather notorious.

Perhaps Hassett’s biggest claim to fame is coauthoring a 1999 book entitled Dow 36,000: Dow 36,000: The New Strategy for Profiting From the Coming Rise in the Stock Market. The book argued that traditional metrics for evaluating stock prices were outdated and that the stock market was dramatically undervalued. The Dow, then a bit over 10,000, would rise to 36,000 over the next three to four years. These are the kinds of predictions one often hears at the top of a bull market. And indeed the market hit its peak within months of the book’s publication and continued to fall for almost the next four years. Needless to say, that was two and a half market collapses ago. 21 years later the Dow stands at 23,749, though it did approach 30,000 before the COVID19 collapse.





Just to be clear, this all happened after the Washington Post broke the story of Hassett's bungling at the beginning of the pandemic. Nothing was learned. It just got worse. On the bright side, if Hassett was able to correctly apply the trend line option, that speaks well for the easy of use of MS Office






Posted by at 1 comment:

Tuesday, May 5, 2020

Tuesday Tweet Dump -- double Bayesian edition



 
You should read the whole thread, but I wanted to call it this tweet in particular.

  

We may disagree on the meaning of contained.

  


 


 


  


 


 


 


 


 


 

The teen years will not be easy in this household.


  
Posted by at No comments:

Monday, May 4, 2020

"Kevin (Dow 36,000) Hassett" should be more than just a cheap shot. It needs to be a reminder. UPDATED


I'm supposed to start this with the standard nobody's perfect/we've all made mistakes boilerplate, but I'm not going to. I have never screwed up as badly as Hassett. I very much doubt that anyone reading this has either. And yet, other than a few jokes at his expense, he seems to have paid no price. His post Dow 36,000 career seems to have been one long concatenation of sinecures.

That's a problem.

There needs to be a consequence for being wrong, a penalty, a demotion or at the very least a loss in credibility until we see proof that a lesson was learned. If we don't demand that damaged reputations have to be rebuilt and lost trust has to be regained, the screw-ups will just get bigger and more dangerous.

Incredibly depressing case in point.from Philip Rucker.

So the White House considered its own analysis. A small team led by Kevin Hassett — a former chairman of Trump’s Council of Economic Advisers with no background in infectious diseases — quietly built an econometric model to guide response operations.

Many White House aides interpreted the analysis as predicting that the daily death count would peak in mid-April before dropping off substantially, and that there would be far fewer fatalities than initially foreseen, according to six people briefed on it.

Although Hassett denied that he ever projected the number of dead, other senior administration officials said his presentations characterized the count as lower than commonly forecast — and that it was embraced inside the West Wing by the president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and other powerful aides helping to oversee the government’s pandemic response. It affirmed their own skepticism about the severity of the virus and bolstered their case to shift the focus to the economy, which they firmly believed would determine whether Trump wins a second term.

For Trump — whose decision-making has been guided largely by his reelection prospects — the analysis, coupled with Hassett’s grim predictions of economic calamity, provided justification to pivot to where he preferred to be: cheering an economic revival rather than managing a catastrophic health crisis.
__________________________________________

UPDATE:




Posted by at No comments:

Friday, May 1, 2020

Transparency

This is Joseph

There is a good conversation about transparency going on right now. The gist of it is that the 2016 elections have created perverse incentives for being transparent. If you release information then the press hunts through it looking for a series of mini-scandals. If you release nothing then people quickly lose interest. This creates a serious incentive to minimize transparency.

When talking to people about this, it has been speculated that the 2016 election was rather unique. And so it was. But the pattern continues. It has been three and a half years since the 2016 election and the question of whether congress can see the president's taxes is still being litigated.  This includes attempts to source these records from third party sources, such as banks.

It would be less of an issue if people were not suddenly asking Joe Biden to make as many records available as possible. What I find perplexing here, is that people have lost perspective on the size of the offence (as well as their ability to blame their own conduct). The question of how separate business interests are from the presidency is a perfect area for transparency.

What we need is the press to stand above "false equivalency" and make lack of transparency carry a political price, via repetition of the issues and refusing to punish openness on the part of candidates.
Posted by at No comments:

Weekend Morricone

I've been making extensive use of my local libraries' e-book collection. One recommendation is a collection from Dr. Seuss's stint as a political cartoonist for PM in the early forties. You've probably seen a few of these but it's worth going through the whole set for both the unmistakable art and cross-section of liberal but definitely not leftist views (the difference being very  sharp while the non-aggression pact was still in place).

Some of the recurring targets included isolationists, racial discrimination and especially Charles Lindbergh.














I have some writing to do over the weekend. Harlan Ellison used to listen to Ennio Morricone film scores while he worked, so I thought I'd give it a try. Morricone has over 500 IMDB credits (the latest in pre-production), so if I like the results I'm set for a while.







I hesitated for a moment on this one because it is, in retrospect, a really stupid film  that arguably manages to be less historically accurate than the TV show.


Posted by at 1 comment:

Thursday, April 30, 2020

Lowering the line

This is Joseph

I want to follow up on Mark's post earlier today. I think that a major concern that we have all had for awhile was whether or not there would be forward planning in the epidemic. After all, early in the epidemic there were problems because pandemic response had been under-funded and epidemiologists were caught by surprise at how unprepared we are.

Now we are seeing the same lack of forward planning. There is a principle of marshalling resources, even when there are free markets, that is being ignored. Few countries are happy if they are far from being food sufficient (and, when they are, they have a lot of planning around this), In the same vein, the United States has an energy reserve to prevent oil disruption, despite oil being part of a free market.

Why is healthcare so different?

Clearly it makes no sense to be cutting capacity here. You want to develop a healthcare reserve to handle the risk of a covid-19 hospitalization surge, not shrink capacity so people later in the epidemic have even worse care. Like with food and energy, one presumes the only rational provider of this financing is the government.

Why is this a partisan issue? Starving and freezing are bad, so we have a reserve against a disruption, but dying of a virus isn't a bad thing?
Posted by at No comments:

Did anyone see this one coming?

 When I said flattening the curve doesn't accomplish that much if you lower the line, I was wrong. It certainly does something.





 



Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, April 29, 2020

A GOP strategy that asks seniors to sacrifice themselves for the economy may, in electoral terms, have a subtle flaw

You know that horribly overused news genre of voters supporting positions that hurt their own interests? This isn't one of those stories.

Josh Kraushaar writing for the National Journal:
Going against the tide of public opinion carries serious political consequences. This column has pointed out the downward trajectory of Trump’s approval ratings as he struggles to demonstrate competence in this crisis while failing to offer clarity about the path forward. But he risks doing greater damage by going against the interests of his own voters.

For a preview on how things could get worse for the president, look at the evolving political views of seniors, one of Trump’s most supportive constituencies in the previous election. They are also the most concerned about the coronavirus, given they have a much greater risk of dying if they become infected.

The latest Morning Consult poll found that 65-and-older voters prioritized defeating the coronavirus over healing the economy by nearly a 6-to-1 ratio. And over the past month, they’ve become the group most disenchanted with Trump’s handling of the crisis. In mid-March, seniors were more supportive of Trump than any other age group (plus-19 net approval). Now, their net approval of the president has dropped 20 points and is lower than any age group outside of the youngest Americans.

Those findings were matched by a new NBC/WSJ poll, which tested the presidential matchup between Trump and Joe Biden. Among seniors 65 and older, Biden led Trump by 9 points, 52 to 43 percent. That’s a dramatic 16-point swing from Hillary Clinton’s showing in the 2016 election; she lost seniors by 7 points to Trump (52-45 percent).

Seniors are among the most engaged voters in the country (71 percent went to the polls in 2016), and were critical to Trump’s victory. They’ve remained supportive of him for much of his presidency. And they’re counting on the president to protect them at a particularly precarious moment. If Trump’s desire to quickly reopen the economy ends up backfiring, they’ll be the first to abandon him and deal his reelection prospects a crippling blow.

Posted by at No comments:

Tuesday, April 28, 2020

The Onion hires Nostradamus and other Tuesday Tweets







Explaining Elon.


 

   




Meanwhile...






Does this mean he's started telling people to drink Mercury?




 

And, no. It's not your imagination. The New York Times used to be a better paper.




("Who funds the Federalist?")

  


As noted before, there may be a subtle flaw in the GOP pushing the seniors-are-expendable line.


 
From the "standards are for other people" file.








 


You're just lucky this wasn't a rererepost.


 




And finally a damn good quote from Fallows.

  
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)