"Segregated lives"

I've been thinking a lot about social and economic distance and what seems to be the increasing difficulty with which information travels to certain parts of the network and the tendency for members of certain subnetworks to mistake local perception for the global.

I suspect that Congress's swift action on the FAA (compared with complete inaction concerning the rest of the sequester) was based in part on mistaking attitudes toward flight delays within their subgroup for the attitudes of the nation as a whole.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Cut Punters - The Sequestration Myth
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Indecision Political Humor The Daily Show on Facebook

Likewise the coverage of over-the-air television has been rife with errors and omissions (see here and here and almost every other story on the subject) in part because it's a product used primarily by the lower and lower-middle class.

Another aspect of this increased distance is greater difficulty forming professional networks that reach across demographics and economic and educational strata.

From How Social Networks Drive Black Unemployment by Nancy Ditomaso

You don’t usually need a strong social network to land a low-wage job at a fast-food restaurant or retail store. But trying to land a coveted position that offers a good salary and benefits is a different story. To gain an edge, job seekers actively work connections with friends and family members in pursuit of these opportunities.

Help is not given to just anyone, nor is it available from everyone. Inequality reproduces itself because help is typically reserved for people who are “like me”: the people who live in my neighborhood, those who attend my church or school or those with whom I have worked in the past. It is only natural that when there are jobs to be had, people who know about them will tell the people who are close to them, those with whom they identify, and those who at some point can reciprocate the favor.

Because we still live largely segregated lives, such networking fosters categorical inequality: whites help other whites, especially when unemployment is high. Although people from every background may try to help their own, whites are more likely to hold the sorts of jobs that are protected from market competition, that pay a living wage and that have the potential to teach skills and allow for job training and advancement. So, just as opportunities are unequally distributed, they are also unequally redistributed.

All of this may make sense intuitively, but most people are unaware of the way racial ties affect their job prospects.

Lots more on this coming soon.

How many people today would refer to 2001 as our "historical yesterdays"?

Back on the decelerating future beat, here's Owen Wister's introduction to the Virginian in 1902.

TO THE READER

Certain of the newspapers, when this book was first announced, made a mistake most natural upon seeing the sub-title as it then stood, A TALE OF SUNDRY ADVENTURES. "This sounds like a historical novel," said one of them, meaning (I take it) a colonial romance. As it now stands, the title will scarce lead to such interpretation; yet none the less is this book historical—quite as much so as any colonial romance. Indeed, when you look at the root of the matter, it is a colonial romance. For Wyoming between 1874 and 1890 was a colony as wild as was Virginia one hundred years earlier. As wild, with a scantier population, and the same primitive joys and dangers. There were, to be sure, not so many Chippendale settees.

We know quite well the common understanding of the term "historical novel." HUGH WYNNE exactly fits it. But SILAS LAPHAM is a novel as perfectly historical as is Hugh Wynne, for it pictures an era and personifies a type. It matters not that in the one we find George Washington and in the other none save imaginary figures; else THE SCARLET LETTER were not historical. Nor does it matter that Dr. Mitchell did not live in the time of which he wrote, while Mr. Howells saw many Silas Laphams with his own eyes; else UNCLE TOM'S CABIN were not historical. Any narrative which presents faithfully a day and a generation is of necessity historical; and this one presents Wyoming between 1874 and 1890. Had you left New York or San Francisco at ten o'clock this morning, by noon the day after to-morrow you could step out at Cheyenne. There you would stand at the heart of the world that is the subject of my picture, yet you would look around you in vain for the reality. It is a vanished world. No journeys, save those which memory can take, will bring you to it now. The mountains are there, far and shining, and the sunlight, and the infinite earth, and the air that seems forever the true fountain of youth, but where is the buffalo, and the wild antelope, and where the horseman with his pasturing thousands? So like its old self does the sage-brush seem when revisited, that you wait for the horseman to appear.

But he will never come again. He rides in his historic yesterday. You will no more see him gallop out of the unchanging silence than you will see Columbus on the unchanging sea come sailing from Palos with his caravels.

And yet the horseman is still so near our day that in some chapters of this book, which were published separate at the close of the nineteenth century, the present tense was used. It is true no longer. In those chapters it has been changed, and verbs like "is" and "have" now read "was" and "had." Time has flowed faster than my ink.

Weekend Blogging -- Puzzles! Puzzles! Puzzles!

As soon as I get caught up with a few other projects, I'm planning a regular classic puzzle feature over at my math teaching blog, You Do the Math. That got a lot easier when I found out (via Wikipedia of course) that two of  Henry Ernest Dudeney's best known collections (Amusements in Mathematics and The Canterbury Puzzles) are available as free e-books from Project Gutenberg.

If you're the the type of person who can hear the phrase "recreational mathematics" without snickering and you don't already own a copy, you'll want to check these out. Here are a couple of tastes.

First, from Amusements:

118.—CIRCLING THE SQUARES.

The puzzle is to place a different number in each of the ten squares so that the sum of the squares of any two adjacent numbers shall be equal to the sum of the squares of the two numbers diametrically opposite to them. The four numbers placed, as examples, must stand as they are. The square of 16 is 256, and the square of 2 is 4. Add these together, and the result is 260. Also—the square of 14 is 196, and the square of 8 is 64. These together also make 260. Now, in precisely the same way, B and C should be equal to G and H (the sum will not necessarily be 260), A and K to F and E, H and I to C and D, and so on, with any two adjoining squares in the circle.

All you have to do is to fill in the remaining six numbers. Fractions are not allowed, and I shall show that no number need contain more than two figures.

Here's the answer.

And here's one from Canterbury:

21.—The Ploughman's Puzzle.

The Ploughman—of whom Chaucer remarked, "A worker true and very good was he, Living in perfect peace and charity"—protested that riddles were not for simple minds like his, but he[Pg 44] would show the good pilgrims, if they willed it, one that he had frequently heard certain clever folk in his own neighbourhood discuss. "The lord of the manor in the part of Sussex whence I come hath a plantation of sixteen fair oak trees, and they be so set out that they make twelve rows with four trees in every row. Once on a time a man of deep learning, who happened to be travelling in those parts, did say that the sixteen trees might have been so planted that they would make so many as fifteen straight rows, with four trees in every row thereof. Can ye show me how this might be? Many have doubted that 'twere possible to be done." The illustration shows one of many ways of forming the twelve rows. How can we make fifteen?

You can find the answer to that one here.

Now on to Sam Loyd.

Sleazy but not atypical

More on bad narratives and the lengths some journalists will go to cling to them.

To talk about bad journalistic narratives implies that there are good ones out there. What would a good journalistic narrative look like? This is a complicated question -- narrative is a complex and elusive concept -- but there is one important aspect that we (being a statistically inclined crowd) should be able to get a handle on. A journalistic narrative is a hypothesis.

What do we ask of a hypothesis?

1. It should fit the facts;

2. The likelihood  given our hypothesis of what happened should be greater than the likelihood given the previous hypothesis (the one most readers would reach given the facts);

3. There is not an obvious simpler hypothesis that meets conditions 1. and 2. as well as the new hypothesis does (personally, I like certain 700-year-old quotes but that is, perhaps, a topic for another post);

and if possible

4. It should have predictive value, provide insights and/or suggest interesting questions.

I got to thinking about this due to a post by David Silbey (via Thoma, of course) that addresses a repugnant piece by Jason Zengerle entitled How Savvy Jenny Sanford Sabotaged Ex-Husband Mark’s Political Comeback. Zengerle's title is, from the standpoint of grabbing attention, a good headline but it is also a bad narrative given the rules above.

Here's the previous hypothesis: Jenny Sanford has been open about her low opinion of her husband and this campaign but is not getting involved in this campaign.

And here's Zengerle's hypothesis: "Indeed, while Jenny has never come out and publicly opposed Mark’s congressional candidacy — choosing to remain officially neutral — she’s waged a brutally effective passive-aggressive campaign against it."

Zengerle then lists various events that are as or more consistent with the previous hypothesis than they are with his. Perfectly natural choices like bringing charges when you catch an ex-spouse sneaking out of your house are spun as part of a devious plot.

Zengerle gives us no reason to believe Jenny Sanford is being in any way dishonest or inconsistent; he just assumes we'd rather believe something sleazy.

One hell of a multiplier

A small data point on the very big story of states using tax incentives to attract businesses. I was researching a post on an article on film and television in Georgia that mentioned the incentive package that convinced Disney to move the Miley Cyrus film The Last Song away from North Carolina.

Here's the relevant passage from Wikipedia:

The Last Song had originally been set in Wrightsville Beach and Wilmington in North Carolina. Though they wished to shoot on location, filmmakers also examined three other states and identified Georgia as the next best filming site. Georgia’s housing prices were higher, but the state’s filming incentive package refunded 30% of production costs such as gasoline, pencils, and salaries. ...

Though other movies have been filmed in Tybee Island, The Last Song is the first to actually be set in Tybee. With the city’s name plastered on everything from police cars to businesses, Georgia officials predict a lasting effect on the economy. In addition, The Last Song is estimated to have brought up to 500 summer jobs to Georgia, $8 million to local businesses, and $17.5 million to state businesses.

When you hear accounts of how much money a movie or a factory or a stadium brought to an area, you should maintain a healthy skepticism. According to that same Wikipedia article, the budget for the film was $20 million. Presumably almost all of the above-the-line costs and much of the rest of the budget (particularly post-production) went out of state.

If someone has a better number I'd be glad to revise this post, but until then, let's say eight to ten million was spent in Georgia by Disney and its employees in the summer of 2009. That's not a trivial amount of money. It certainly provided a big bump for the south Georgia economy; it may even have been worth the cost in state revenue, but to get to that 17.5, you have to assume that money is doing a lot of heavy lifting.

Of course, if you have a truly in state-production the story's quite different. For example, most of the money from Tyler Perry's next Madea film really will end up in Georgia.

But it's worth remembering, Perry started making movies in Georgia years before those incentives started.



Along related lines, check out James Kwak's thoughts on Rhode Island's $75 million loan to Curt Shilling's gaming company and Matt Yglesias's explanation of why the Kings stayed in Sacramento.

Oregon and Medicaid

The new Oregon Medicaid study is coming out at a very bad time for me to comment.  But I want to direct you to the Incidental Economist which is doing a banner job of clarifying why it was hard to get good evidence directly on health outcomes from the study.  Further comments are here. 

One thing to note on health outcomes (poached from the comments at TIE) is:

In the case of total cholesterol the rate was reduced by 17% (from 14.1% to 11.7%). If that kind of drop is not detectable by the study then I think it is a problem.

Or this one:

 HgbA1C drops from 5.1% to 4.2%.

I think that this is too harsh, but it does point out that many of the changes were clinically significant but that the study (for a lot of reasons due to enrollment and short follow-up) is not really able to give precise estimates.   Remember, only 25% of the people offered Medicaid took it, so the adherence rate is a lot lower than what we normally think of in an RCT and so the intention to treat estimate is a poor measure of the associations among those who enrolled. 

Kevin Drum discusses this more here. Pay special attention to the PDF at the bottom of the post.

It's too late for me to think of a sufficiently sarcastic title

I've always had a problem with Ken Rudin. I assume that, at some point he must have done some good work to get where he is, but I'm a regular NPR listener and I used to be a regular listener of Talk of the Nation and what I've heard has been consistently weak. More to the point, his weaknesses are completely consistent with the conventional Washington political world view.

The DC press corps has shown an extraordinary level of group-think and a truly stunning lack of self-awareness. Members have to constantly tune out contradictory facts and disturbing questions. Which takes us to last night's broadcast:

DONVAN: You have been noodling on the prospects of Hillary Clinton 2016.

(LAUGHTER)

RUDIN: Well, other people have, as well, and, of course, there's a new poll - and God forbid we could talk about politics without talking about 2016, because it's only, you know, a million years away from now. But WMUR and University of New Hampshire has a new poll out that shows that Hillary Clinton, if the New Hampshire poll - if the New Hampshire primary were held today and, of course, if it were, then we'd be talking about something else, but Hillary Clinton would have 61 percent, and Joe Biden will only have 7 percent among the Democrats.

And on the Republican side, Marco Rubio and Rand Paul would be tied at 15 percent each. I mean, of course, these are nonsensical numbers, but the point is, as of now, May 2013, Hillary Clinton remains - again, I know this is ridiculous to say - but a prohibitive favorite for...

DONVAN: Yeah. But when you say it's ridiculous to say, why are those - why discuss those numbers at all right now? What relevance actually do they have?

RUDIN: Well, none. I guess, you know...

DONVAN: Oh, too bad.

RUDIN: No. I mean, it really has none. Look, the day of the New Hampshire primary in 2008, a lot of people predicted Barack Obama - who had won the Iowa caucuses - who was going to win the New Hampshire, and Hillary Clinton won New Hampshire. So if on the day of the primary we can't - you know, the polling doesn't show it to be accurate. The fact that we're talking about it two-and-a-half years later is just mind-boggling to me - three-and-a-half years later, two-and-a-half years later. It's mind-boggling. But what it does say is that, at least as of now, the Republican race is wide, wide open. And, of course, you know, it's very rare for a vice president to be denied the nomination if he or she would want it. And, of course, Joe Biden has a tough battle if Hillary Clinton runs.

If there was ever a moment that called for an epiphany, this is it. The man is asked straight out "why are you talking about this?" He admits that he doesn't know, that there's no reason for us to listen to him. Does he then take the next logical step and admit that he should spend less time talking about meaningless numbers? No. There is not a flicker of awareness. He just blithely goes back to drawing conclusions from the numbers he has just called nonsensical.

Two education posts of note

From Dana Goldstein: An Activist Teacher, a Struggling School, and the School Closure Movement: A Story from L.A.

From Dean Dad: No Pell for Remediation?

The 401(k) world

There has been some real tough reflection on tax expenditures recently.  I have always seen 401(k) and IRA savings vehicles as being a better than average idea for using this approach.  It's sure better than tax advantaging investment income, which is very interesting in the abstract but in the real world seems to flow to the best off. 

But people are making some solid points about whether this is really a good idea or not.  If they don't work to incentivize the right behavior on the part of either consumers or vendors than maybe they are not an ideal retirement savings approach.

James Kwak:

The first is that they go overwhelmingly to people who don't need them -- like my wife and me. As two university professors living in Western Massachusetts, where the cost of living is low, we make more than we need to support our lifestyle. We max out our defined contribution plans every year, and because we're in a relatively high tax bracket (28%, I think), we save thousands of dollars a year on our taxes. This is the problem with most subsidies that are delivered as tax deductions. Their cash value depends on the amount you can deduct and on your marginal tax rate. In this case, fully 80 percent of retirement savings tax subsidies goes to households in the top income quintile. (See Toder, Harris, and Lim, Table 5.)

The second problem is that these tax incentives don't work. They don't cause people to save more. In my case, the amount we save is just our income minus our consumption, and our consumption isn't affected by the tax code. If there were no tax subsidy, we would save the same amount and just pay more in taxes. And it's not just us. A recent and widely discussed paper by Raj Chetty, John Friedman, Soren Leth-Petersen, Torben Heien Nielsen, and Tore Olsen looked at what happened when the Danish government reduced tax subsidies for retirement savings by rich people. The short answer is that decreases in retirement savings were almost perfectly matched by increases in non-retirement savings. The overall effect, they estimate, is that for every dollar in tax subsidies, total savings go up by one cent. The other ninety-nine cents is just a handout to people who would have saved anyway.

Matt Yglesias

Middle class retirement savings isn't like that. We know roughly how much people need to put away in order to retire with a standard of living they'll be comfortable with. And we definitely know what kind of investment vehicles are most appropriate for middle class savers. And we have abundant evidence that, left to their own devices, a very large share of middle class savers will make the wrong choices. What's more, because of the nature of the right choices it's obvious that the dominant business strategy for vendors of middle class investment products is to dedicate your time and energy to developing and marketing inferior products, since the essence of superior products in this field is that they're less remunerative.
 

The most convincing part is the whole question of how 401(k) plans are designed to reduce consumer choice and the resulting incentive to offer inferior products.  After all, the employer setting up the 401(k) has little incentive to make sure that difficult to spot fees don't eat up other people's money. 

The alternative, at this point, is social security.  I am very sympathetic to arguments that assets are just claims and that providing for the elderly ultimately turns into a resource sharing problem.  The difference appears to be that social security would divide the resources we put towards older adults more equitably than tax-advantaged savings plans do. 

On the bright side, all those elderly shut-ins won't have to worry about having their flights delayed

I won't belabor the point right now but one of the recurring underlying themes in the posts from both authors of this blog is the increasing difficulty with which information passes up the economic ladder and the extraordinary disconnect in perceptions that difficulty has caused.

This is not just a case of not knowing how the other half lives; it's not knowing how the other deciles live (or at least, how the deciles below you live). Thus a problem involving products and services used disproportionately by the upper and upper-middle class is given a high level of coverage and is addressed almost immediately while on the other end of the economic spectrum, important (sometimes vital) products and services are curtailed or even eliminated with little reaction from those unaffected.

Arthur Delaney writing for the Huffington Post:

Now McCormick is 70 years old and living alone in a one-bedroom apartment in a six-story building. Only about 40 of the building's 144 units are occupied. The parking lots are barren and the hallways are dingy with torn carpets. McCormick considers the building "spooky."

He's lived here since 2005, and for most of that time he has benefited from food charity every week day ... brought to him by Meals On Wheels volunteers. Since 1972 the Administration on Aging has provided federal funding for senior nutrition, and today volunteers from some 5,000 Meals On Wheels affiliates across the country distribute a million meals a day.

But federal funding for senior nutrition has been reduced by budget cuts known as sequestration, meaning less food for old people here and elsewhere. The White House has said the cuts would mean 4 million fewer meals for seniors this year, while the Meals On Wheels Association of America put the loss at 19 million meals. In general, the federal government subsidizes only a portion of the cost of every meal, so whether individual seniors will stop receiving food really depends on the circumstances of whatever local agency serves them.

Michele Daley, director of nutrition services at the Local Office on Aging, which serves Roanoke, Alleghany, Botetourt and Craig counties in Virginia, said the agency expects to receive $95,000 less in federal funds this year (it has an operating budget of $1 million). They're gradually reducing the number of people receiving daily meals from 650 to 600 as a result of the budget cuts. Already, the office has planned to stop handing out most emergency meals -- bags of shelf-stable items like canned beans distributed in advance of snowstorms and holidays. And they've instituted a waiting list.

"We've never had a waiting list," Daley said. "This is the first time ever and it's a direct result of sequestration."

After he learned about the cuts on the news, McCormick thought long and hard about whether he really needed the meals. He's got no car, and can't walk long distances, but sometimes he can get a ride to the grocery store and the food pantry, and he's got a small stockpile of canned goods sitting on a wooden desk in his living room.

"I've run into people who've been a whole lot worse off than I was," he said.
...
Many seniors would prefer to live independently in an apartment than dwindle away in a nursing home, and that's partly the point of bringing them food at home. It's also fiscally prudent: A Brown University study found the more states spend on meals, which are not expensive, the less they spend housing seniors in nursing homes, which costs much more.
...
Field did not drive to William McCormick's lonely apartment tower, and neither did any of Roanoke's other Meals On Wheels volunteers, at least not to visit McCormick. Last month, after taking stock of his own access to food and considering people less fortunate, he decided to drop out of the program.

"I thought about it for two or three days and I said, 'Right now my health's pretty good,' and so I just gave it up," he said. "I just couldn't bear the thought of me having something to eat and maybe somebody else needing it and they couldn't apply for it so I just voluntarily gave it up."

Portion sizes

It has been a busy month but I want to go back to one of Mark's posts.  Mark states:

There are certainly things here that would seem strange here (make sure to get two pats of butter every day), but much of advice -- not overeating, watching salt, sugar and fat, satisfying cravings in moderation -- still seems fairly sound.
 

Even today, dietary guidelines suggest getting some fat in your diet.  So how much butter is in a pat of butter? 

20 calories in 1 small pat of salted/unsalted butter (0.1 oz or 3g)
 

For a 2000 calories diet, that is 2% of your daily energy intake.  Now if you consider what was easy to preserve and likely to be widely available in 1950, this makes sense.  Today we'd probably substitute nuts for the butter.  But it would be challenging to find a nutritionist who had trouble with a garnish that was about 4-6 grams of fat/day. 

What is more remarkable, to me, is how much things like meat serving sizes fit with modern dietary approaches.  But I would be surprised if this advice was not very effective at weight control even today. 

Reasons we value a college degree (aside from the obvious)

One of the things I find concerning about the MOOC debate is how simplistic many of the views are, both of college classes in particular and of college education in general. (Here is another one of my concerns.)

Over at Stumbling and Mumbling, Chris Dillow does a good job helping with the latter, discussing the less obvious ways that degrees can pay dividends (not sure about the last one though).

Nevertheless,we should ask: what function would universities serve in an economy where demand for higher cognitive skills is declining? There are many possibilities:

- A signaling device. A degree tells prospective employers that its holder is intelligent, hard-working and moderately conventional - all attractive qualities.

- Network effects. University teaches you to associate with the sort of people who might have good jobs in future, and might give you the contacts to get such jobs later.

- A lottery ticket.A degree doesn't guarantee getting a good job. But without one, you have no chance.

- Flexibility. A graduate can stack shelves, and might be more attractive as a shelf-stacker than a non-graduate. Beaudry and colleagues decribe how the falling demand for graduates has caused graduates to displace non-graduates in less skilled jobs.

- Maturation & hidden unemployment. 21-year-olds are more employable than 18-year-olds, simply because they are three years less foolish. In this sense, university lets people pass time without showing up in the unemployment data.

- Consumption benefits. University is a less unpleasant way of spending three years than work. And it can provide a stock of consumption capital which improves the quality of our future leisure. By far the most important thing I learnt at Oxford was a love of Hank Williams and Leonard Cohen.

I suspect that signaling is the main reason why increasingly many jobs require college degrees though they don't seem to involve any skills we would normally associate with college. HR departments spend a great deal of their time and energy narrowing applicant pools down to a manageable size. Degree requirements are a simple and easy to implement filter.

A break from the Felix-bashing

I realize I've been hard on him lately, but it's worth taking a moment to remember that Felix Salmon is one of the best financial journalists out there, especially on the philanthropy beat:

While the Cooper Union ethos never left the students or the faculty, however, it did seem to desert a significant chunk of the Board of Trustees and the administration. Starting as long ago as the early 1970s, the board started selling off the land bequeathed by Cooper, not to invest the proceeds in higher-yielding assets, but rather just to cover accumulated deficits. Cooper hated debt and deficits, but that hatred was not shared by later administrators, who would allow debts to accumulate — bad enough — until the only solution was to sell off the college’s patrimony, thereby reducing the resources available for future generations of students. If you visit Astor Place today, the intersection once dominated by the handsome Cooper Union building, the main thing you notice are two gleaming new glass-curtain-walled luxury buildings, one residential and one commercial, both constructed on land bought from Cooper Union.

Then, when you turn the corner and look at what hulks across the street from the main Cooper Union building, you can see where a huge amount of the money went: into a gratuitously glamorous and expensive New Academic Building, built at vast expense, with the aid of a $175 million mortgage which Cooper Union has no ability to repay.

I started to quote more, but as startling and depressing as the details are, you really need to read the whole thing to get the full impact. It's an extraordinary story with particular significance to those following the tuition debates. While it would be a mistake to assume Cooper Union is completely representative, it is an enormously instructive example that seems to give us one more reason to question the cost disease theory.

A word of warning, I would not advise reading past the phrase "vision process" on a full stomach.

Free TV blogging -- collateral damage

For those of you who tuned in late to the TV debate, so far we've talked about how well over-the-air television compares to cable (for some people), how new and apparently successful businesses are springing up around OTA, and how the number of viewers getting their television through antennas appears to have been growing substantially since the introduction of digital. What we haven't covered so far is the potential social impact of killing broadcast television.

It is almost axiomatic that, if you have a resource that is used in one way by people at the top of the economic ladder and in another way by people on the bottom and you "let the market decide" what to do with the resource, it will go with the people who have the money. I'm sure many if not most of the readers here could explain it better than I can (econ is not my field), but the problem comes from the fact we're talking about absolute rather than relative money. People at the bottom may be willing to spend a larger portion off their income on the resource but it's a larger portion of a much smaller total.

This becomes particularly troubling when we're talking about a publicly held resource. When we consider selling off a piece of public property, we can't just assume that whoever is willing to pay the most will put it to the best use. By that standard, there would be no roads, parks or libraries in poor neighborhoods. Things used by the wealthy will always come out ahead.

Instead we need to think about who uses the resource now and how their lives will change if that resource is sold off. What groups rely heavily on broadcast television? What groups would have the most difficulty finding alternatives?

People in the bottom one or two deciles are going to be in trouble. Even the lowest tier of cable would represent a significant monthly expense.

People with limited residential security will be even worse off.

People with limited income security will face a difficult choice: sign up for exorbitant no-contract plans or commit to a financial obligation they may not be able to fulfill.

People with poor credit histories will have to come up with large deposits every time they move.

I have no idea what the unbanked would go about getting cable.

Keep in mind, all of these groups will have comparable or greater difficulty getting access to high speed internet service.

Weekend blogging -- if you were getting your fitness advice from a 1950 comic book...

The following ran in an issue of Harvey's Black Cat* in 1950. I doubt it was based on cutting edge science but it's probably a good read on the conventional wisdom of the time. 

What's interesting is how much and how little things change. There are certainly things here that would seem strange here (make sure to get two pats of butter every day), but much of advice -- not overeating, watching salt, sugar and fat, satisfying cravings in moderation -- still seems fairly sound.

One of my big concerns with health issues is that the media (and sometimes the researchers) create an exaggerated sense of volatility, the impression that, when it comes to a healthy lifestyle, doctors are constantly changing their mind on everything. Under these circumstances, it's easy to see why so many people fall prey to fad diets or simply give up.  

Joseph could give a more nuanced version of this point, but I'm sure that public heath would be better if we stopped presenting a distorted view of health research to the public.

*This one, not this one.

Weekend blogging -- TV themes by the otherwise famous

When I get around to a post discussing the different branding strategies of the various terrestrial superstations, one of the practices I'll be singling out is METV's policy of playing opening and closing credits uninterrupted. It costs little but goes a long way to build brand both by showing respect for the product and addressing a long standing complaint of hard core fans.

This got me thinking about TV themes, specifically those by musicians known for other things.For example, Flatt and Scruggs were bluegrass legends long before the the Beverly Hillbillies.






Here are some other TV themes known for things other than TV themes like collaborating with Dizzy Gillespie or scoring 500+ movies.

I'll post credits in the comments later.




















And bonus points if you can recognize the time signature...

Dangerous synergies

Taking a break from the free-TV blogging rant to go back to the decline-of-journalism rant...

Jonathan Chait has a great post up at New York:

The gigantic ethics violation that was once called the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner, and is now known as White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner Weekend, is fast upon us. The event originally served as a relatively harmless scaled-up version of the routine source-greasing that is traditionally performed at bars and restaurants. It has become a powerful metaphor for the incestuous relationship between the news media and the power elite.

The WHCD has evolved into a profitable leverage opportunity for media companies. They use the cachet of their brand name, and the access it gives them to the event, to lure celebrities and sell that access to corporations. The biggest media personalities are needed to lure in both the celebrity flesh and the corporate johns, but the rest of the reporters are completely superfluous to the exercise.

Needless to say, the whole thing is lousy (in very close to the original sense) with conflicts of interest, but with the exception of Chait and a few other malcontents, no one seems all that bothered. (True, Tom Brokaw complained, but he seemed to be troubled by the tackiness of the low grade of celebrities, not by the flagrant influence peddling.)

A major aspect of our other ongoing thread (OK, just a little free TV blogging) is the way deep pocketed interests like Verizon and ATT can so control narratives that even our best journalists end up buying a factually questionable stories. When you get into the details (like the Atlantic's elaborate party and its list of corporate underwriters), you start to understand how this can happen.

But what really bothers me about journalism isn't the tolerance of conflicts of interest.

It isn't the devaluing of accuracy.

It isn't the increasing tendency toward group think.

It isn't the practice of uncritically passing on press releases as news stories.

It isn't the inability or unwillingness of press watchdogs to honestly address serious problems.

All of these things are bad, but it's when you combine them that you start looking at catastrophic failure.

I need to be very careful when I base an argument on NBC's competence

I argued earlier that the OTA television audience had to be healthier than Felix Salmon implied for NBC to go ahead with COZI. I was assuming that the company was capable of a basic feasibility study, not that they were good at actually running a channel. That requires programming skills such as putting complimentary shows together.

I'm not making this up:

1:00 p.m. Jan 28 Munster Go Home

 3:00 p.m. Jan 28 Agnes of God

 5:00 p.m. Jan 28 Highway to Heaven

Apparently the ghost of Zucker still roams the halls.

Update: Just to be certain that those unfamiliar with the material get the full disparity here, Munster is a light farce about lovable monsters, Highway is a feel-good Eighties show about an angel who helps people, and Agnes is a drama about a nun and probable rape victim who killed her newborn baby.

Free TV blogging -- betting against Felix Salmon

[Update: Andrew Gelman joins the conversation and, as usual, brings with him a fantastic comment section. Felix Salmon sites this Nielsen study to support his case. Rajiv Sethi (who was possibly the first major blogger on this beat) joins in. I'm still the only one talking about terrestrial superstations, but the night's still young so you never know.]

If you've been reading the last few posts, you know that Felix Salmon has weighed in on the free TV debate and that I find myself in the very unusual position of disputing pretty much everything he says (it is far more common for me to be completely in agreement). I'll be addressing the cost of Salmon's policy recommendations (born disproportionately by minorities and the poor) and questioning the economic implications later. Right now I want to focus on some disputed facts and assumptions.

In the post Salmon is dismissive of the claim that there are fifty million over-the-air television viewers:

The 50 million number, by the way, should not be considered particularly reliable: it’s Aereo’s guess as to the number of people who ever watch free-to-air TV, even if they mainly watch cable or satellite. (Maybe they have a hut somewhere with an old rabbit-ear TV in it.)

And he strongly suggests the number is not only smaller but shrinking. By comparison, here's a story from the broadcasting news site TV News Check from June of last year (if anyone has more recent numbers please let me know):

According to new research by GfK Media, the number of Americans now relying solely on over-the-air (OTA) television reception increased to almost 54 million, up from 46 million just a year ago. The recently completed survey also found that the demographics of broadcast-only households skew towards younger adults, minorities and lower-income families.

OTA can be tricky to measure -- unlike cable, there's no way of telling who has an old set of rabbit ears -- but we can look at other indicators and see which set of assumptions they are consistent with. Specifically consider the recent decisions of NBC and Fox to launch dedicated OTA channels this year

Let's assume Salmon's right and put ourselves in the position of a Fox or NBC executive who has to decide whether or not to create a new broadcast network. We can be reasonably confident that the executives have access to reliable data (particularly the Fox executive if the deal with Weigel included a look at some numbers from ThisTV and METV).

You find, given our premise, that the total over-the-air audience is, say, forty million, the technology is obsolete and entire medium will probably be gone in a few years. At this point, it's hard to imagine you'd proceed with an expensive, time-consuming project that is likely to be an embarrassing failure but the situation actually gets worse.

You are looking at launching an advertiser-driven, English-language station but the OTA market is disproportionately poor and immigrant (I get programming in over a half dozen languages); the maxim relevant audience for your station now drops to maybe thirty million and there's more bad news. You're going to have to share that thirty million with a crowded field of competitors. A major market will have dozens of OTA channels including multiple PBS channels, This, ME, Antenna, Bounce, RTV, three ION channels and various independents.

Given Salmon's assumptions about the size and trajectory of this market, there is simply no way NBC or Fox would have gone ahead with these channels. They couldn't possibly recoup their start-up costs before OTA is phased out. Put bluntly, both NBC and Fox are betting against Salmon's position.

Obviously this is not conclusive, but it's a strong piece of evidence and it's consistent with what we've seen elsewhere. It's also consistent with GfK's numbers.

There's more to come on this. There are many aspects to this story and I'll try to get to as many as I can but I've been looking at this for a long time from a lot of different angles and from every angle it looks to me like OTA is a promising technology supporting an innovative and growing industry, serving important economic and social roles.

The technology is doing fine in the marketplace. It's lobbyists who are likely to kill it.

The Me Generation -- re-updated

Blogger apparently really dislikes PDFs so I removed the embed but you can find the original here (you might want to check out some of the other press releases as well).

Here's the subject line:

Me-TV adds seven new affiliates
Classic TV network now clears 89% of the U.S.

At the risk of putting too fine a point on a dead horse, this is consistent with a growing market and a sound business model.

(and at the risk of saying you-know-what, I told you to keep an eye on Weigel)

Normally this sort of thing never works

Matt Yglesias talks about a plan to try and move defined benefit pension funds away from organizations that are trying to defund or remove access to defined benefit pensions.  Generally, you would have thought that the people making money off of these funds would have worked things out for themselves earlier on in the process.  That being said, immediate losses that exceed any possible tax benefit might well work if the problem is that these pension managers are excessively focused on the short term.

At the very least it is odd for teacher to be indirectly funding Students First. 

Felix Salmon vs. Chet Kanojia

It's too late for me to think through and research all of the possible issues with these numbers so I'm going to pass these on without further comment for now.

From Salmon's "Aereo and the death of broadcast TV"

Here's the passage Salmon quotes from from Forbes on Kanojia:

“The real question is a consumer question: Can you rightfully disenfranchise 50 million consumers?” he asked. “Is that what the preferred policy is?”

In the event that the networks did go through with it, he speculated that other programmers would be quick to replace them in the role of public broadcasters. “That spectrum is incredibly valuable. Somebody’s going to take advantage of that,” he said.

Here's Salmon's dismissive response:

The 50 million number, by the way, should not be considered particularly reliable: it’s Aereo’s guess as to the number of people who ever watch free-to-air TV, even if they mainly watch cable or satellite. (Maybe they have a hut somewhere with an old rabbit-ear TV in it.)

Here's a comment to Salmon's blog:

“The 50 million number .. is the number of people who ever watch free-to-air TV, even if they mainly watch cable or satellite. ” No! That is the number of people who rely exclusively on over-the-air TV without any cable or satellite. http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/60230 /us-otaonly-tv-viewing-hits-178-of-hhs Also, far from being on the decline, this is actually one of the fastest growing segments of the market. I think it may have something to do with the digital switch and the accompanying radical improvement in visual quality of OTA TV. Exclusive OTA viewer estimates go from 42M in 2010, to 46M in 2011, to 54M in 2012. The reports of the death of bunny ears have been greatly exaggerated. But yes, it is true that OTA-only viewers rank low on the amount of political clout. They are disproportionally young adults and minorities.

And here's what you get when you follow the link:

According to new research by GfK Media, the number of Americans now relying solely on over-the-air (OTA) television reception increased to almost 54 million, up from 46 million just a year ago. The recently completed survey also found that the demographics of broadcast-only households skew towards younger adults, minorities and lower-income families.

The 2012 Ownership Survey and Trend Report, part of The Home Technology Monitor research series, found that 17.8% of all U.S. households with TVs use over-the-air signals to watch TV programming; this compares with 15.0% of homes reported as broadcast-only last year. Overall, GfK Media estimates that more than 20.7 million households representing 53.8 million consumers receive television exclusively through broadcast signals.

I will be posting some arguments that some of the activity we've seen (see the terrestrial superstations post) support Kanojia over Salmon but those come from a completely different direction. I'll take another look at these numbers in the morning.

Terrestrial Superstations

Normally, I have to work hard to find something to criticize in a Felix Salmon post. With this one, I'm having to work hard to lay the groundwork so I can spell out all of the problems.

When US television went digital, the new platform didn't just allow you to get HD video over a set of rabbit ears, it also allowed TV stations to broadcast multiple subchannels. This has created all sorts of interesting changes in the television landscape (for example, your PBS station is now probably putting out four times the programming). One area of particular relevance to this discussion is the appearance of general interest stations created specifically for the new technology.

The idea of using digital subchannels to launch a TBS style superstation seems to have originated with Weigel Broadcasting, a well-respected regional player noted at the time for being Chicago's last independent television broadcaster. (Both Weigel and Chicago figure prominently in this story.)

Weigel's ThisTV (a partnership with MGM) was up and broadcasting the day American television went digital. Here's what I said about the concept a couple of years ago.

ThisTV has caught on to the fact that the most interesting films are often on the far ends of the spectrum and has responded with a wonderful mixture of art house and grind house. Among the former, you can see films like Persona, the Music Lovers and Paths of Glory. Among the latter you'll find American International quickies and action pictures with titles like Pray for Death. You can even find films that fit into both categories like Corman's Poe films or Milius' Dillinger.

Of course, the other great insight was that movies on the far end of the spectrum tend to be cheaper.

I've written a great deal about Weigel and I have a lot more on the to-do pile. The company is one of my favorite examples of a well-run business but for the purposes of this story, the pertinent factors are: Weigel is an innovative with a good track record; it moves as decisively as any company I've ever seen; it is the most important player in the digital television landscape (as you'll see later).

Skip forward a couple of years and the follow-the-data approach starts to get interesting. The company with the most complete information (Weigel, obviously) announces another, more ambitious superstation called METV, a classic TV channel built around old but prestigious shows like Mary Tyler Moore, Columbo and the Twilight Zone (making very limited use of block programming to allow airing of fifty different programs a week) and promoted a surprising elaborate campaign. In-character station ads featured Betty White as Sue Ann Niven, Ed Asner as Lou Grant, Carl Reiner as Alan Brady and Bob Newhart as Bob Hartley.

The company that arguably had the second best information and experience was Weigel's long-time competitor, the Tribune Company's WGN. Tribune had data from its stations (including KTLA which carried ThisTV in the Los Angeles market), experience with one of the first and most successful cable superstations and finally the inevitable back channel communication you would expect from Chicago's famed television community. It is not a coincidence that Tribune launched its terrestrial superstation, AntennaTV about the same time METV went on the air.

After LA and New York, the two most important television towns are Chicago and Atlanta so it's not surprising that the next terrestrial superstation came from Atlanta. A few months after the launch of AntennaTV, Andrew Young and Martin Luther King III founded BounceTV as an over-the-air alternative to BET.

This is a good place to stop and note something interesting about all of these terrestrial superstations. Neither ThisTV, METV, BounceTV nor AntennaTV have regularly scheduled infomercials. This is a business model built on program driven advertising and we are going on five years of data that seems to say that it works.

2013 continues the trend of more investment on terrestrial television by bigger players. A few months ago NBCUniversal unveiled COZITV. COZI is the only terrestrial superstation with infomercials but, like Bounce, it also has original programming [link added].

And now there's this:

Movies! is an upcoming American digital multicast television network, that will feature an emphasis in its programming on feature films. The network will be a joint venture between Chicago-based Weigel Broadcasting and the Fox Entertainment Group subsidiary of News Corporation, and will be available in the United States through the digital subchannels of broadcast television stations, as well as on select cable systems. Movies! will broadcast 24 hours a day in 480i widescreen standard definition.

I have limited this post to commercial, general interest, English language stations created specifically for digital broadcasting. That's a small sliver of what's available over the air but it does, pretty much conclusively, show that the model is viable and that, unlike so many recent tech and media fads, the more data comes in, the more interested serious players get.

Unemployment and causation

Megan McArdle:

On Monday, I wrote about long-term unemployment, and why it's a large enough problem that the federal government should be trying to do something about it. I got pushback along two lines: 1. Extended unemployment benefits probably caused the unemployment, by giving people an incentive to stay home instead of finding a job.  2. Regulations and taxes are making it too hard to hire people. I am sympathetic to the basics of each argument. (. . .)

However, I don't see these as viable explanaitons for the current employment situation. Regulations and taxes did not suddenly spike in the fourth quarter of 2008, but unemployment did. And while Obamacare certainly imposes taxes and uncertainty on businesses, I don't think that it, by itself, can have driven the natural rate of unemployment up by 3-5 percentage points. (. . .) 

But six months is the current length of standard unemployment benefits. And if standard unemployment benefits cause very high long-term unemployment rates, how come they only started doing so in 2009? To sum up, unemployment benefits do cause some moral hazard, and taxes and regulation probably do somewhat depress the natural rate of employment in our country. But neither are an adequate explanation for the truly devastating conditions in the current labor market. Which means that--as much as I would love it to be true--we can't fix them by slashing taxes, regulation, and government spending.

This is a very insightful post from a pundit who is definitely not sympathetic to the role of government intervention in the economy.  But Megan very nicely hits at the core problem with a government induced recession story -- what changed in 2008 that was not true in the decade before?

Now you can argue about a financial collapse followed by central banks being uncertain about the best strategy to deal with interest rates that are nearing the zero lower bound that they can typically have.  It's possible that this narrative could explain some of these issues but it isn't an explanation that attaches blame to typical conservative bugbears.

So I think it is good to push back on these narratives.  They may have some role in particular circumstances, but are clearly insufficient on their own.  In fact, the unemployment insurance piece has the possibility of being counter-productive -- denying income to the very needy and reducing what they spend thus leading to even more economic contraction.  When the number of unemployed workers per job opening falls to the 2006/2007 level, that might be a good time to look at the long term wisdom of the program. 

So kudos to Megan for a very good post. 

Add Fox to the list of companies that think Felix Salmon is wrong about terrestrial television

[Corrected]

Much more on this soon, but soon after reading this uncharacteristically misinformed post by Felix Salmon on the dismal prospects of broadcast television I came across this link on Weigel Broadcasting's Wikipedia page:

Movies! is an upcoming American digital multicast television network, that will feature an emphasis in its programming on feature films. The network will be a joint venture between Chicago-based Weigel Broadcasting and the Fox Entertainment Group subsidiary of News Corporation, and will be available in the United States through the digital subchannels of broadcast television stations, as well as on select cable systems. Movies! will broadcast 24 hours a day in 480i widescreen standard definition.

So we have Fox, NBCUniversal, Tribune, BounceTV, PBS and others betting (in some cases betting big) that digital broadcasting is growing, not dying.

I have tremendous respect for Salmon but he's out of his area of expertise here and he's been sucked up into a narrative that has an army of flacks and lobbyists behind it but which does not have the evidence to back it up.

More on that later, in the meantime, check out this post by Rajiv Sethi for another take on the question.

[I originally wrote BET when I should have written BounceTV, the terrestrial superstation founded by Andrew Young and Martin Luther King III]

Free TV blogging -- results may vary

[Update: you really should check out the comments at the end of this post.]

It's always a bit of a shock when you're reminded that people do occasionally read your blog and even more of a shock when someone actually follows your suggestions. That was the case recently when, in response to a post on free TV, Andrew Gelman tried plugging an antenna into his set and couldn't get much of anything.

As a proponent of free TV and a reasonably honest  blogger, this forces me to confront an uncomfortable fact: some people need cable or satellite to watch live TV.

There are some caveats (you might improve your results with an amplified antenna; you can almost certainly do better with an external one) but there's no way to get around the fact that people who live in certain areas are going to get crappy results from terrestrial television.

NYC may be one of those areas. Most of my experience with over the air television has been in LA, a city of short buildings and tall mountains, obviously not the best proxy for the big apple. I believe NYC was one of the leaders in cable back in the Seventies and Eighties. I had assumed that the reason was density and infrastructure, but it could also have been due to the difficulty TV signals had making it through that famous New York City skyline.

But, even though it may not pay off, I still recommend testing out a set of rabbit ears if you haven't already, partially because you might find that what you can get for free is better than what you're paying thirty a month for, but mainly because over-the-air television may pay its biggest dividends for the people who don't use it.

In a healthy, competitive market, suppliers are under constant pressure to provide the best possible product at the the cheapest price, innovators find fertile ground and forces tend to align to keep people honest. In television, the market is anything but healthy. Content production is dominated by a small number of producers and channeled through a tiny handful of providers. Competition is severely limited.

As long as awareness of terrestrial television remains low, a Time Warner can overcharge for low quality product and force customers to buy bundles of mostly unwanted channels, safe in the knowledge that most people won't go to the trouble of switching as long as the TV packages provided by Dish, Direct and the local phone company also suck.

Free TV throws a huge monkey wrench in that business model. If a significant portion of of cable customers know that they can get fifty to a hundred digital channels for free, "We suck less than ATT" no longer works as a marketing slogan.

What if you're one of those people who can't get those fifty to a hundred channels? That might be the best part, because your cable company doesn't know who's in what group and even they did, it would be difficult, both in terms of implementation and PR, to set up a pricing system that selectively gouged people who got bad reception. The result is that no customer gets screwed.

And after all, that's how efficient markets are supposed to work.

Note to journalists -- you don't have to believe everything they tell you (business model edition)

File this one with the flack-to-hack series, that part of the decline in journalism that can be attributed to increased willingness to print whatever the PR person hands you.

You've probably heard about this:

While the world has no shortage of pie-in-the-sky renderings for floating cities, a new proposal by Silicon Valley start-up Blueseed is perhaps the first to invoke entrepreneurial spirit and the American Dream in its soapbox pitch. Looking for a way to give foreign-born tech entrepreneurs access to the enterprising atmosphere of Silicon Valley, the founders of Blueseed are hoping to revamp an old cruise ship to create a community, of sorts, 12 nautical miles off California's coast in international waters, so international techies could live within commuting distance without a work visa. With a simple business tourism visa, denizens of the vessel could take a 30-minute boat ride to the mainland once or twice a week. Of course, creating an inhabitable community on water—one that people would live on six months or a year at a time—requires some interior design finagling, including incorporating lots of light and open space.

The big issues here have to do with labor, immigration and industrial policy, but this also provides a small but useful example of gee-whiz, ddulite journalism. I will give the writer, Amy Schellenbaum, credit for using the phrase 'pie-in-the-sky' in her opening sentence but other than the occasional qualifier, that's pretty much the last trace of incredulity you'll find.

For example:

Blueseed still needs $18M (of the $27M required, total) before any building can take place, but if this actually gets rolling, Mart imagines he'll charge organizations anywhere between $1,200 a month to house their employees in a shared cabin to $3,000 a month per person. Just what everyone wants to do: shack up with their coworkers!

I looked at a few cruise ships on Wikipedia and where cost was given, they were all in the hundreds of millions (and sometimes much higher). Even done on the cheap with an old ship, between buying the damned thing and doing the kind of major refit described here, we've got to be talking nine figures.

Now, I have to admit, my experience with start-ups is very limited, so it's very likely that I'm missing some important aspect of funding in this casse. Perhaps this proposal is more credible than it looks, but as presented here, these numbers seem awfully screwy, and it's worrisome that the reporter either doesn't feel the need to explain the screwiness or, worse yet, doesn't even notice it.

Quote of the day

From Norman Geisler’s book on Thomas Aquinas via John D. Cook:

No, I do not agree with everything he [Aquinas] ever wrote. On the other hand, neither do I agree with everything I ever wrote.

More on statistics in research

One last good point out of the whole excel error in the 2010 Reinhart and Rogoff paper:

This raises another issue. Programming is getting easier and easier, but it’s hard to do well. Economics these days depends heavily on programming. It seems to problematic to me that we rely on economists to also be programmers; surely there are people who are good economists but mediocre programmers (especially since the best programmers don’t become economists). If you crawl through a random sample of econometric papers and try to reproduce their results, I’m sure you will find bucketloads of errors, whether the analysis was done in R, Stata, SAS, or Excel. But people only find them when the stakes are high, as with the Reinhart and Rogoff paper, which has been cited all around the globe (not necessarily with their approval) as an argument for austerity.

It is the most generally applicable advice, in that it might well have prevented many of the other errors.  But it is not a one directional attribution of responsibility.  A careful analyst should have done sensitivity analysis for things like outliers and found the critical sensitivity of the results to the inclusion of New Zealand.  Or compared the different weighting schemes.  If you are going to try and understand a small dataset you need to be very thorough at looking at all of the ways that the data itself could be summarized. 

So statisticians also have a burden of care, here, even if one was not directly involved in this analysis to counsel researchers on how to approach these difficult data problems.  In the same sense, it would not be a bad structural change for researchers to consult more with methodologists, who can look at the problem outside of the lens of strong priors and might be more quick to question a surprisingly good result. 

Weekend blogging -- Gained in translation

Specifically, where does translation stop and adaptation start?

This is never a trivial question. When you read Tartuffe in college, the story was by Molière but there's a good chance the words were by someone like Richard Wilbur. If you reacted to something other than the plot -- a turn of phrase, a subtle shading of character -- it is not immediately clear who should get the credit.

Of course, a Wilbur starts from a position of respect of the original work and tries to capture what it's like to experience a work in its original form. What happen's when a translator simply says "to hell with it"?




From Wikipedia:

Die Zwei, the German version of The Persuaders, became a cult hit in Germany. This was largely because the dubbing was substantively altered creating a completely different program.^[11] In France Amicalement vôtre (Yours, Friendly) also became a popular show because it was based on the redubbed German version instead of the English original. 

The German dubbing was "a unique mixture of street slang and ironic tongue-in-cheek remarks" and that it "even mentioned Lord Sinclair becoming 007 on one or two occasions".^[18] Dialogue frequently broke the fourth wall with lines like "Junge, lass doch die Sprüche, die setzen ja die nächste Folge ab!" (Quit the big talk, lad, or they'll cancel the series) or "Du musst jetzt etwas schneller werden, sonst bist Du nicht synchron" (Talk faster, you aren't in sync any more).
Research from the University of Hamburg notes the only common elements between Die Zwei and The Persuaders! is they use the same imagery. Other than the "the linguistic changes entailed by the process of translation result in radically different characterizations of the protagonists of the series. The language use in the translations is characterized by a greater degree of sexual explicitness and verbal violence as well as an unveiled pro-American attitude, which is not found in the source texts".^[19] 

In 2006 a news story by CBS News on the German dubbing industry mentioned The Persuaders! The report discovered that many German dubbing artists believed that "staying exactly true to the original is not always the highest aim". Rainer Brandt, co-ordinator of the German dubbing of The Persuaders and Tony Curtis' dubbing voice, said "This spirit was invoked by the person who oversaw the adaption and also performed Tony Curtis' role: When a company says they want something to be commercially successful, to make people laugh, I give it a woof. I make them laugh like they would in a Bavarian beer garden." ^[20] 

Other researchers suggest international versions of The Persuaders! were given different translations simply because the original English series would not have made sense to local audiences. For instance the nuanced differences between the accents and manners of Tony Curtis, the American self-made millionaire Danny Wild from the Brooklyn slums, and Roger Moore, the most polished British Lord Sinclair, would be hard to convey to foreign viewers. Argentinian academic Sergio Viaggio commented "how could it have been preserved in Spanish? By turning Curtis into a low class Caracan and Moore into an aristocratic Madrileño? Here not even the approach that works with My Fair Lady would be of any avail; different sociolects of the same vernacular will not do—much less in subtitling, where all differences in accent are irreparably lost".^[21]

War and research

Though it's too early to tell whether the geopolitical lessons are going to take, we did learn some things from the war in Iraq.

From the New Republic:

Neither Boston Medical Center nor Boston Emergency Medical Services have responded to queries about how tourniquets were used after the marathon bombings, so we can't yet confirm their effectiveness. It wouldn't be the first time, though, that killing abroad has saved lives at home: Wartime medical advances have long translated into civilian life (trauma centers full of specialists sprouted up in cities, for examples, after they’d worked to great effect in Vietnam). America's latest conflicts have also improved techniques to repair tissues and nerves that have prevented amputations in operating rooms around the country.

That kind of research funding tends to dry up when the soldiers come home. But hundreds of thousands of people die from traumatic injuries every year, and Jenkins says that huge gaps still remain in our knowledge of how to treat them. The National Trauma Institute has been campaigning for more money to research trauma, which doesn't loom as large in the public consciousness as many diseases do.

This goes beyond tourniquets. As NPR reported a few years ago, techniques from the war have revolutionized emergency medicine:

The medevac choppers land and then taxi over to the gate just outside the emergency room, where gurneys are waiting. Nightfall has brought a bone-chilling wind, and a gang of nurses and orderlies rushes four patients into the warmth of the ER.

It's more than warm inside. In fact it's 100 degrees. It's the first clue that this hospital — the Joint Theater Hospital at Afghanistan's Bagram Air Field — is a little different. Through years of war, combat surgeons have learned that hypothermia is a big risk in patients with significant blood loss. Nine years of conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan have brought some grim benefits: a new wealth of knowledge about treating war wounds.

"At the beginning of this conflict, we were taking the best trauma medicine from the civilian sector, and we brought it to Iraq and Afghanistan," says U.S. Air Force Col. Chris Benjamin, the hospital commander. He says now his doctors tell him it's the other way around.

"Here we are seven, eight years later, taking what we've learned in these conflicts to teach them the advances that we've made with this data collection here in theater," he says.

It seems strange to discuss war in terms of research and data collection, but despite what you constantly hear, most big problems are solved by throwing large sums of money at them and one of the most effective ways of convincing a government to start throwing money is to get it into a war. I'm not saying that the means justify the ends or that we couldn't find a way to get better results without the horrific costs.

What I am saying is that, in the world we've got, for researchers, like Keynesians, the steps we think society should take (like spending significant amounts of money on trauma research) often only came as a byproduct of war.

Trying to wean myself off "hibernate"

I assume I'm not the only blogger with this bad habit: I'll come across something that's either worth sharing or worthy of comment or a good jumping-off point for a discussion, but I won't have the time (or perhaps the will) to write out the post right then so I leave the tab up and hibernate the computer rather than shutting it down.

Here are the tabs I currently have open. Hopefully, some will eventually grow into posts of there own. If not, maybe you'll find something of interest in the list.

Dana Goldstein has an article at the Smithsonian on the influence of American industry on education. 

ThisTV is showing The Sweet Smell of Success and I can't help thinking that it's time for a sequel.

I've been thinking about the problem of pivoting something as complex and amorphous as a political party, or maybe thinking about the problem of how to think about the problem, either way this and this (both from TPM) highlight the difficulty.

It is generally both foolish and dangerous for a reformer to say nothing could be worse than what we have now (worse is almost always a possibility), but when the speaker is a college president in the state with arguably the best university system in the country with probably the best university system in the world, it indicates just how detached from reality the debate has become. (via More or less bunk.)

On a related note, I've been meaning to discuss the Hawthorne effect in educational research but now I have no idea what to call it.

I've never been a big Fitzgerald fan (more of a Count No 'Count man, myself), but if I were, this would worry the hell out of me (in 3D):

Maybe I can sucker Joseph into writing a few posts on the wrong kind of government assistance for business.

This Felix Salmon piece on Ripple nicely compliments all of the Bitcoin coverage.

On a related note, though it's not really an insult to say a rich person has more money than sense, some rich people apparently have less sense than you have money.

Finally, it seems that a stock based on a gourmet snack fad may not hold its value.

Two views of Excel

Part of the Reinhart-Rogoff fall-out (see here for Joseph's take) has been a discussion of the role of Excel and similar programs in analytic work. Andrew Gelman has a post up on the subject that includes this quote from an unnamed statistics professor:

It’s somewhat surprising to see Very Serious Researchers (apologies to Paul Krugman) using Excel. Some years ago, I was consulting on a trademark infringement case and was trying (unsuccessfully) to replicate another expert’s regression analysis. It wasn’t until I had the brainstorm to use Excel that I was able to reproduce his results – it may be better now, but at the time, Excel could propagate round-off error and catastrophically cancel like no other software!

Followed by this assessment by Gelman himself:

Microsoft has lots of top researchers so it’s hard for me to understand how Excel can remain so crappy. I mean, sure, I understand in some general way that they have a large user base, it’s hard to maintain backward compatibility, there’s feature creep, and, besides all that, lots of people have different preferences in data analysis than I do. But still, it’s such a joke. Word has problems too, but I can see how these problems arise from its desirable features. The disaster that is Excel seems like more of a mystery.

In contrast, here's James Kwak discussing Excel (prompted by news that an embarrassingly simple spreadsheet error contributed to the London Whale fiasco and, yes, the similarities have been noted):

Microsoft Excel is one of the greatest, most powerful, most important software applications of all time.** [** But, like many other Microsoft products, it was not particularly innovative: it was a rip-off of Lotus 1-2-3, which was a major improvement on VisiCalc.] Many in the industry will no doubt object. But it provides enormous capacity to do quantitative analysis, letting you do anything from statistical analyses of databases with hundreds of thousands of records to complex estimation tools with user-friendly front ends. And unlike traditional statistical programs, it provides an intuitive interface that lets you see what happens to the data as you manipulate them.

As a consequence, Excel is everywhere you look in the business world—especially in areas where people are adding up numbers a lot, like marketing, business development, sales, and, yes, finance. For all the talk about end-to-end financial suites like SAP, Oracle, and Peoplesoft, at the end of the day people do financial analysis by extracting data from those back-end systems and shoving it around in Excel spreadsheets. I have seen internal accountants calculate revenue from deals in Excel. I have a probably untestable hypothesis that, were you to come up with some measure of units of software output, Excel would be the most-used program in the business world.

But while Excel the program is reasonably robust, the spreadsheets that people create with Excel are incredibly fragile. There is no way to trace where your data come from, there’s no audit trail (so you can overtype numbers and not know it), and there’s no easy way to test spreadsheets, for starters. The biggest problem is that anyone can create Excel spreadsheets—badly. Because it’s so easy to use, the creation of even important spreadsheets is not restricted to people who understand programming and do it in a methodical, well-documented way.*** [*** PowerPoint has an oft-noted, parallel problem: It’s so easy to use that people with no sense of narrative, visual design, or proportion are out there creating presentations and inflicting them on all of us. ]

To the extent there's a conflict here, I'm with Kwak on this one. For all their problems, I'm still a big fan of Excel and similar programs (such as the OpenOffice version I have on my laptop). They are indispensable in business for just the reasons Kwak lists.

Furthermore, I'd like to see them have a similar role in secondary and even primary education. I've long found spreadsheets to be a great tool for introducing basic concepts about math, computing and data visualization. You can see some sample lessons over at You Do the Math (one on functions and iteration, another on geometry and Monte Carlo techniques).