I confess I'm baffled by the GOP's near obsession, at least rhetorically, with "choice". In the context of the Congress' two health care bills they suggest that people want choice over benefits - for example the opportunity to choose between two (or more) terrible options rather than have to "accept" a fairly decent one.
For example, you may soon get to choose between three low premium health care plans, one with huge deductibles, another which precludes coverage for a wide variety of ailments, and a third which caps payouts at a low level.
Personally, I'd prefer one good plan over an array of bad ones.
Fundamentally nothing gets round the fact that until health care costs less, someone has to pay; whether that's the person who is sick (and may not be able to), other members of the plan who are less sick, or taxpayers, the money has to come from somewhere.
Monday, June 26, 2017
Friday, June 23, 2017
The Trump Tapes - Truth as Something to be Negotiated
"James Comey better hope that there are no 'tapes' of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!". With that tweet Donald Trump created an uproar (in Washington at least) as to whether there were indeed any Watergate-esque recordings of his private conversation with James Comey.
Six weeks later, after archfully creating a huge media hullabaloo, Trump announced yesterday that there were no tapes (or at least not that he'd made - and he can claim that he never said there were; he didn't). The Wapo wrote that this only damaged his credibility and could see no rationale for the ruse. But viewed through a lense of negotiation it actually does make sense.
If the truth is seen not as absolute but as something to be negotiated, then Trump wanted Comey's opening offer to be "reasonable" and the possible existence of tapes helps ensure that. To paraphrase Henry Kissinger in Trump's vocabulary: "A reasonable opening offer is for losers." In Trump's mind raising the spectre of tapes constrained Comey's account, forcing his opening offer to be fairly close to what was actually said.
Imagine a linear negotiation space where the "ends" are degree of distortion in one or other party's favor. The ZOPA is bounded at either side by each party's credibility. Once the one says something too unbelievable the other can walk away claiming victory.
Trump may have worried that absent the the existence of something that would reveal the truth, Comey's account would have been to the left (in the diagram) of the possible true range, (since we don't know what was actually said I represent the truth as a range, show in in red, rather than a point). In other words Comey's statement might have been be more 'extreme' were he to think that it was his word against Trump's.
However, Trump now (almost) admits that are actually no tapes, and is thus free to give whatever account he likes - up to his credibility limit - and since Comey's position is in the middle of the ZOPA, rather than at one end (or off the end) the negotiated agreement will be nearer to Trump's end of the spectrum than Comey's.
Whether or not he avails himself of the negotiating space he has created, a reasonable explanation of the fictional tapes is that they were simply a negotiating strategy.
This framing appears to provide a reasonable account of something that otherwise seemed to have no rationale. It suggests too that Trump might view all his statements not a true or false, or sincere beliefs but simply as one means of winning.
Many people expect high office holders to feel constrained not to make statements that might later be falsified. That's why Trump's string of falsehoods have been so shocking to so many. However, viewing his statements as a negotiating ploy rather than a reflection of a coherent understanding of the facts, then Trump's seemingly inconsistent statements are no longer inexplicable.
Six weeks later, after archfully creating a huge media hullabaloo, Trump announced yesterday that there were no tapes (or at least not that he'd made - and he can claim that he never said there were; he didn't). The Wapo wrote that this only damaged his credibility and could see no rationale for the ruse. But viewed through a lense of negotiation it actually does make sense.
If the truth is seen not as absolute but as something to be negotiated, then Trump wanted Comey's opening offer to be "reasonable" and the possible existence of tapes helps ensure that. To paraphrase Henry Kissinger in Trump's vocabulary: "A reasonable opening offer is for losers." In Trump's mind raising the spectre of tapes constrained Comey's account, forcing his opening offer to be fairly close to what was actually said.
Imagine a linear negotiation space where the "ends" are degree of distortion in one or other party's favor. The ZOPA is bounded at either side by each party's credibility. Once the one says something too unbelievable the other can walk away claiming victory.
Trump may have worried that absent the the existence of something that would reveal the truth, Comey's account would have been to the left (in the diagram) of the possible true range, (since we don't know what was actually said I represent the truth as a range, show in in red, rather than a point). In other words Comey's statement might have been be more 'extreme' were he to think that it was his word against Trump's.
However, Trump now (almost) admits that are actually no tapes, and is thus free to give whatever account he likes - up to his credibility limit - and since Comey's position is in the middle of the ZOPA, rather than at one end (or off the end) the negotiated agreement will be nearer to Trump's end of the spectrum than Comey's.
Whether or not he avails himself of the negotiating space he has created, a reasonable explanation of the fictional tapes is that they were simply a negotiating strategy.
This framing appears to provide a reasonable account of something that otherwise seemed to have no rationale. It suggests too that Trump might view all his statements not a true or false, or sincere beliefs but simply as one means of winning.
Many people expect high office holders to feel constrained not to make statements that might later be falsified. That's why Trump's string of falsehoods have been so shocking to so many. However, viewing his statements as a negotiating ploy rather than a reflection of a coherent understanding of the facts, then Trump's seemingly inconsistent statements are no longer inexplicable.
Saturday, June 3, 2017
The (Short) Road Ahead
As I noted earlier, Trump's withdrawal of the US from the Paris Accord is largely symbolic, designed to placate his base to distract them from that fact that nothing else is getting done. I also suggested it will have little impact on carbon emissions in the short term. While much of the left is up in arms, there are other reasons for less apocalyptic speculation.
China and India are committed to the Accord, in part because they are trying to get to grips with terrible, choking pollution caused in part by their At which point we may get back on track.coal fired power stations. China has also established a world-leading solar panel industry, and is unlikely to adopt domestic policies that would undermine it; that suggests an ongoing commitment to the regulatory scheme that led to its rise. China will also want to encourage other countries to move forward with green energy policies in order to guarantee a market for its solar industry.
Three US states, California, Washington and New York, which together make up about 25% of the entire US economy, have said that they will implement policies to promote renewable energy. That will have a profound impact on any industry involved in fossil fuels or carbon emission more generally. It will keep the auto makers on course to develop electric vehicles, and it will spur those extractive industries that are low carbon (gas and oil) over coal. It will also create lots of new well paid jobs.
Even where market forces are weaker, large companies like Exxon and Shell that are global in scope will be responsive to international pressure as well as to the US domestic environment, and the rest of the world is heading green-ward while the US, at least temporarily, is moving the other direction. Time matters here; companies don't turn on a dime, and strategic plans are developed for the long term. Companies may be hesitant to make major course changes if the apparent chaos in the White House causes the GOP to lose the House or the Senate in 2018, or the Presidency itself in 2020. At which point we may get back on track.
China and India are committed to the Accord, in part because they are trying to get to grips with terrible, choking pollution caused in part by their At which point we may get back on track.coal fired power stations. China has also established a world-leading solar panel industry, and is unlikely to adopt domestic policies that would undermine it; that suggests an ongoing commitment to the regulatory scheme that led to its rise. China will also want to encourage other countries to move forward with green energy policies in order to guarantee a market for its solar industry.
Three US states, California, Washington and New York, which together make up about 25% of the entire US economy, have said that they will implement policies to promote renewable energy. That will have a profound impact on any industry involved in fossil fuels or carbon emission more generally. It will keep the auto makers on course to develop electric vehicles, and it will spur those extractive industries that are low carbon (gas and oil) over coal. It will also create lots of new well paid jobs.
Even where market forces are weaker, large companies like Exxon and Shell that are global in scope will be responsive to international pressure as well as to the US domestic environment, and the rest of the world is heading green-ward while the US, at least temporarily, is moving the other direction. Time matters here; companies don't turn on a dime, and strategic plans are developed for the long term. Companies may be hesitant to make major course changes if the apparent chaos in the White House causes the GOP to lose the House or the Senate in 2018, or the Presidency itself in 2020. At which point we may get back on track.
From Russia With...
Putin all but admitted yesterday that Russia was behind the leaked DNC emails and by implication the social media infiltration with bots and trolls. Whether the Trump campaign new this before taking office we may find out in due course as Robert Muller's investigation moves forward. If they did and indeed if they collaborated with the Russians that would be damaging and potentially criminal. Suppose however they did not. What then explains the administration's extraordinary defensiveness?
One possibility is that when Muller starts "pulling on the thread" other things that have nothing to do with Russia's rigging of the election might come to light. These may be illegal or simply unethical, from pay for play to financial conflicts of interest. But coming from a background where sailing as lose to the wind as possible without getting caught, Trump and his advisors may be worried that they have somewhere, and they may not know where, stepped over the line. They may also fear, perhaps rightly, that if they are in a grey area, neither on one side or the other, in the current toxic political climate (for which they have in large part only themselves to blame) they may find themselves being judged to have crossed the line. The investigation is likely to run on long after the circus has ceased to be entertaining. Time will tell.
One possibility is that when Muller starts "pulling on the thread" other things that have nothing to do with Russia's rigging of the election might come to light. These may be illegal or simply unethical, from pay for play to financial conflicts of interest. But coming from a background where sailing as lose to the wind as possible without getting caught, Trump and his advisors may be worried that they have somewhere, and they may not know where, stepped over the line. They may also fear, perhaps rightly, that if they are in a grey area, neither on one side or the other, in the current toxic political climate (for which they have in large part only themselves to blame) they may find themselves being judged to have crossed the line. The investigation is likely to run on long after the circus has ceased to be entertaining. Time will tell.
Getting out of Paris
Yesterday I suggested that markets might do as much for climate change mitigation as a non-binding accord. Fracking has reduced the price of natural gas which has (and is) replacing coal for power generation in in the US. Improvements in wind and solar technology have brought the price to renewables down to a competitive level. Going forward this trend is only like to accelerate.
But it's worth reflecting on how we got here. Markets didn't do this on their own. Two non-market forces were critical; first, direct investment by governments in tax incentives and loans (and yes some when bad like Solindra, but many bore fruit, and this was not picking winners and losers unless you think that betting on an entire industry sector is "picking" in which case it is). The second factor was setting expectations. Here the US government did three important things. It talked about climate change and made the issue and solving it salient. It made investments (walking the walk); and it signed the Paris Accord. Together these created a climate that drove research and development in the sector which is bearing fruit today. So before the neocons trumpet the triumph of market forces, remember that they didn't get here without a big helping hand from an enlightened government.
But it's worth reflecting on how we got here. Markets didn't do this on their own. Two non-market forces were critical; first, direct investment by governments in tax incentives and loans (and yes some when bad like Solindra, but many bore fruit, and this was not picking winners and losers unless you think that betting on an entire industry sector is "picking" in which case it is). The second factor was setting expectations. Here the US government did three important things. It talked about climate change and made the issue and solving it salient. It made investments (walking the walk); and it signed the Paris Accord. Together these created a climate that drove research and development in the sector which is bearing fruit today. So before the neocons trumpet the triumph of market forces, remember that they didn't get here without a big helping hand from an enlightened government.
Friday, June 2, 2017
We Will Always Have Paris
Yesterday, Donald Trump announced that the US would be pulling out the Paris Climate Accord, and agreement signed by all but two countries, Nicaragua and Syria. The decision was widely expected. It was also predictable. First, it fulfilled a commitment he had made to his base at a time when he is widely unpopular elsewhere. Second, at least in the short term, the damage is more symbolic than substantive. The federal regulations introduced to meet the Accord's goals had already been dismantled months ago. Renewable energy has gotten cheap enough that coal is never coming back as a source of power generation. Auto makers may well to follow California's stricter emission standards and push ahead with electric vehicle development given the size of the California and world markets. Clean energy jobs will continue to grow as the sector gains traction, both internationally, helped by regulation, and domestically, where market forces are driving adoption. While the decision only further isolates America from the rest of the world, withdrawing, per-se, may have little direct impact on US carbon emissions.
It is also worth noting that nowhere in his speech did Trump repeat his misbegotten claim that man-made climate change is a hoax. That suggests either that he has changed his mind or that he is paying attention to his ex-military advisors, McMaster and Mattis. The US military has been concerned about climate change for over a decade and has been planning accordingly, for example investigating the use of biofuel for its aircraft. And in saying that he'd be open to renegotiating the terms of US participation in the accord, he seems to be implicitly acknowledging that it is a threat to US interests, and that action might be taken to mitigate it.
Trump appears to be very carefully navigating a course between the clamouring his of electorate and the more widely held consensus.
It is also worth noting that nowhere in his speech did Trump repeat his misbegotten claim that man-made climate change is a hoax. That suggests either that he has changed his mind or that he is paying attention to his ex-military advisors, McMaster and Mattis. The US military has been concerned about climate change for over a decade and has been planning accordingly, for example investigating the use of biofuel for its aircraft. And in saying that he'd be open to renegotiating the terms of US participation in the accord, he seems to be implicitly acknowledging that it is a threat to US interests, and that action might be taken to mitigate it.
Trump appears to be very carefully navigating a course between the clamouring his of electorate and the more widely held consensus.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)