Carol Costello interviewing Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson. An example of how the media are letting us down.
Kay Bailey Hutchinson:
"The things the Democrats are pushing right now are really beyond what I think is reasonable. We're all against violence against women, and we have supported that unanimously in the past, but then they throw up a bill that they put other things in that are not central to that point and then they say its a war against women if you don't support every part of it. That's the kind of thing that we're tired of. We understand it; the American people are smarter than that and women are smarter than that. We can make the judgements on the issues that count and it is the economy and the lack of job creation in the private sector that is our problem right now and that's what we ought to be taking about."
Carol Costello: [Ignoring opportunities 1) to ask Sen. Hutchinson to clarify which bill she was referring to 2) to identify which provisions she considered so egregious that they were 'show stoppers', 3) to ask if it is unusual for bills to come before Congress with provisions unrelated to the substantive motion, 4) to question her on the topic she herself said we should be talking about namely private sector job creation (which is positive - though jobs are being lost in the public sector; teachers, fire fighters, police. Instead of which, Costello moves on to the next scripted question:]
"You know, during the heat of the primary, the issue of contraception came up..."
So after listing to that, are we really any the wiser...
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Sunday, April 1, 2012
1% of the 1%
This week's 60 Minutes segment on the contemporary art world was interesting for several reasons.
First, is suggested that the 1% of the 1% are doing very well thank-you and have been spending money like water throughout the recent recession.
Second, I was struck by the passing similarity of a market driven by speculation and in which products are idiosyncratic and therefore can't be priced on a market (prices of works of contemporary art, according to the piece, are negotiated bilaterally between buyer and seller) to those for exotic derivatives, such as the notorious credit default swap: and by the the possibility that the same people who sold in the latter are buying in the former.
Another example of "Mornington Crescent" I wonder?
First, is suggested that the 1% of the 1% are doing very well thank-you and have been spending money like water throughout the recent recession.
Second, I was struck by the passing similarity of a market driven by speculation and in which products are idiosyncratic and therefore can't be priced on a market (prices of works of contemporary art, according to the piece, are negotiated bilaterally between buyer and seller) to those for exotic derivatives, such as the notorious credit default swap: and by the the possibility that the same people who sold in the latter are buying in the former.
Another example of "Mornington Crescent" I wonder?
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Redistribution
For those who dislike wealth redistribution, consider this. If you buy insurance (e.g., car, house, travel) and are a careful person, you are likely the victim of redistribution. And if, as economist suggest, you are prone to moral hazard and behave recklessly because you have insurance, you are the beneficiary of redistribution. So "redistribution-deniers", you need to stop buying insurance and start saving.
Flawed thinking
Fareed Zakaria routinely has intelligent, thoughtful and well informed guests on his Sunday morning show, GPS. One guest on his show last Sunday, Bruce Bueno De Mesquita, made some really bizarre remarks.
First said this:
"Betting on what Putin will do if the price of oil is high, he'll oppress because that's the efficient way when he's got the money to take people to the streets and bash heads in. Then he'll become more oppressive. If the price of oil were to drop substantially, then he would probably liberalize because that would be the efficient solution under those circumstances."
History suggests just the opposite; oil revenues have been used to create jobs and keep people happier, at least materially, and so prevent them getting restive. Even the Romans knew this - remember 'bread and circuses'?
Later on, he went on to make this suggestion:
"It seems to me that there is a deal that could be put on the table that would tie their hands to reveal the truth of what their intentions are and that is for us together with our European friends to arrange to deliver the civilian energy that Iran claims it needs. They pay for it. They pay the price up to what they're spending on their nuclear program allegedly for civilian purposes, and they are guaranteed the energy. As long as we deliver the energy, they allegedly have no reason to develop the nuclear capability. As long as they don't develop the nuclear capability, we have an incentive to deliver the energy."
This was particularly puzzling: why Iran would, absent any nuclear ambition, consider this as an attractive proposal?
First, since electricity generated by nuclear power is more expensive than that from gas or coal, Iran would be overpaying for electricity (albeit that it would be saving money relative to its current level of expenditure).
Second, and more importantly, Iran claims (and may indeed actually be) seeking energy independence. That a country doesn't want to be held at the mercy of a foreign supplier of a critical resource isn't to hard to believe - the US has been talking about energy independence certainly since the 1973 oil crisis.
A plan to replace home-grown power with any foreign source of supply over which Iran has no control seems problematic from the Iranians' perspective. The supposed "guarantee" of that external supply is its stepping away from nuclear related research and development.
However, over time capabilities decay, and ten years or so down the line, when Iran's nuclear capabilities have atrophied, the West could stop supplying Iran with electricity in order to extract some other concession; Iran, in trading its nuclear program for a contract to buy electricity from outside, creates a dependency on potentially adversarial partners.
In order to keep the deal in place, Iran must therefore keep working on nuclear technology in some capacity in order to maintain its capability and the credibility of the potential threat it poses.
Thus Iran would thus need to keep spending money on its "civilian" nuclear program while at the same time buying electricity at inflated prices. Not only does this not look attractive to Iran, but any attempt by Iran to try to keep some activity in its "civilian" nuclear program would be unacceptable to the West. So the deal would only be offered if Iran gave away the only bargaining chip that maintains a guarantee of avoiding being held up at some future date.
Bueno De Mesquita, an economist, has been lauded as a visionary for his application of game theory to politics. If this is the best he can come up with I'll stick to reading the tea leaves.
First said this:
"Betting on what Putin will do if the price of oil is high, he'll oppress because that's the efficient way when he's got the money to take people to the streets and bash heads in. Then he'll become more oppressive. If the price of oil were to drop substantially, then he would probably liberalize because that would be the efficient solution under those circumstances."
History suggests just the opposite; oil revenues have been used to create jobs and keep people happier, at least materially, and so prevent them getting restive. Even the Romans knew this - remember 'bread and circuses'?
Later on, he went on to make this suggestion:
"It seems to me that there is a deal that could be put on the table that would tie their hands to reveal the truth of what their intentions are and that is for us together with our European friends to arrange to deliver the civilian energy that Iran claims it needs. They pay for it. They pay the price up to what they're spending on their nuclear program allegedly for civilian purposes, and they are guaranteed the energy. As long as we deliver the energy, they allegedly have no reason to develop the nuclear capability. As long as they don't develop the nuclear capability, we have an incentive to deliver the energy."
This was particularly puzzling: why Iran would, absent any nuclear ambition, consider this as an attractive proposal?
First, since electricity generated by nuclear power is more expensive than that from gas or coal, Iran would be overpaying for electricity (albeit that it would be saving money relative to its current level of expenditure).
Second, and more importantly, Iran claims (and may indeed actually be) seeking energy independence. That a country doesn't want to be held at the mercy of a foreign supplier of a critical resource isn't to hard to believe - the US has been talking about energy independence certainly since the 1973 oil crisis.
A plan to replace home-grown power with any foreign source of supply over which Iran has no control seems problematic from the Iranians' perspective. The supposed "guarantee" of that external supply is its stepping away from nuclear related research and development.
However, over time capabilities decay, and ten years or so down the line, when Iran's nuclear capabilities have atrophied, the West could stop supplying Iran with electricity in order to extract some other concession; Iran, in trading its nuclear program for a contract to buy electricity from outside, creates a dependency on potentially adversarial partners.
In order to keep the deal in place, Iran must therefore keep working on nuclear technology in some capacity in order to maintain its capability and the credibility of the potential threat it poses.
Thus Iran would thus need to keep spending money on its "civilian" nuclear program while at the same time buying electricity at inflated prices. Not only does this not look attractive to Iran, but any attempt by Iran to try to keep some activity in its "civilian" nuclear program would be unacceptable to the West. So the deal would only be offered if Iran gave away the only bargaining chip that maintains a guarantee of avoiding being held up at some future date.
Bueno De Mesquita, an economist, has been lauded as a visionary for his application of game theory to politics. If this is the best he can come up with I'll stick to reading the tea leaves.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Sigma's stretegic debacle
In 2009 Sigma, a lens maker turned camera manufacturer, announced a new flagship camera, the SD1. Rumours about pricing - emanating from interviews with its marketing executives - suggested a price tag of about $2,000. Given it's touted 45MP sensor, this was highly attractive to the top end of the mass market - the 'prosumers'.
When the company did finally announce pricing in May 2011, it had
clearly taken a decision to abandon the mass market and position the
camera as an alternative to existing medium format digital offerings from companies such as Hasselblad and Mamiya. This was a huge gamble; it meant
persuading professional photographers to accept a relatively under-featured DSLR body
and to buy the notion that the Foveon 15MP sensor was indeed equivalent
to their Phase 1 and Leaf digital backs. The Faveon vs. Bayer debate persists to this day and this was never going to be an
easy sell. Moreover, with an MSRP of $9,700 without a lens, Sigma had put
the camera squarely outside the reach of the non-professional market,
thereby discarding any economies of scale in manufacturing. In
a stunning reversal this week, Sigma announced that it will start
selling the camera, rebranded the SD1-Merrill, for around $2,300.
Strategically the launch of the SD1 has been a disaster. Originally unveiled September 2010, the SD1 was 6 months late to market. Then admitting, just 7 months after it was available for purchase, that the $9,700 price point was artificially high -- the entry level medium format Mamiya 645-AFD sells for about the same price -- signals to professional that the cost of the camera was nowhere near what one might expect from a piece of professional equipment. Whether Mamiya's costs are comparable isn't the point; the dramatic price reduction suggests that at $9,700 buyers were being gouged.
The initial pricing decision and subsequent reversal also infuriated high-end buyers in the non-professional market. Many delayed making a camera purchase while Sigma, historically slow bringing products to market after announcing them, kept them waiting with the temptation of a high-end camera at a fairly low (~$2,000) price. When it was announced at almost 5 times that, consumers were disappointed and annoyed at having waited for nothing.
Reversing that decision only makes matters worse. First, the pent-up demand the original announcement generated has now been met in other ways and with other products. For example I have invested in a medium format film camera and a high quality scanner instead. Others will have chosen Canon's T3i, an 18MP camera, or Sony's Alpha 77 at 24MP. Both come from manufacturers with a far stronger and long established reputations in camera manufacturing. And now, for any of those who went this route as a 'second best', the this week's announcement is doubly galling. Not to mention the ire that anyone who bought the SD1 at $10k must now be feeling. Admittedly, both B&H and Adorama have been discounting the camera to $6,900; but nevertheless, paying nearly $7k in June for a camera that 7 months later will sell for just $2.2k can't help but leave a bad taste. Sigma's offer of 'points', presumably redeemable only against other Sigma products, to those who over-paid is derisory.
With Kazuto Yamaki, Sigma is now under new stewardship. Whether he can save the company's camera division from extinction is debatable. The company had a lot of goodwill as the only manufacturer willing to back the Foveon sensor. Buyers put up with under-speced cameras to have access to Faveon technology; Sigma was Faveon's sole licensee and later acquired the sensor company. But things have moved on since the revolutionary sensor was announced a decade ago. Beyer sensors have come a long way; high volumes and bruising competition have led to improvements in quality and manufacturing cost. With no competence in camera making, Sigma was staking everything on its reputation in lenses and the Faveon sensor. Since Canon, Nikon and Olympus all have a long history and a strong reputation in lenses, and other competitors such as Sony and Panasonic have teamed up with firms who have competences in optics, Sigma's only real competitive advantage was in the sensor which it bought when it acquired Faveon. This is unlikely to be sufficient to outweigh its deficiencies in camera design, development and manufacturing. Expect to see Sigma exit the camera market (though not lenses) in a year to 18 months.
Does this mean that Faveon's technology is dead or are there other options for Faveon fans? For example could Sigma sell Faveon to another camera company? This seems possible but unlikely. It can't sell Faveon to the majors (Nikon or Canon) who have their own sensors and have been on the other side of the debate about pixels and photosites. Sony wouldn't be interested since it too has developed its own high resolution APC and full frame sensors. Kodak perhaps? They to have their own sensors (and they're broke and lack a viable business model).
Olympus, however, might. The company seems to be struggling to find its way; its products in the point-and-shoot market rely more on software than optics and build quality. The E-1/3/5 hasn't really generated much excitement not gained much traction among professionals other than a loyal fan base (much like Apple 15 years ago). The OM-D (pictured right) with a Faveon sensor? That I might buy.
Strategically the launch of the SD1 has been a disaster. Originally unveiled September 2010, the SD1 was 6 months late to market. Then admitting, just 7 months after it was available for purchase, that the $9,700 price point was artificially high -- the entry level medium format Mamiya 645-AFD sells for about the same price -- signals to professional that the cost of the camera was nowhere near what one might expect from a piece of professional equipment. Whether Mamiya's costs are comparable isn't the point; the dramatic price reduction suggests that at $9,700 buyers were being gouged.
The initial pricing decision and subsequent reversal also infuriated high-end buyers in the non-professional market. Many delayed making a camera purchase while Sigma, historically slow bringing products to market after announcing them, kept them waiting with the temptation of a high-end camera at a fairly low (~$2,000) price. When it was announced at almost 5 times that, consumers were disappointed and annoyed at having waited for nothing.
Reversing that decision only makes matters worse. First, the pent-up demand the original announcement generated has now been met in other ways and with other products. For example I have invested in a medium format film camera and a high quality scanner instead. Others will have chosen Canon's T3i, an 18MP camera, or Sony's Alpha 77 at 24MP. Both come from manufacturers with a far stronger and long established reputations in camera manufacturing. And now, for any of those who went this route as a 'second best', the this week's announcement is doubly galling. Not to mention the ire that anyone who bought the SD1 at $10k must now be feeling. Admittedly, both B&H and Adorama have been discounting the camera to $6,900; but nevertheless, paying nearly $7k in June for a camera that 7 months later will sell for just $2.2k can't help but leave a bad taste. Sigma's offer of 'points', presumably redeemable only against other Sigma products, to those who over-paid is derisory.
With Kazuto Yamaki, Sigma is now under new stewardship. Whether he can save the company's camera division from extinction is debatable. The company had a lot of goodwill as the only manufacturer willing to back the Foveon sensor. Buyers put up with under-speced cameras to have access to Faveon technology; Sigma was Faveon's sole licensee and later acquired the sensor company. But things have moved on since the revolutionary sensor was announced a decade ago. Beyer sensors have come a long way; high volumes and bruising competition have led to improvements in quality and manufacturing cost. With no competence in camera making, Sigma was staking everything on its reputation in lenses and the Faveon sensor. Since Canon, Nikon and Olympus all have a long history and a strong reputation in lenses, and other competitors such as Sony and Panasonic have teamed up with firms who have competences in optics, Sigma's only real competitive advantage was in the sensor which it bought when it acquired Faveon. This is unlikely to be sufficient to outweigh its deficiencies in camera design, development and manufacturing. Expect to see Sigma exit the camera market (though not lenses) in a year to 18 months.
Does this mean that Faveon's technology is dead or are there other options for Faveon fans? For example could Sigma sell Faveon to another camera company? This seems possible but unlikely. It can't sell Faveon to the majors (Nikon or Canon) who have their own sensors and have been on the other side of the debate about pixels and photosites. Sony wouldn't be interested since it too has developed its own high resolution APC and full frame sensors. Kodak perhaps? They to have their own sensors (and they're broke and lack a viable business model).
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Innovation in China
For a long time the West though that it was safe because although we were shipping manual jobs to China, knowledge work would be what kept us 'ahead'. When knowledge jobs were moved abroad the narrative was "we have a monopoly on innovation" - at least that's the current story in the US. Chinese schools and universities train students to memorise and they develop no critical thinking or innovation related skills.
Here's why that's nonsense. First, as Herb Simon noted, you have to be able to remember stuff to innovate. Second, and perhaps more importantly the most compelling evidence for China's ability to innovate effectively is staring us in the face and we simply haven't recognised. For the last 20 or so years, China has been reinventing government and the idea of what state capitalism means.
What they are developing looks nothing like anything we've seen before (perhaps it does I'm not a historian so I'll come back to that). It's not the European model of state owned and controlled enterprises; it's not the US market based government free for all; and it's clearly not Communism at least not that Marx or Lenin would recognise. It's something completely different. That's innovation on a grand scale.
Historians might complain that state intervention to steer business isn't new. It's what Alexander Hamilton did in the late 18th and early 19th century. Does that make China unimaginative and uncreative? Not at all: you have to be creative to reproduce that kind of system in a different context and against the backdrop of a very different (and often path dependant) history.
So if in the West we're not better (and therefore more highly paid) for our labour, or our knowledge or our innovativeness, what justifies the gap in per capita GDP other than the overhang of history?
Here's why that's nonsense. First, as Herb Simon noted, you have to be able to remember stuff to innovate. Second, and perhaps more importantly the most compelling evidence for China's ability to innovate effectively is staring us in the face and we simply haven't recognised. For the last 20 or so years, China has been reinventing government and the idea of what state capitalism means.
What they are developing looks nothing like anything we've seen before (perhaps it does I'm not a historian so I'll come back to that). It's not the European model of state owned and controlled enterprises; it's not the US market based government free for all; and it's clearly not Communism at least not that Marx or Lenin would recognise. It's something completely different. That's innovation on a grand scale.
Historians might complain that state intervention to steer business isn't new. It's what Alexander Hamilton did in the late 18th and early 19th century. Does that make China unimaginative and uncreative? Not at all: you have to be creative to reproduce that kind of system in a different context and against the backdrop of a very different (and often path dependant) history.
So if in the West we're not better (and therefore more highly paid) for our labour, or our knowledge or our innovativeness, what justifies the gap in per capita GDP other than the overhang of history?
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Investing in "knowledge workers"
According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, wages in the service sector have risen in real terms by 1.2% per year on average since 1982; in manufacturing the figure is lower (0.71%) and in education lower still (0.60%). If "knowledge workers" are, as many claim, the key competitiveness in the 21st century, this suggests that we may be under-investing in education.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Dam-busters, myth-busters and tax pounds at work
Nova recently screened a documentary called "Bombing Hitler's Dams" about the engineering of the 'bouncing bomb' used to blow up three dams supplying the Ruhr, Germany's indsutrial heartland, with hydroelectric power during the Second World War. The raid was daring and dangerous requiring enormous courage and flying skill. The planes, Avro Lancasters, had to be flown exactly 60ft above the water behind the dam at 240mph. According to one of the crew, the margin for error was 20ft - so the bomb's release had to be timed to within 1/20th of a second.
Barnes Wallace, the designer of the bomb, devised a way to deliver the bomb to a position 50 feet blow the suface, right up against the back wall of the dam, after 'skipping' over the anti torpedo nets. His solution was simply astonishing in its creativity and the engineering challenges he managed to overcome. That was the 'good news'.
The documentary interleaved an account operation Chastise, the code name for the May 1943 raid, with a present day investigation into the engineering behind the raid. And this is where things went off the rails. Hugh Hunt, a professor of engineering at Cambridge University, founded in the 13th century and arguably Britain's finest institution of higher education, decided to replicate Barnes Wallace's work and build and test a working replica of the bouncing bomb.
What comes across from the documentary (apart from the astonishing waste of time and resources) is the seeming ineptitude of the research team. For example, just before the final test, they painted half the bomb with yellow paint and hadn't considered that by painting only one half, the asymmetric weight of the paint would move the cylinder's centre of gravity away from its axis. Anyone who has lost the balancing weights from their car will know what that means. And this is an engineering team?
The cost of the project must have been horrendous; and what did we (collectively) learn? That making the bouncing bomb had some significant engineering challenges. That's it. Nothing new was created. No new knowledge gained (although some might argue that knowledge we once had, that was lost when Barnes Wallace's notes were lost to a flood, has now been restored - but that's something of a stretch).
Now I should be clear that I do what seems to many to be fairly pointless research - measuring power or simulating knowledge flows in social networks - but I'm fairly sure that as esoteric as it is, it's not recreating something done 60 years ago. And I don't waste a ton of money doing it. If Hunt had built a theoretical model that explained the bomb's behaviour using what we know of the physics involved, that would have been one thing. But building a dam and blowing it up (which, by the way was not done at the time the bomb was dropped but some time later, with the bomb being lowered into position with a crane) according to Hunt "...really makes me appreciate what Barnes Wallace did". I didn't realise that 'appreciating what others had done' - in this case the genius of the person who devised the scheme originally - qualified as an academic contribution.
If this was funded by the university, the regents should be up in arms; if a penny of British tax payers' money was involved, a public enquiry into misappropriation of funds seems called for. This circus is appropriate fare for the MythBusters, not academia.
Barnes Wallace, the designer of the bomb, devised a way to deliver the bomb to a position 50 feet blow the suface, right up against the back wall of the dam, after 'skipping' over the anti torpedo nets. His solution was simply astonishing in its creativity and the engineering challenges he managed to overcome. That was the 'good news'.
The documentary interleaved an account operation Chastise, the code name for the May 1943 raid, with a present day investigation into the engineering behind the raid. And this is where things went off the rails. Hugh Hunt, a professor of engineering at Cambridge University, founded in the 13th century and arguably Britain's finest institution of higher education, decided to replicate Barnes Wallace's work and build and test a working replica of the bouncing bomb.
What comes across from the documentary (apart from the astonishing waste of time and resources) is the seeming ineptitude of the research team. For example, just before the final test, they painted half the bomb with yellow paint and hadn't considered that by painting only one half, the asymmetric weight of the paint would move the cylinder's centre of gravity away from its axis. Anyone who has lost the balancing weights from their car will know what that means. And this is an engineering team?
The cost of the project must have been horrendous; and what did we (collectively) learn? That making the bouncing bomb had some significant engineering challenges. That's it. Nothing new was created. No new knowledge gained (although some might argue that knowledge we once had, that was lost when Barnes Wallace's notes were lost to a flood, has now been restored - but that's something of a stretch).
Now I should be clear that I do what seems to many to be fairly pointless research - measuring power or simulating knowledge flows in social networks - but I'm fairly sure that as esoteric as it is, it's not recreating something done 60 years ago. And I don't waste a ton of money doing it. If Hunt had built a theoretical model that explained the bomb's behaviour using what we know of the physics involved, that would have been one thing. But building a dam and blowing it up (which, by the way was not done at the time the bomb was dropped but some time later, with the bomb being lowered into position with a crane) according to Hunt "...really makes me appreciate what Barnes Wallace did". I didn't realise that 'appreciating what others had done' - in this case the genius of the person who devised the scheme originally - qualified as an academic contribution.
If this was funded by the university, the regents should be up in arms; if a penny of British tax payers' money was involved, a public enquiry into misappropriation of funds seems called for. This circus is appropriate fare for the MythBusters, not academia.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Another good thing
Ubuntu! - I've been using Linux since Fedora Core (it didn't have a number in those days): that was in 2003. In 2009 I switched to Ubuntu for the host OS and later that year made the change both my Linux guests. I have been delighted.VMware now player works fairly seamlessly; the new release upgrade process is only mildly irritating in the Linux guests, and my Logitech webcam still crashes the whole stack (strictly thi is a VMware problem which was fixed in Player R4.0.1 but I prefer R3.1.5 for its window management at start and suspend). But, in return I get a phenomenally stable system, the Logitech issue aside, that hasn't crashed that I can remember in well over two years. Were I not addicted to Excel I'd not use any other OS (and that includes replacing OS X Lion with Ubuntu on my Macbook when I get time).
Today, and this is what prompted the posting, I found another hidden gem. This screen shot shows my desktop spanning two monitors. There is a task bar on both; each has a window list; but, and this is the neat part, the window list is not the same on the two sides, but reflects the windows open on that monitor. And when you drag a window from one monitor to another, the window lists reflect that change. This might not seem a big deal, but try doing that in Windows.
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Prediction #1
North Korea's stance will not change with Kim Jong Il's death.
Kim Jong Un, his son, is thought to be just 28, too young and inexperienced to have much legitimacy as the country's leader. He can gain this only by preserving--and likely reinforcing--the policies that keep those at the top of the country's military establishment in power. Were he to propose reform or to reach out to the West for the lifting of sanctions, the threat this would pose to the military, not to mention to China, would likely result in a coup. Either way, North Korea's policies are unlikely to change.
Kim Jong Un, his son, is thought to be just 28, too young and inexperienced to have much legitimacy as the country's leader. He can gain this only by preserving--and likely reinforcing--the policies that keep those at the top of the country's military establishment in power. Were he to propose reform or to reach out to the West for the lifting of sanctions, the threat this would pose to the military, not to mention to China, would likely result in a coup. Either way, North Korea's policies are unlikely to change.
Friday, November 4, 2011
Strange intersections - 22 years of politics and art
My uncle was an actor in Czechosolvakia. After signing Charter 77, the government labeled him a dissident. While he was still permitted to act (and get paid) his name could not appear in any of the play's (or film's) billings and he found it increasingly difficult to get work. He was one of more fortunate.
In 1955 Pete Seeger was called before before the House Un-American Activities Committee, where Senator Joe McCarthy accused him, along with many many others, of being a Communist sympathizer. His record label dropped him.
Both are instances of an artist with views that differed from those of the (then) current regime finding themselves persecuted and their artistic careers being curtailed.
Edward R Murrow, in his regular television program, took issue with McCarthy's activities. He concluded his broadcast:
In 1955 Pete Seeger was called before before the House Un-American Activities Committee, where Senator Joe McCarthy accused him, along with many many others, of being a Communist sympathizer. His record label dropped him.
Both are instances of an artist with views that differed from those of the (then) current regime finding themselves persecuted and their artistic careers being curtailed.
Edward R Murrow, in his regular television program, took issue with McCarthy's activities. He concluded his broadcast:
"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men".
We proclaim ourselves, as indeed we are, the defenders of freedom, wherever it continues to exist in the world, but we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home. The actions of the junior Senator from Wisconsin have caused alarm and dismay amongst our allies abroad, and given considerable comfort to our enemies. And whose fault is that? Not really his. He didn't create this situation of fear; he merely exploited it—and rather successfully".I wonder, parenthetically, what would Murrow have thought of Fox News?
Friday, October 21, 2011
Man is not free unless government is limited
Sunday, October 9, 2011
What price freedom?
China, it was argued 20 years ago, could not become an industrialised country without democracy. History has yet to prove this conjecture. For the moment an alternative proposition seems plausible. Freedom can be bought with a rise in living standards. People may tolerate constraints on free speech and a lack of political influence in exchange for a growing economy and increasing prosperity.
Should growth in China falter, this implicit bargain may collapse and democracy may yet arrive. But for the moment, China is reaping the advantages of an autocratic regime in terms of coherent public policy oriented towards investment in the future; at the same time, Europe and the US seem unable to muster the equivalent political will.
Should growth in China falter, this implicit bargain may collapse and democracy may yet arrive. But for the moment, China is reaping the advantages of an autocratic regime in terms of coherent public policy oriented towards investment in the future; at the same time, Europe and the US seem unable to muster the equivalent political will.
Democracy and leadership - short-termism
I argued below that leadership and democracy are at odds when everyone votes on all matters of importance. This leads to a lack of leadership which in turn tends to support high discount rates which means future costs are undervalued relative to present sacrifice.
Representative democracy (in which elected representatives make particular policy choices, rather than the voters show choose only between representatives) helps but doesn't fix this problem. Career politicians may take a longer term view but when, as has happened recently, they are turfed out by a disgruntled electorate, and replaced by representatives who have little desire to spend their lives in politics, short term solutions dominate since the shadow of the future has disappeared, at least for those newly elected.
If I stand for election knowing I will not be standing again in 2 years time, I have no extrinsic incentive to ensure that my decisions work for those I represent in the longer term.
Representative democracy (in which elected representatives make particular policy choices, rather than the voters show choose only between representatives) helps but doesn't fix this problem. Career politicians may take a longer term view but when, as has happened recently, they are turfed out by a disgruntled electorate, and replaced by representatives who have little desire to spend their lives in politics, short term solutions dominate since the shadow of the future has disappeared, at least for those newly elected.
If I stand for election knowing I will not be standing again in 2 years time, I have no extrinsic incentive to ensure that my decisions work for those I represent in the longer term.
Democracy and leadership - a tradoff
"Democracy and leadership are antithetical".
If democracy is conceived of as everyone having a vote on every major issue, then the statement is defensible.
First, the more complicated decision people are asked to make the less attention they can pay and the lower the quality of their analysis.
Second, one sacrifices vertical specialization in Herb Simon's terms. That is by refusing to delegate decision making to elected representatives who have both the time and (supposedly) the cognitive chops to deal handle these kinds of questions, we further reduce the quality of decision making.
Finally, there is the problem of collective action when decisions are difficult and require sacrifice is exacerbated. Most of us will gladly accept collective sacrifice if someone else is paying, but balk when it's our turn to pay.
An elected representative should in theory balance the wishes of all those she represents and arrive at a compromise that is less skewed than a solution voted on by all, which is generally the "lowest common denominator" and therefore likely to be insufficient in scope.
When everyone has a vote, no one wants to lead in making a sacrifice (the collective action problem). Another way of thinking about this is as a big prisoner's dilemma with 34 million players (i.e. voters); the equilibrium is "defect".
And that's the problem with California's ballot measure procedure and by extension with the state's finances.
If democracy is conceived of as everyone having a vote on every major issue, then the statement is defensible.
First, the more complicated decision people are asked to make the less attention they can pay and the lower the quality of their analysis.
Second, one sacrifices vertical specialization in Herb Simon's terms. That is by refusing to delegate decision making to elected representatives who have both the time and (supposedly) the cognitive chops to deal handle these kinds of questions, we further reduce the quality of decision making.
Finally, there is the problem of collective action when decisions are difficult and require sacrifice is exacerbated. Most of us will gladly accept collective sacrifice if someone else is paying, but balk when it's our turn to pay.
An elected representative should in theory balance the wishes of all those she represents and arrive at a compromise that is less skewed than a solution voted on by all, which is generally the "lowest common denominator" and therefore likely to be insufficient in scope.
When everyone has a vote, no one wants to lead in making a sacrifice (the collective action problem). Another way of thinking about this is as a big prisoner's dilemma with 34 million players (i.e. voters); the equilibrium is "defect".
And that's the problem with California's ballot measure procedure and by extension with the state's finances.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
The right stuff
Heather "Lucky" Penney now commands the D.C. Air National Guard. Ten years ago, as a newly minted F-16 pilot, she flew a number of sorties on 911; first to intercept Flight 93 and then to clear the skies of planes that might be part of the 911 terrorist attack.
In an interview with Steven Scully on C-SPAN, Penney, who 10 years ago had just completed her basic training on F-16s, talked quietly about the way her day unfolded. This was about as compelling an interview as I've seen in years.
Her sober delivery was laced with disarming levity: "We are very deliberate about who has the authority to authorize whether or not we hit the pickle button and the missile comes off the plane." and "We all kind of laughed, like 'what kind of bozo porked his instrument approach going into New York'?". The language clearly signaled membership of the small elite group of fighter pilots, yet it didn't come across as affected, no did her humor indicate a lack of appreciation for the seriousness of her job.
Her account of the day was both straightforward and fascinating.
Scully: "How did you prepare for something like this? How did you personally prepare prior to 911?
Penney: "Er, yeah, I didn't. [laughs] Because that was not one of our doctrinal taskings, there was no alert training for me as a wing-man. My job was to learn how to go to war, My job wasn't learn how to sit alert, and there were no rules of engagement. We hadn't even thought about what that kind of mission might be like on American soil".
But it was her description of how she planned to bring down a hijacked plane without any weapons on her F-16 that was (forgive the hyperbole) so completely mind-blowing.
In the short time it took for her to gather her flight gear, she had thought through some different scenarios and their implications for collateral damage and concluded that to minimize the debris field meant breaking off the plane's tail section. Without any hint of bravado, she calmly explained that taking off the tail meant ramming her plane into the airliner.
Scully: "Potentially you have to bring down a plane. In the light of everything that was happening, did you give any thought as to how you would have done that - if it was over the city?"
Penney: "For the lager aircraft, it would simply be taking off the tail which would be... I would essentially be a Kamikaze and ram my aircraft in to the tail of the aircraft. I gave some thought to: would I have time to eject? but I would need to ensure... [laughs] ...I mean, you only get one chance. You don't want to eject and then have missed, right? You've got to be able to stick with it the whole way".
Scully: "So you were prepared to take your own life, if necessary, to bring down that plane."
Penney: "Of course".
This last line was delivered quietly, almost dispassionately, yet it was clear that it wasn't because of a lack of emotion. Nor was it empty rhetoric, but came, I think, from deep sense of duty, combined with iron self-discipline and self-control. Penney is exactly the kind of person I'd want defending this country. Intelligent and thoughtful (not to mention articulate), she is indeed "the right stuff".
Watch the video. Believe, me, it will be an hour well spent.
Friday, September 9, 2011
Supply and demand - 2
The Economist noted last week that "co-operation was in short supply" in American politics. When something is in short supply, its price rises. And the Tea Party's asking price for co-operation is far to high for many Democrats.
Supply and demand - 1
|
There are some - the more extreme second amendment crowd - who think that we should all be carrying guns and looking out for ourselves anyway. With this additional (regressive) tax for public safety services, there may come a point when people who had been happy to rely on the police to keep order may find the case for arming themselves in self defense too economically compelling to ignore. Even at today's rates, one call-out costs almost exactly the same as a Remington 12 gauge shotgun - which you can use as many time as you need.
At that point, we'd be back in the Wild West of 150 years ago. Some see that kind of "rugged individualism" and self reliance as a romantic idyl. To me, it's my worst nightmare.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)