I reported a while back about the apparent (from all the media angst over "gridlock") horrendous shortage of laws. Well the California legislature is stepping in to the breach, passing over 900 new laws over the last year. Our company is steadily exiting California because we have no desire to learn to comply with 900 new laws a year, but obviously many of you are simply begging to be legislated and regulated more so you are welcome to rush into the breach.
Posts tagged ‘media’
I continue to see reports about how bad falling oil prices are for the economy -- most recently some layoffs in the steel industry were blamed on the looming drop (or crash) in oil drilling and exploration driven by substantially lower prices.
I find this exasperating, a classic seen-and-unseen type failure whose description goes back at least to the mid-19th century and Bastiat and essentially constituted most of Hazlitt's one lesson on economics. Yes, very visibly, relatively high-paid steel and oil workers are going to lose their jobs. They will have less money to spend. The oil industry will have less capital spending.
But the world will pay over a trillion dollars less this year for oil than it did last year (if current prices hold). That is a huge amount of money that can be spent on or invested in something else. Instead of just getting oil with those trillion dollars, we will still have our oil and a trillion dollars left over to spend. We may never know exactly who benefits, but those benefits are definitely there, somewhere. Just because they cannot be seen or portrayed in short visual anecdotes on the network news does not mean they don't exist.
Ugh, this is just beyond frustrating. I would have bet that at least with oil people would have understood the unseen benefit, since we get so much media reportage and general angst when gas prices go up that people would be thrilled at their going down. But I guess not.
I explained in simple terms why the world, mathematically, HAS to be better off with lower oil prices here.
I had forgotten about this story and am surprised the media did not make this connection more often during the Michael Brown brouhaha:
Michael Daly at The Daily Beast has the flabbergasting story of Henry Davis, who was picked up by cops “for an outstanding warrant that proved to actually be for another man of the same surname, but a different middle name and Social Security number,” then beaten by several officers at the station. What happened next was truly surreal: while denying that Davis had been seriously hurt at all, though a CAT scan found he had suffered a concussion and a contemporaneous photo shows him bleeding heavily, four police officers sought to have him charged for property damage for getting blood on their uniforms. ...
The kicker: the police department was that of Ferguson, Missouri.
Readers will know from my "trend that is not a trend" series how fascinated I am by how often data referenced in the media tells exactly the opposite story as the one claimed.
Noting that the United States is currently experiencing a drastic shortage of laws, America's media (example, but many others) have finally begun to chastise the recent Congress for being, as described by the Huffington Post, "pretty close" to "the least productive ever." Like fishes cast ashore flopping on the beach dying for lack of oxygen, Americans are desperately begging for more laws and for more things to be made a criminal offense, and Congress is shamefully ignoring them.
Said one man interviewed on the streets of New York, "there are barely 4000 criminal offenses outlined in the Federal code. No wonder we have so much anarchy. We need a lot more crimes and Congress is not cooperating."
A local business woman echoed these thoughts: "With only 80,000 pages in the Federal Register, I often don't know what I should be doing. Sometimes I go a quarter of an hour in my business making decisions for which there is absolutely no Federal guidance. It's criminal Congress is shirking its responsibility to tell me what to do."
Said everyone, "there ought to be a law..."
It is almost impossible to read a media story any more about severe weather events without seeing some blurb about such and such event being the result of manmade climate change. I hear writers all the time saying that it is exhausting to run the gauntlet of major media fact checkers, so why do they all get a pass on these weather statements? Even the IPCC, which we skeptics think is exaggerating manmade climate change effects, refused to link current severe weather events with manmade CO2.
The California drought brings yet another tired example of this. I think pretty much everyone in the media has operated from the assumption that the current CA drought is 1. unprecedented and 2. man-made. The problem is that neither are true. Skeptics have been saying this for months, pointing to 100-year California drought data and pointing to at 2-3 other events in the pre-manmade-CO2 era that were at least as severed. But now the NOAA has come forward and said roughly the same thing:
Natural weather patterns, not man-made global warming, are causing the historic drought parching California, says a study out Monday from federal scientists.
"It's important to note that California's drought, while extreme, is not an uncommon occurrence for the state," said Richard Seager, the report's lead author and professor with Columbia University's Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory. The report was sponsored by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The report did not appear in a peer-reviewed journal but was reviewed by other NOAA scientists.
"In fact, multiyear droughts appear regularly in the state's climate record, and it's a safe bet that a similar event will happen again," he said.
The persistent weather pattern over the past several years has featured a warm, dry ridge of high pressure over the eastern north Pacific Ocean and western North America. Such high-pressure ridges prevent clouds from forming and precipitation from falling.
The study notes that this ridge — which has resulted in decreased rain and snowfall since 2011 — is almost opposite to what computer models predict would result from human-caused climate change.
There is an argument to be made that this drought was made worse by the fact that the low precipitation was mated with higher-than average temperatures that might be partially attributable to man-made climate change. One can see this in the Palmer drought severity index, which looks at more factors than just precipitation. While the last 3 years was not the lowest for rainfall in CA over the last 100, I believe the Palmer index was the lowest for the last 3 years of any period in the last 100+ years. The report did not address this warming or attempt to attribute some portion of it to man, but it is worth noting that temperatures this year in CA were, like the drought, not unprecedented, particularly in rural areas (urban areas are going to be warmer than 50 years ago due to increasing urban heat island effect, which is certainly manmade but has nothing to do with CO2.)
Update: By the way, note the article is careful to give several paragraphs after this bit to opponents who disagree with the findings. Perfectly fine. But note that this is the courtesy that is increasingly denied to skeptics when the roles are reversed. Maybe I should emulate climate alarmists and be shouting "false balance! the science is settled!"
Readers will know of my pet peeve on this issue. It turns out this has come up as a viewer complaint at the BBC several times and they actually have a policy on it, though like many media organizations they don't consistently follow their own guide.
You can see many examples simply by searching google images for "air pollution". The people riding bikes with masks are in actual pollution. The rest of the photos on the first page are mainly steam plumes. Note how the photographers like to catch the steam at dusk or backlit so they look dark and sortof smokey.
Net Neutrality is Not Neutrality, It is Actually the Opposite. It's Corporate Welfare for Netflix and Google
Net Neutrality is one of those Orwellian words that mean exactly the opposite of what they sound like. There is a battle that goes on in the marketplace in virtually every communication medium between content creators and content deliverers. We can certainly see this in cable TV, as media companies and the cable companies that deliver their product occasionally have battles that break out in public. But one could argue similar things go on even in, say, shipping, where magazine publishers push for special postal rates and Amazon negotiates special bulk UPS rates.
In fact, this fight for rents across a vertical supply chain exists in virtually every industry. Consumers will pay so much for a finished product. Any vertical supply chain is constantly battling over how much each step in the chain gets of the final consumer price.
What "net neutrality" actually means is that certain people, including apparently the President, want to tip the balance in this negotiation towards the content creators (no surprise given Hollywood's support for Democrats). Netflix, for example, takes a huge amount of bandwidth that costs ISP's a lot of money to provide. But Netflix doesn't want the ISP's to be be able to charge for this extra bandwidth Netflix uses - Netflix wants to get all the benefit of taking up the lion's share of ISP bandwidth investments without having to pay for it. Net Neutrality is corporate welfare for content creators.
Check this out: Two companies (Netflix and Google) use half the total downstream US bandwidth. They use orders and orders of magnitude more bandwidth than any other content creators, but don't want to pay for it (source)
Why should you care? Well, the tilting of this balance has real implications for innovation. It creates incentives for content creators to devise new bandwidth-heavy services. On the other hand, it pretty much wipes out any incentive for ISP's (cable companies, phone companies, etc) to invest in bandwidth infrastructure (cell phone companies, to my understand, are typically exempted from net neutrality proposals). Why bother investing in more bandwidth infrastrcture if the government is so obviously intent on tilting the rewards of such investments towards content creators? Expect to see continued lamentations from folks (ironically mostly on the Left, who support net neutrality) that the US trails in providing high-speed Internet infrastructure.
Don't believe me? Well, AT&T and Verizon have halted their fiber rollout. Google has not, but Google is really increasingly on the content creation side. And that is one strategy for dealing with this problem of the government tilting the power balance in a vertical supply chain: vertical integration.
Postscript: There are folks out there who always feel better as a consumer if their services are heavily regulated by the Government. Well, the Internet is currently largely unregulated, but the cable TV industry is heavily regulated. Which one are you more satisfied with?
Update: OK, after a lot of comments and emails, I am willing to admit I am conflating multiple issues, some of which fit the strict definition of net neutrality (e.g. ISP A can't block Planned Parenthood sites because its CEO is anti-abortion) with other potential ISP-content provider conflicts. I am working on some updates as I study more, but I will say in response that
- President Obama is essentially doing the same thing, trying to ram through a regulatory power grab (shifting ISPs to Title II oversight) that actually has vanishly little to do with the strict definition of net neutrality. Net neutrality supporters should be forewarned that the number of content and privacy restrictions that will pour forth from regulators will dwarf the essentially non-existent cases of net neutrality violation we have seen so far in the unregulated market.
- I am still pretty sure the net effect of these regulations, whether they really affect net neutrality or not, will be to disarm ISP's in favor of content providers in the typical supply chain vertical wars that occur in a free market. At the end of the day, an ISP's last resort in negotiating with a content provider is to shut them out for a time, just as the content provider can do the same in reverse to the ISP's customers. Banning an ISP from doing so is like banning a union from striking. And for those who keep telling me that this sort of behavior is different and won't be illegal under net neutrality, then please explain to me how in practice one defines a ban based on a supply chain rent-division arguments and a ban based on nefarious non neutrality.
The AZ Republic rounds up some actual sick leave excuses people have tried:
"I accidentally got on a plane" was on the list of most dubious excuses for calling in sick to work, according to a recent survey by careerbuilders.com.
"I just put a casserole in the oven," "I need to tweak my botched plastic surgery," and "I broke my ankle after my leg fell asleep while I was sitting on the toilet," were among other hilarious, yet real, excuses that employers reported.
The survey found that 28 percent of employees called in sick when they were feeling well, down from 32 percent last year, and that one in four employers have caught an employee faking sick through social media.
There are more at the link.
We get very, very little of this, so we are lucky to have great employees. Since many of my employees are in the 70s, 80s, and even 90s (really), employee absences are generally real, quite serious health concerns. Besides, since most of my employees live on the work site, it is a little harder to fake this kind of thing.
It will be interesting what having the incentive of getting paid, in addition to just skipping out of work, will do to this.
John Hinderaker says that Democrats have been unsuccessful in their anti-Koch brother campaign because only 25% of Americans have a negative opinion of the Kochs and that has not changed much in 6 months.
But that strikes me as missing the point. The Democrats have raised tens of millions of dollars from those 25% inflaming them with anti-Koch rhetoric. They will outspend Republicans this year largely on the back of a campaign that, for example, never failed to mention the Kochs in almost every email sent out. Further, they have succesfully turned the words "Koch Brothers" into some sort of boogeyman. The media even here in Red state Arizona breathlessly discusses every contact a Republican candidate has with Koch Brothers-funded organizations while never ever mentioning any large backers on the Democratic side. Despite the fact that Democrats have raised more so-called "dark money" than Republicans, nearly 100% of the media stories on dark money are about Republicans. Further, by successfully (and asymmetrically) making public life a living hell for prominent Republican supporters, the Democrats are doing important battle space preparation for future elections, giving second thoughts to future potential Republican donors.
That, in my mind, is a political success.
(Of course, it is a disaster for liberty, and demonstrates EXACTLY why anonymous speech and donations have to remain legal. The campaign waged right from the floor of the Senate by Democrats like Harry Reid to vilify private citizens who have been out-front and transparent about exercising their free speech is an insult to liberty).
How do I know that average people do not believe the one in five women raped on campus meme? Because parents still are sending their daughters to college, that's why. In increasing numbers that threaten to overwhelm males on campus. What is more, I sat recently through new parent orientations at a famous college and parents asked zillions of stupid, trivial questions and not one of them inquired into the safety of their daughters on campus or the protections afforded them. Everyone knows that some women are raped and badly taken advantage of on campus, but everyone also knows the one in five number is overblown BS.
Imagine that there is a country with a one in 20 chance of an American woman visiting getting raped. How many parents would yank their daughters from any school trip headed for that country -- a lot of them, I would imagine. If there were a one in five chance? No one would allow their little girls to go. I promise. I am a dad, I know.
Even if the average person can't articulate their source of skepticism, most people understand in their gut that we live in a post-modern world when it comes to media "data". Political discourse, and much of the media, is ruled by the "fake but accurate" fact. That is, the number everyone knows has no valid source or basis in fact or that everyone knows fails every smell test, but they use anyway because it is in a good cause. They will say, "well one in five is probably high but it's an important issue anyway".
The first time I ever encountered this effect was on an NPR radio show years ago. The hosts were discussing a well-accepted media statistic at the time that there were a million homeless people (these homeless people only seem to exist, at least in the media, during Republican presidencies so I suppose this dates all the way back to the Reagan or Bush years). Someone actually tracked down this million person stat and traced it back to a leading homeless advocate, who admitted he just made it up for an interview, and was kind of amazed everyone just accepted it. But the interesting part was a discussion with several people in the media who still used the statistic even after they knew it to be outsourced BS, made up out of thin air. Their logic: homelessness was a critical issue and the stat may be wrong, but it was OK to essentially lie (they did not use the word "lie") about the facts in a good cause. The statistic was fake, but accurately reflected a real problem. Later, the actual phrase "fake but accurate" would be coined in association with the George W. Bush faked air force national guard papers. Opponents of Bush argued after the forgery became clear to everyone but Dan Rather that the letters may have been fake but they accurately reflected character flaws in the President.
And for those on the Left who want to get bent out of shape that this is just aimed at them, militarists love these post-modern non-facts to stir up fear in the war on terror, the war on crime, the war on drugs, and the war on just about everyone in the middle east.
PS- Neil deGrasse Tyson has been criticized of late for the same failing, the use of fake quotes that supposedly accurately reflect the mind of the quoted person. It is one thing for politicians to play this game. It is worse for scientists. It is the absolute worst for a scientist to play this anti-science game in the name of defending science.
I didn't get that big Internet payout from my year or so at Mercata, but those of us involved have this to fall back on:
Founder and CEO Steve El-Hage acknowledged that “super-smart people had tried to get the ball rolling in the past” on group buying — one of them was Mercata, which shut down back in 2001. (More recently, I’ve written about a group-buying startup called Higgle.)
It's amazing how group buying is an idea that keeps coming back. Even pre-social media, we found it to be a better tool for driving viral marketing than for achieving any economies of scale.
I suppose one could argue that there is some change in reporting rates, since rape is well-know to be an under-reported crime. However, I would struggle to argue that under-reporting rates are going up (which is what it would take to be the prime driver of the trend above). If anything, my guess is that reporting rates are rising such that the chart above actually understates the improvement.
PS- Folks commenting on this post saying that by reporting a declining trend I demonstrate that I don't care about rape or don't treat it seriously are idiots. I have lived through dozens of data-free media scares and witch hunts -- global cooling, global warming, the great pre-school sexual abuse witch hunt, about 20 different narcotics related scares (vodka tampons, anyone?). Data is useful. In this case, knowing there is improvement means we can look for what is driving the improvement and do more of it (though Kevin Drum would likely attribute it to unleaded gasoline).
"Trend that is not a trend" is an occasional feature on this blog. I could probably write three stories a day on this topic if I wished. The media is filled with stories of supposed trends based on single data points or anecdotes rather than, you know, actual trend data. More stories of this type are here. It is not unusual to find that the trend data often support a trend in the opposite direction as claimed by media articles. I have a related category I have started of trends extrapolated from single data points.
At Real Science, Steven Goddard claims this is the coolest summer on record in the US.
The NOAA reports that both May and June were the hottest on record.
It used to be the the media would reconcile such claims and one might learn something interesting from that reconciliation, but now all we have are mostly-crappy fact checks with Pinocchio counts. Both these claims have truth on their side, though the NOAA report is more comprehensively correct. Still, we can learn something by putting these analyses in context and by reconciling them.
The NOAA temperature data for the globe does indeed show May and June as the hottest on record. However, one should note a couple of things
- The two monthly records do not change the trend over the last 10-15 years, which has basically been flat. We are hitting records because we are sitting on a plateau that is higher than the rest of the last century (at least in the NOAA data). It only takes small positive excursions to reach all-time highs
- There are a number of different temperature data bases that measure the temperature in different ways (e.g. satellite vs. ground stations) and then adjust those raw readings using different methodologies. While the NOAA data base is showing all time highs, other data bases, such as satellite-based ones, are not.
- The NOAA database has been criticized for manual adjustments to temperatures in the past which increase the warming trend. Without these adjustments, temperatures during certain parts of the 1930's (think: Dust Bowl) would be higher than today. This was discussed here in more depth. As is usual when looking at such things, some of these adjustments are absolutely appropriate and some can be questioned. However, blaming the whole of the warming signal on such adjustments is just wrong -- satellite data bases which have no similar adjustment issues have shown warming, at least between 1979 and 1999.
The Time article linked above illustrated the story of these record months with a video partially on wildfires. This is a great example of how temperatures are indeed rising but media stories about knock-on effects, such as hurricanes and fires, can be full of it. 2014 has actually been a low fire year so far in the US.
So the world is undeniably on the warm side of average (I won't way warmer than normal because what is "normal"?) So how does Goddard get this as the coolest summer on record for the US?
Well, the first answer, and it is an important one to remember, is that US temperatures do not have to follow global temperatures, at least not tightly. While the world warmed 0.5-0.7 degrees C from 1979-1999, the US temperatures moved much less. Other times, the US has warmed or cooled more than the world has. The US is well under 5% of the world's surface area. It is certainly possible to have isolated effects in such an area. Remember the same holds true the other way -- heat waves in one part of the world don't necessarily mean the world is warming.
But we can also learn something that is seldom discussed in the media by looking at Goddard's chart:
First, I will say that I am skeptical of any chart that uses "all USHCN" stations because the number of stations and their locations change so much. At some level this is an apples to oranges comparison -- I would be much more comfortable to see a chart that looks at only USHCN stations with, say, at least 80 years of continuous data. In other words, this chart may be an artifact of the mess that is the USHCN database.
However, it is possible that this is correct even with a better data set and against a backdrop of warming temperatures. Why? Because this is a metric of high temperatures. It looks at the number of times a data station reads a high temperature over 90F. At some level this is a clever chart, because it takes advantage of a misconception most people, including most people in the media have -- that global warming plays out in higher daytime high temperatures.
But in fact this does not appear to be the case. Most of the warming we have seen over the last 50 years has manifested itself as higher nighttime lows and higher winter temperatures. Both of these raise the average, but neither will change Goddard's metric of days above 90F. So it is perfectly possible Goddard's chart is right even if the US is seeing a warming trend over the same period. Which is why we have not seen any more local all-time daily high temperature records set recently than in past decades. But we have seen a lot of new records for high low temperature, if that term makes sense. Also, this explains why the ratio of daily high records to daily low records has risen -- not necessarily because there are a lot of new high records, but because we are setting fewer low records. We can argue about daytime temperatures but nighttime temperatures are certainly warmer.
This chart shows an example with low and high temperatures over time at Amherst, MA (chosen at random because I was speaking there). Note that recently, most warming has been at night, rather than in daily highs.
Quick: From Media Reporting and Obama Speeches, What Is Your Impression of Wildfire Severity This Year
Wildfires are becoming a perennial favorite of our "Trend that is not a trend" series, showing how media creates trends out of single data points and even out of thin air. Often, the evidence behind trends in media stories tends to be ... the increasing volume of media stories on that topic. Thus the "Summer of the Shark" media fiasco.
About 98 out of 100 people I might ask would say that this is a record year for wildfires in the US. In fact, it is, so far, one of the slowest wildfire seasons in recent memory.
Here is a screencap of the data from the National Inter-agency Fire Center. Here is the link so you can see for yourself (though of course the data will be different over time since it shows year to date data for the day you check).
Note that there is no apples to oranges BS here -- all data for all years are for Jan 1 to July 24 of that year. So far this year, the number of fires is 31% below average and the total acres burned is nearly 60% below average.
Postscript: By the way, I have every reason to hate wildfires. A wildfire in the Sedona area shut down my largest business for the year, pretty much wiping out our company's earnings for the year.
Postscript #2: There is clearly a trend in the data for acres burned (see whole database here). I am not denying the trend, though we can argue how much is climate and how much is forest management and how much is simply more human contact with the wilderness. What I object to is using individual events, particularly individual events in below-average years, as proof of the trend
I was watching some excellent videos of recent Phoenix dust storms roll across the city. I started thinking about a joke story:
Scientists report that the number of Phoenix dust storms have likely increased substantially since 1990. Before that date, almost no cell phone videos exist of large dust storms in Phoenix. Today, one can find hundreds of such videos on Youtube, mostly from the last three or four years. Obviously we are seeing some sort of climate change
This would clearly be absurd -- there has been a change in measurement technology. No cell phone cameras existed before 1990. But equally absurd examples can be found every day.
- With the summer of the shark, an increase in frequency of media coverage of shark attacks was mistaken for an increase in frequency of shark attacks themselves.
- With tornadoes, improving detection of smaller twisters (e.g. by doppler radar and storm chasers) has been mistaken by many (cough Al Gore cough) for an increase in the frequency of tornadoes. In fact, all evidence points to declining tornado frequency
- With electrical grid disturbances, a trend was created solely by the government owner of the data making a push with power companies to provide more complete reporting.
- I have wondered whether the so-called cancer epidemic in India is real, or the results of better diagnosis and longer life spans
Postscript: I remember when I first saw one of these storms rolling towards me after I moved to Phoenix. Perhaps I should not have read Stephen King's The Mist, but I honestly wondered for a minute if I would live to regret not hopping in my car and racing to stay ahead of the wall coming towards me.
"Trend that is not a trend" is an occasional feature on this blog. I could probably write three stories a day on this topic if I wished. The media is filled with stories of supposed trends based on single data points or anecdotes rather than, you know, actual trend data. More stories of this type are here. It is not unusual to find that the trend data often support a trend in the opposite direction as claimed by media articles.
What Happens When You Abandon Prices As A Supply-Demand Matching Tool? California Tries Totalitarianism
Mostly, we use prices to match supply and demand. When supplies of some item are short, rising prices provide incentives for conservation and substitution, as well as the creation of creative new sources of supply.
When we abandon prices, often out of some sort of political opportunism, chaos usually results.
California, for example, has never had the political will to allow water prices to rise when water is short. They cite all kinds of awful things that would happen to people if water prices were higher, but then proceed instead with all sorts of authoritarian rationing initiatives that strike me as far worse than any downsides of higher prices.
In this particular drought, California has taken a page from Nazi Germany block watches to try to ration water
So, faced with apparent indifference to stern warnings from state leaders and media alarms, cities across California have encouraged residents to tattle on their neighbors for wasting water — and the residents have responded in droves. Sacramento, for instance, has received more than 6,000 reports of water waste this year, up twentyfold from last year...
Some drought-conscious Californians have turned not only to tattling, but also to an age-old strategy to persuade friends and neighbors to cut back: shaming. On Twitter, radio shows and elsewhere, Californians are indulging in such sports as shower-shaming (trying to embarrass a neighbor or relative who takes a leisurely wash), car-wash-shaming and lawn-shaming.
“Is washing the sidewalk with water a good idea in a drought @sfgov?” Sahand Mirzahossein, a 32-year-old management consultant, posted on Twitter, along with a picture of a San Francisco city employee cleaning the sidewalk with a hose. (He said he hoped a city official would respond to his post, but he never heard back.)
Drought-shaming may sound like a petty, vindictive strategy, and officials at water agencies all denied wanting to shame anyone, preferring to call it “education” or “competition.” But there are signs that pitting residents against one another can pay dividends.
All this to get, in the best case, a 10% savings. How much would water prices have to rise to cut demand 10% and avoid all this creepy Orwellian crap?
One of the features of Nazi and communist block watch systems was that certain people would instrumentalize the system to use it to pay back old grudges. The same thing is apparently happening in California
In Santa Cruz, dozens of complaints have come from just a few residents, who seem to be trying to use the city’s tight water restrictions to indulge old grudges.
“You get people who hate their neighbors and chronically report them in hopes they’ll be thrown in prison for wasting water,” said Eileen Cross, Santa Cruz’s water conservation manager. People claim water-waste innocence, she said, and ask: “Was that my neighbor? She’s been after me ever since I got that dog.”
Ms. Franzi said that in her Sacramento neighborhood, people were now looking askance at one another, wondering who reported them for wasting water.
“There’s a lot of suspiciousness,” Ms. Franzi said. “It’s a little uncomfortable at this point.” She pointed out that she and her husband have proudly replaced their green lawn with drought-resistant plants, and even cut back showers to once every few days.
Update: Seriously, for those that are unclear -- this is the alternative to capitalism. This is the Progressive alternative to markets. Sure, bad things happen in a free society with free markets, but how can anyone believe that this is a better alternative?
Supposedly, there is this huge trend in Millennials graduating college, failing to find a satisfactory job, and ending up living at home. Almost every media outlet known to man has written about it. They have anecdotes and pictures of individuals to prove it. But there does not seem to be an actual trend:
It turns out that the share of young people 18-24 not in college but living at home has actually fallen. Any surge in young adults living at home is all from college kids, due to this odd definition the Census uses
It is important to note that the Current Population Survey counts students living in dormitories as living in their parents' home.
Campus housing, for some reason, counts in the census as living at home with your parents. And since college attendance is growing, thus you get this trend that is not a trend.
"Trend that is not a trend" is an occasional feature on this blog. I could probably write three stories a day on this topic if I wished. The media is filled with stories of supposed trends based on single data points or anecdotes rather than, you know, actual trend data. More stories of this type are here. It is not unusual to find that the trend data often support a trend in the opposite direction as claimed by media articles.
You know that relative of yours, who last Thanksgiving called you anti-science because you had not fully bought into global warming alarm?
Well, it appears that the reason we keep getting called "anti-science" is because climate scientists have a really funny idea of what exactly "science" is.
Apparently, a number of folks have been trying for years to get articles published in peer reviewed journals comparing the IPCC temperature models to actual measurements, and in the process highlighting the divergence of the two. And they keep getting rejected.
Now, the publisher of Environmental Research Letters has explained why. Apparently, in climate science it is "an error" to attempt to compare computer temperature forecasts with the temperatures that actually occurred. In fact, he says that trying to do so "is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of 'errors' and worse from the climate sceptics media side". Apparently, the purpose of scientific inquiry is to win media wars, and not necessarily to discover truth.
Here is something everyone in climate should remember: The output of models merely represents a hypothesis. When we have complicated hypotheses in complicated systems, and where such hypotheses may encompass many interrelated assumptions, computer models are an important tool for playing out, computationally, what results those hypotheses might translate to in the physical world. It is no different than if Newton had had a computer and took his equation Gmm/R^2 and used the computer to project future orbits for the Earth and other planets (which he and others did, but by hand). But these projections would have no value until they were checked against actual observations. That is how we knew we liked Newton's models better than Ptolemy's -- because they checked out better against actual measurements.
But climate scientists are trying to create some kind of weird world where model results have some sort of independent reality, where in fact the model results should be trusted over measurements when the two diverge. If this is science -- which it is not -- but if it were, then I would be anti-science.
I warned you that Cliven Bundy's ranch was the wrong hill to fight on over property rights and the role of government ownership on western lands. And I was right.
This kind of thing should not come as a surprise. This is a guy who simply did not want to pay his rent, and used the catch phrases of liberty to try to get sympathy. I could find about a thousand far more sympathetic examples of folks screwed over by government land use regulations -- e.g. people whose puddle in the backyard is suddenly a wetlands that they can't build on. But for some reason Conservatives all rushed to pile on this one example. Stupid. The media can probably be counted on to hide the unsavory back stories of Occupy Wall Street supporters, but there is no way they are going to do so for a "hero" of the right. The BLM almost bailed Conservatives out of their stupid support for Bundy by their execrable on-site management of the raid, but Conservatives are now getting what they deserve for jumping in bed with this guy.
Kevin Drum quotes Hugo Dixon on the Greek recovery:
Greece is undergoing an astonishing financial rebound. Two years ago, the country looked like it was set for a messy default and exit from the euro. Now it is on the verge of returning to the bond market with the issue of 2 billion euros of five-year paper.
There are still political risks, and the real economy is only now starting to turn. But the financial recovery is impressive. The 10-year bond yield, which hit 30 percent after the debt restructuring of two years ago, is now 6.2 percent....The changed mood in the markets is mainly down to external factors: the European Central Bank’s promise to “do whatever it takes” to save the euro two years ago; and the more recent end of investors’ love affair with emerging markets, meaning the liquidity sloshing around the global economy has been hunting for bargains in other places such as Greece.
That said, the centre-right government of Antonis Samaras has surprised observers at home and abroad by its ability to continue with the fiscal and structural reforms started by his predecessors. The most important successes have been reform of the labour market, which has restored Greece’s competiveness, and the achievement last year of a “primary” budgetary surplus before interest payments.
Color me suspicious. Both the media and investors fall for this kind of thing all the time -- the dead cat bounce masquerading as a structural improvement. I hope like hell Greece has gotten its act together, but I would not bet my own money on it.
Anyway, that is a bit beside the point. I found Drum's conclusion from all this odd:
If this keeps up—and that's still a big if—it also might be a lesson in the virtue of kicking the can down the road. Back in 2012, lots of commenters, including me, believed that the eurozone had deep structural problems that couldn't be solved by running fire drills every six months or so and then hoping against hope that things would get better. But maybe they will! This probably still wasn't the best way of forging a recovery of the eurozone, but so far, it seems to have worked at least a little better than the pessimists imagined. Maybe sometimes kicking the can is a good idea after all.
For those that are not frequent readers of his, I need to tell you that one of the themes he has been pounding on of late is that the US should not be worried about either its debt levels or inflation -- attempting to rebut the most obvious critiques of his strong support for more deficit spending and monetary stimulus.
I would have thought the obvious moral of this story was that austerity and dismantling all sorts of progressive labor market claptrap led to a recovery far faster than expected**. But since Drum opposes all those steps, his conclusion seems to be simply a return to his frequent theme that debt is A-OK and we shouldn't be worried about addressing it any time soon.
** I don't believe for a moment that Greece has really changed the worst of its structural labor market, regulatory, and taxation issues. This story gets written all the time about countries like, say, Argentina. Sustained incompetence is not really newsworthy, which is likely one reason we get so few African stories. They would all be like "Nigeria still a mess." A false recovery story gives the media two story cycles, one for the false recovery and one for the inevitable sinking back into the pit.
Yesterday I was interviewed for a student radio show, I believe from the USC Annenberg school. I have no quarrel with the staff I worked with, they were all friendly and intelligent.
What depressed me though, as I went through my usual bullet points describing the "lukewarmer" position that is increasingly common among skeptics, was that most of what I said seemed to be new to the interviewer. It was amazing to see that someone presumably well-exposed to the climate debate would actually not have any real idea what one of the two positions really entailed (see here and here for what I outlined). This gets me back to the notion I wrote about a while ago about people relying on their allies to tell them everything they need to know about their opponent's position, without ever actually listening to the opponents.
This topic comes up in the blogosphere from time to time, often framed as being able to pass an ideological Touring test. Can, say, a Republican write a defense of the minimum wage that a reader of the Daily Kos would accept, or will it just come out sounding like a straw man? I feel like I could do it pretty well, despite being a libertarian opposed to the minimum wage. For example:
There is a substantial power imbalance between minimum wage workers and employers, such that employers are able to pay such workers far less than their labor is worth, and far less than they would be willing to pay if they had to. The minimum wage corrects this power imbalance and prevents employers from unfairly exploiting this power imbalance. It forces employers to pay employees something closer to a living wage, though at $7.25 an hour the minimum wage is still too low to be humane and needs to be raised. When companies pay below a living wage, they not only exploit workers but taxpayers as well, since they are accepting a form of corporate welfare when taxpayers (through food stamps and Medicare and the like) help sustain their underpaid workers.
Opponents of the minimum wage will sometimes argue that higher minimum wages reduce employment. However, since in most cases employers of low-skilled workers are paying workers less than they are willing and able to pay, raising the minimum wage has little effect on employment. Studies of the fast food industry by Card and Walker demonstrated that raising the minimum wage had little effect on employment levels. And any loss of employment from higher minimum wages would be more than offset by the Keynesian stimulative effect to the economy as a whole of increasing wages among lower income workers, who tend to consume nearly 100% of incremental income.
Despite the fact that I disagree with this position, I feel I understand it pretty well -- far better, I would say, than most global warming alarmists or even media members bother to try to understand the skeptic position. (I must say that looking back over my argument, it strikes me as more cogent and persuasive than most of the stuff on Daily Kos, so to pass a true Turing test I might have to make it a bit more incoherent).
Back in my consulting days at McKinsey & Company, we had this tradition (in hindsight I would call it almost an affectation) of giving interviewees business cases** to discuss and solve in our job interviews. If I were running a news outlet, I would require interviewees to take an ideological Touring test - take an issue and give me the argument for each side in the way that each side would present it.
This, by the way, is probably why Paul Krugman is my least favorite person in journalism. He knows very well that his opponents have a fairly thoughtful and (to them) well intention-ed argument but pretends to his readers that no such position exists. Which is ironic because in some sense Krugman started the dialog on ideological Turing tests, arguing that liberals can do it easily for conservative positions but conservatives fail at it for liberal positions.
** Want an example? Many of these cases were just strategic choices in some of our consulting work. But some were more generic, meant to test how one might break down and attack a problem. One I used from time to time was, "what is the size of the window glass market in Mexico?" Most applicants were ready for this kind of BS, but I do treasure the look on a few faces of students who had not been warned about such questions. The point of course was to think it through out loud, ie "well there are different sectors, like buildings and autos. Each would have both a new and replacement market. Within buildings there is residential and commercial. Taking one of these, the new residential market would be driven by new home construction times some factor representing windows per house. One might need to understand if Mexican houses used pre-manufactured windows or constructed them from components on the building site." etc. etc.
I can think of two groups with whom I have some sympathy -- the Tea Party and climate skeptics -- who share one problem in common: the media does not come to them to ask them what their positions are. The media instead goes to their opposition to ask what their positions are. In other words, the media asks global warming strong believers what the skeptic position is, without ever even talking to skeptics. It should be no surprise then that these groups get painted with straw men positions that frequently bear no resemblance to their actual beliefs.
Or we’re told that conservatives, the Tea Party in particular, oppose handouts because they believe in personal responsibility, in a society in which people must bear the consequences of their actions. Yet it’s hard to find angry Tea Party denunciations of huge Wall Street bailouts, of huge bonuses paid to executives who were saved from disaster by government backing and guarantees.
This is really outrageous. I am not a Tea Partier because they hold a number of positions (e.g. on immigration and gay marriage) opposite of mine. But to say they somehow have ignored cronyism and bailouts is just absurd. TARP was one of the instigations, if not the key instigation, for the Tea Party. As I have written any number of times, the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street actually shared a number of common complaints about bank bailouts and cronyism.
By the way, it is Hilarious to see Krugman trying to claim the moral high ground on Cronyism, as he has been such a vociferous proponent of the Fed balance sheet expansion, which will likely go down in history as one of the greatest crony giveaways to the rich in history.
“The members know that serious climate change legislation stands no chance of passage in this divided Congress,” wrote the New York Times' climate-change reporter, Coral Davenport. Beyond that, Democrats know that action on climate legislation would help Republicans take the Senate in 2014.
So why occupy the Senate floor talking about the issue? In short: Faith, identity and cash.
The liberal climate cause is easier to understand if you think of it as a religion. Monday’s talkathon sounded at times like a religious revival. Senators spoke about the faithful who “believe in wind” and “believe in renewable” energy. Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., said climate for him is “a faith issue.”
One doctrine in the Church of Climate is sola fide. In the words of Reformation theology: Justification comes through faith alone. “Good works” are irrelevant....
Beyond exercises in faith and identity politics, the Democratic all-nighter should be understood as a very odd fundraiser. Most fundraisers feature one or two politicians speaking to dozens of donors. Monday night featured a dozen politicians speaking to one donor: Energy billionaire Tom Steyer.
Steyer, having made his riches partly in green energy and fossil fuels, has decided to spend his billions electing Democrats who will pass climate legislation. He says he’s divested from his energy holdings, signifying his intentions are sincere.
Steyer spent $8 million to help elect Terry McAuliffe governor of Virginia last fall. “Steyer will inject millions into assorted races” in 2014, reports Joe Hagan in Men's Journal. Steyer has made it very clear what a politician needs to do to get his money: Make a big deal about climate change.
By the way, kudos to Carney for getting this correct. It seems like an easy nuance to get accurately, but no one in the media ever does
Democrats called Republicans “deniers” 28 times during the talkathon. Majority Leader Harry Reidframed his speech this way: “Despite overwhelming scientific evidence and overwhelming public opinion, climate change deniers still exist.”
There’s an ounce of truth to this attack: Some Republicans wrongly deny that carbon dioxide and similar gasses exert a net upward pressure on atmospheric temperature, and that this has affected the climate.
But liberals hurl the term “climate denier” at anyone who doubts the hyperbolic catastrophic predictions of Al Gore, posits that non-manmade factors (like the sun) may also drive climate change, or opposes Democrats policies — the same policies Democrats aren’t actually trying to pass.
I have actually learned to embrace the "denier" label. When it is applied to me, I agree that I am, but that one has to be careful what exact proposition I am denying. I don't deny that the world has warmed over the last 100 years or that man-made CO2 has contributed incrementally to that warming, both now and in the future. What I deny is the catastrophe.