Seen a few articles on how it would be better to push more people through college by automating classes and putting more classes on the web. This is my counter argument.
The following is an assignment:
Gather the Head Count Ratio (percentage of the population who fall below the poverty line at $2/day), the population, and the poverty line ($2/day). Use a spreadsheet to calculate the total headcount of the population falling below the poverty line, remembering that the Head Count Ratio is the Head Count divided by the Population. Turn in a spreadsheet table that says if the Head Count has increased or decreased in your country over time and graph it.
Let me give you an example of a student let's call "Bob." Bob gathered that in China in 2002, the Headcount Ratio is 51.2%, and the population is 1.28 billion. Bob then calculates the head count, the total amount of the population of China who fall below $2 a day, as 65.5 billion people. Bob turns this in.
When I give Bob a "D" (which means 'incomprehensible work, showing minimal understanding' in my class) he comes into my office demanding to know why. I point him toward my comments on his grade evaluation: "Check your spreadsheet formula. Are there 65 billion people in China?" Bob still does not understand. I ask Bob what 20% of 100 is. Bob responds, "20". And how do we get that? "I don't get where this is going? There aren't 100 people in China!" (*actual quote*) Some one does not appear to have the faculties for abstract thought.
I sigh with depression, and ask him if the planet has 65 billion people on it. He does not know how to respond. I ask him that if we want 51% of x, how do we get that?
This goes on for ten minutes. Ten... painful... minutes.
Now, I have 27 students in my class. Only 33.3% (approximately) managed to successfully apply the lessons in percentages they should have known since 7th grade. I'm not even going to mention the idiots who multiplied the headcount ratio by the poverty line, especially when we spent an entire lecture just explaining what each of these measures are.
When I see a majority of my class doing the work that I could not legitimately train a monkey to do, then I will support automating university. Until then, they apparently need college to make up for their absolutely dismal middle school education.
Friday, February 24, 2012
Monday, February 20, 2012
Full Office Space...
Nearly 7 AM. The beeping... the damn beeping...
Let me share my hatred with you. Let me pour out my unbridled disgust. Let me unload by burning desire to destroy something so completely that it frightens me how close I am teetering back and forth off the edge of the abyss of madness. I have looked into that abyss... and it is the BabyCall Rechargeable NTM 910 Baby Monitor from Sony. Damn you, Sony.... damn you all to hell.
My wife and I, back in a simpler time, a quieter time, when we looked forward to a bright and happy future without our new baby registered this baby monitor with Target. The price seems reasonable. The reviews are good. What fools we were... what fools... and our dear friend bought it for us, at our desire. If only we had known... the horror... the horror.
It started with a few chirps. An annoying alarm clock like sound to tell you when its "out of range." How could it be out of range in a 2 bedroom/2 bath apartment? Well, never mind. And then came the static hissing. Loud, random, "TSSSSH!" right out of the radio that cared not for lower volume settings. I comforted my wife, "Surely we can figure out how to minimize that." What a terrible imbecile I was. What ignorance in the face of the beeping, staticy maw of unfathomable doom.
For three months it has beeped and "TSSSH!"ed at all hours. It has woken my baby from the other room with an inexplicably loud "OUT OF RANGE!!!" beep. This plastic radio siren has woken me up more than my infant child at night, and I'm willing to bet has "cried" more.
It is too late for me. But to you dear reader, who has not purchased it, there is still time. Stay away from the Sony BabyCall NTM 910! There's is the path of blighted insanity, lost sleep, and endless frustration.
In other words: I hate this thing. So much. So very, very much. I'm going to go full on "Office Space" on this thing when I get the chance.
Let me share my hatred with you. Let me pour out my unbridled disgust. Let me unload by burning desire to destroy something so completely that it frightens me how close I am teetering back and forth off the edge of the abyss of madness. I have looked into that abyss... and it is the BabyCall Rechargeable NTM 910 Baby Monitor from Sony. Damn you, Sony.... damn you all to hell.
My wife and I, back in a simpler time, a quieter time, when we looked forward to a bright and happy future without our new baby registered this baby monitor with Target. The price seems reasonable. The reviews are good. What fools we were... what fools... and our dear friend bought it for us, at our desire. If only we had known... the horror... the horror.
It started with a few chirps. An annoying alarm clock like sound to tell you when its "out of range." How could it be out of range in a 2 bedroom/2 bath apartment? Well, never mind. And then came the static hissing. Loud, random, "TSSSSH!" right out of the radio that cared not for lower volume settings. I comforted my wife, "Surely we can figure out how to minimize that." What a terrible imbecile I was. What ignorance in the face of the beeping, staticy maw of unfathomable doom.
For three months it has beeped and "TSSSH!"ed at all hours. It has woken my baby from the other room with an inexplicably loud "OUT OF RANGE!!!" beep. This plastic radio siren has woken me up more than my infant child at night, and I'm willing to bet has "cried" more.
It is too late for me. But to you dear reader, who has not purchased it, there is still time. Stay away from the Sony BabyCall NTM 910! There's is the path of blighted insanity, lost sleep, and endless frustration.
In other words: I hate this thing. So much. So very, very much. I'm going to go full on "Office Space" on this thing when I get the chance.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Junkie Football.
Maybe its my upbringing (an undergrad degree from KU does not instill one with the greatest confidence in football programs) or maybe I just don't get it, but I'm finding college sports to be more a reputational hazard for universities. I'm absolutely certain they're a great source of money, but let's skip that.
This morning, seventeen TCU students were arrested for dealing what seems to be a considerable amount of illegal drugs. Enough to warrant a six month investigation, including undercover cops, and I hope clever operation titles (Operation Frog Lickin'?).
Four of these seventeen were football players. One of them was a leading tackler, and a former SMU player (ah memories of Dallas). Now I've seen sources say that this has nothing to do with the football program itself, but I don't think the numbers support that.
4/17 = approx. 23% of the dealers were associated with the football team. According to the TCU FAQ on this matter, less than 1% of the student body were "disciplined for drug law violations." I'm assuming very few of those are enough to warrant a six month undercover operation, but let's move on. For the sake of argument let's say its 1%. There are 99 people listed on the football roster for TCU. Four of those have been arrested for dealing drugs to an undercover officer, apparently. 4/99 = approximately 4%. Now let's take the "lesser scandal" 13 students. If TCU has a student population of about 9,500, and we say for this year there will still be about 71 "usual" drug violations, let's add the 13, without considering the football players, and that gives us 83.
83/9,500 = 0.87%.
You want to try again with claiming there is not something specifically wrong with the football program? Where was the coach during the six month police investigation, which was apparently sparked by several complaints from students, parents, and others? And you know what, to those people who called the police instead of kicked the can up to the next guy: thank you. If there were more of them, there'd be less of Penn State.
Meanwhile yet another football program that boasted of its moral superiority is facing a hard reality. And if I read one article on "we should pay the players so they won't have to deal drugs/take bribes/what-have-you" in the next few weeks, I'm going to vomit.
This morning, seventeen TCU students were arrested for dealing what seems to be a considerable amount of illegal drugs. Enough to warrant a six month investigation, including undercover cops, and I hope clever operation titles (Operation Frog Lickin'?).
Four of these seventeen were football players. One of them was a leading tackler, and a former SMU player (ah memories of Dallas). Now I've seen sources say that this has nothing to do with the football program itself, but I don't think the numbers support that.
4/17 = approx. 23% of the dealers were associated with the football team. According to the TCU FAQ on this matter, less than 1% of the student body were "disciplined for drug law violations." I'm assuming very few of those are enough to warrant a six month undercover operation, but let's move on. For the sake of argument let's say its 1%. There are 99 people listed on the football roster for TCU. Four of those have been arrested for dealing drugs to an undercover officer, apparently. 4/99 = approximately 4%. Now let's take the "lesser scandal" 13 students. If TCU has a student population of about 9,500, and we say for this year there will still be about 71 "usual" drug violations, let's add the 13, without considering the football players, and that gives us 83.
83/9,500 = 0.87%.
You want to try again with claiming there is not something specifically wrong with the football program? Where was the coach during the six month police investigation, which was apparently sparked by several complaints from students, parents, and others? And you know what, to those people who called the police instead of kicked the can up to the next guy: thank you. If there were more of them, there'd be less of Penn State.
Meanwhile yet another football program that boasted of its moral superiority is facing a hard reality. And if I read one article on "we should pay the players so they won't have to deal drugs/take bribes/what-have-you" in the next few weeks, I'm going to vomit.
Wednesday, February 08, 2012
Christina's Point of View.
Maybe I'm wrong on this Falklands thing. The Argentine claim dating back to the 1830s should be seriously considered, without the opinions of those living on the islands now, who have been there for as one BBC interviewee put it, "nine generations."
But while we're at it, I think Paraguay should look over the Argentine claim to the Misiones province, which was wrenched from it after the War of the Triple Alliance in the 1870s. Such a recent annexation must be debated by the UN and revised as the Paraguayans have a right to that land. No need to discuss this with the residents of Misiones, this is purely a diplomatic matter.
The Argentines should halt their imperialist acts, and withdraw any garrisons from those lands immediately.
In the non-sarcastic side, this is not a "diplomatic" threat as Frau Kirchner claims. In the 1980s, an aggressive and belligerent Argentine government invaded these islands with military force in order to subjugate them against their will. The only reason there is a military garrison on the Falklands in the first place is this threat of invasion by Argentina. So why would the British send in another ship? Because the last time an Argentine government made rumblings about sovereignty and nationalism they backed it up with violence.
Argentina does not get to play the imperialism card when its the country trying to subjugate a small island of people who do not want to be part of their nation. The only good explanation for all of this is that Kirchner has so badly messed up domestic policy that she's emulating the generals in trying to distract the populace from how bad things are in Argentina. And as described in a previous post: they are bad.
But while we're at it, I think Paraguay should look over the Argentine claim to the Misiones province, which was wrenched from it after the War of the Triple Alliance in the 1870s. Such a recent annexation must be debated by the UN and revised as the Paraguayans have a right to that land. No need to discuss this with the residents of Misiones, this is purely a diplomatic matter.
The Argentines should halt their imperialist acts, and withdraw any garrisons from those lands immediately.
In the non-sarcastic side, this is not a "diplomatic" threat as Frau Kirchner claims. In the 1980s, an aggressive and belligerent Argentine government invaded these islands with military force in order to subjugate them against their will. The only reason there is a military garrison on the Falklands in the first place is this threat of invasion by Argentina. So why would the British send in another ship? Because the last time an Argentine government made rumblings about sovereignty and nationalism they backed it up with violence.
Argentina does not get to play the imperialism card when its the country trying to subjugate a small island of people who do not want to be part of their nation. The only good explanation for all of this is that Kirchner has so badly messed up domestic policy that she's emulating the generals in trying to distract the populace from how bad things are in Argentina. And as described in a previous post: they are bad.
Sunday, February 05, 2012
Argentine Sociologists Can't Use Statistics.
I've been following the Falklands/Malvinas dispute for a while now. It's just a really great slow motion train wreck. It's amazing that the dictator years of Argentina have such a hold on the people that they still cling to what was obviously a propaganda attempt by a fascist government to distract from the mass murder of its own people.
But its even more amazing when sociologists get into the fray and pretend to be economists. Especially one Atilio Boron, who claims that the notion of the current government using the Falkands as a distraction from domestic problems is ridiculous, and that its the British trying to distract their population from their problems. Because apparently:
"The UK's economy is no better than Argentina's. It was not Buenos Aires that had social unrest and riots last year, but London."
Alright lab partner, let's hold that statement up to the data for 2010 from Google Public Data. And for the fun of it I'm comparing Argentina to Mexico as a regional Latin American comparison.
1) The per capita GNI (Atlas Method) of the UK is at about $38,000 give or take, meaning the average English person has the ability per year to purchase $38,000 worth of goods and services. The average Argentine has about $8,500, which is $430 less than the average Mexican ($8,930). So by the basic measure of economic purchasing power, Argentina is worse off than the UK... by a lot.
2) But maybe our good sociologist prefers to not use the paltry measures of income that an economist would. How about life expectancy? Argentina is about 75 years. Not bad. UK is at 80. Just to point out again, Mexico is at about 76. So the English and Mexicans are in general healthier.
Child mortality rates per 1000 live births: 4.6 babies for the UK, 12.3 for Argentina. 14.1 for Mexico.
Should I go on? How about measures of inequality:
3) Just as a quick glance, the income share of the lowers 20% of income earners in 1999 (couldn't get Google Data past that, but I'm sure there are some more recent years... 1999 will do for my point): 6.14% for UK, meaning the lowest income earners had an okay amount of the pie, and a little over 3% for Argentina. I'm too lazy to get the Gini right now, but I'm fairly confident in saying that the UK is most likely less unequal a society/economy than Argentina.
4) Let's bring in the UN (although avoid the apparently mandatory outbreaks of cholera associated with their involvement): the UN HDI for the UK is 0.86, and 0.80 for Argentina. (Viva) Mexico is catching up at 0.77. If we readjust the UN HDI for inequality (as they are now doing) for 2011, the UK drops to 0.77, Argentina drops to 0.64, and Mexico drops to 0.59.
So the BS-o-meter is off the charts for Atilio Boron, because the economy of the UK is in every possible measure better than the economy of Argentina. Maybe he should FGI* before he goes on record. In fact for Latin America in general, there are several economies "doing better" than Argentina: Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Uruguay, Venezuela. I would say that Mrs. Kirschner has plenty to distract the average Argentine from in 2012, and the fact that she's taking a page out of the "Dirty War" playbook should be unsettling to say the least.
Again, this is pretty simple; let the people who live in the Falklands decide for themselves. Have a referendum. If they want to be English let them be English. If they want to be Argentine, let them be Argentine. But until then, grab some popcorn and enjoy the political fireworks.
* $$$$ing Google it!
But its even more amazing when sociologists get into the fray and pretend to be economists. Especially one Atilio Boron, who claims that the notion of the current government using the Falkands as a distraction from domestic problems is ridiculous, and that its the British trying to distract their population from their problems. Because apparently:
"The UK's economy is no better than Argentina's. It was not Buenos Aires that had social unrest and riots last year, but London."
Alright lab partner, let's hold that statement up to the data for 2010 from Google Public Data. And for the fun of it I'm comparing Argentina to Mexico as a regional Latin American comparison.
1) The per capita GNI (Atlas Method) of the UK is at about $38,000 give or take, meaning the average English person has the ability per year to purchase $38,000 worth of goods and services. The average Argentine has about $8,500, which is $430 less than the average Mexican ($8,930). So by the basic measure of economic purchasing power, Argentina is worse off than the UK... by a lot.
2) But maybe our good sociologist prefers to not use the paltry measures of income that an economist would. How about life expectancy? Argentina is about 75 years. Not bad. UK is at 80. Just to point out again, Mexico is at about 76. So the English and Mexicans are in general healthier.
Child mortality rates per 1000 live births: 4.6 babies for the UK, 12.3 for Argentina. 14.1 for Mexico.
Should I go on? How about measures of inequality:
3) Just as a quick glance, the income share of the lowers 20% of income earners in 1999 (couldn't get Google Data past that, but I'm sure there are some more recent years... 1999 will do for my point): 6.14% for UK, meaning the lowest income earners had an okay amount of the pie, and a little over 3% for Argentina. I'm too lazy to get the Gini right now, but I'm fairly confident in saying that the UK is most likely less unequal a society/economy than Argentina.
4) Let's bring in the UN (although avoid the apparently mandatory outbreaks of cholera associated with their involvement): the UN HDI for the UK is 0.86, and 0.80 for Argentina. (Viva) Mexico is catching up at 0.77. If we readjust the UN HDI for inequality (as they are now doing) for 2011, the UK drops to 0.77, Argentina drops to 0.64, and Mexico drops to 0.59.
So the BS-o-meter is off the charts for Atilio Boron, because the economy of the UK is in every possible measure better than the economy of Argentina. Maybe he should FGI* before he goes on record. In fact for Latin America in general, there are several economies "doing better" than Argentina: Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Uruguay, Venezuela. I would say that Mrs. Kirschner has plenty to distract the average Argentine from in 2012, and the fact that she's taking a page out of the "Dirty War" playbook should be unsettling to say the least.
Again, this is pretty simple; let the people who live in the Falklands decide for themselves. Have a referendum. If they want to be English let them be English. If they want to be Argentine, let them be Argentine. But until then, grab some popcorn and enjoy the political fireworks.
* $$$$ing Google it!
Friday, January 27, 2012
Go Back to College Economics.
Are you freakin' kidding me, Blogobamavich?
See if you can follow this labor market example. Aggregate demand drops like a fat baby, and companies stop hiring. Workers then use their savings (and loan ability) to go back to school to retrain. College is seen as the place to do that. Demand for the few spots available on college campuses go up.
Now here's the part our Harvard-grad Preside does not get: as demand increases price increases. Is that too hard of a concept for a constitutional law professor who says he's all for civil liberties and closing Guantanamo, and then renews the Patriot Act and signs off on a document that allows the military to hold people suspected of terrorist activity/connections indefinetly? Probably so, since he doesn't even understand constitutional law.
But I digress, back to economics. Demand rises, and price goes up. Now, university is subsidized by the state and federal government. That keeps some of the price pressure down, as universities are able to provide more spaces, more teachers, etc. Think of that as a shift out in supply.
So you are suggesting that we respond to an increase in demand with a decrease in supply, and that will LOWER prices? Hint: a decrease in supply will lead to an increase in price on the market. Do I need to show you the magical X that I show all of my students? After five minutes even the F students get it.
Or is this another one of those Chicago political moves? You've got this valuable ****ing thing, and you're not going to give it up for free?
See if you can follow this labor market example. Aggregate demand drops like a fat baby, and companies stop hiring. Workers then use their savings (and loan ability) to go back to school to retrain. College is seen as the place to do that. Demand for the few spots available on college campuses go up.
Now here's the part our Harvard-grad Preside does not get: as demand increases price increases. Is that too hard of a concept for a constitutional law professor who says he's all for civil liberties and closing Guantanamo, and then renews the Patriot Act and signs off on a document that allows the military to hold people suspected of terrorist activity/connections indefinetly? Probably so, since he doesn't even understand constitutional law.
But I digress, back to economics. Demand rises, and price goes up. Now, university is subsidized by the state and federal government. That keeps some of the price pressure down, as universities are able to provide more spaces, more teachers, etc. Think of that as a shift out in supply.
So you are suggesting that we respond to an increase in demand with a decrease in supply, and that will LOWER prices? Hint: a decrease in supply will lead to an increase in price on the market. Do I need to show you the magical X that I show all of my students? After five minutes even the F students get it.
Or is this another one of those Chicago political moves? You've got this valuable ****ing thing, and you're not going to give it up for free?
Sunday, December 25, 2011
The Brandeis Ratio is a Faulty Measure.
It's Christmas. Can't sleep. Clown will eat me.
Inequality has been on the minds of many economists, and some are proposing "fancy" or "simple" new ways of measuring it. What a lot of them seem to forget are the yardsticks by which a good inequality measure is determined. There are four principles to adhere to, and these are all outlined in chapter 6 of Debraj Ray's "Development Economics" (Princeton, 1998). Unfortunately I don't see these principles adhered to enough these days, or even mentioned really.
A good inequality measure must satisfy these four principles (translated to English):
1) who owns the wealth does not matter, or the only pertinent attribute of inequality is the amount of income, ("the anonymity principle"),
2) how many people participate in the economy does not matter, so that countries, regions, or sections of varying sizes can be compared ("the population principle")- otherwise you could never compare say New York to Oklahoma or China to Lesotho,
3) make the comparison on relative income shares and not absolute levels of income (the "relative income principle"), and most importantly
4) when you make the poor worse off to benefit the not poor, inequality should increase ("the regressive transfers principle" or "the Dalton Principle").
This is a minimum standard. I encourage my students to add on from there as they please. But let's stick to the minimum.
It's very easy to get 1 to 3. The regressive transfer principle is more tricky. As a side, a regressive transfer is simply "taking from some one who is not rich and giving to some one who is not poor". Think of it as a reverse-Robin Hood.
Which brings us to the "Brandeis Ratio" from Ayres and Edlin. Assume an economy of 10 people with a wealth distribution of ($5, $6, $10);(5, 4, 1). That is five people earn $5, four people earn $6, and one guy gets $10. The total wealth of the economy is $21, and the number of people is 10. The Brandeis Ratio is ($10)/($5.5) as $5.5 is the median of the wealth distribution, and we're going to cheat and use the richest 10% as opposed to 1% since there are only ten people. So that's what? The richest in this economy is 1.8 times richer than the median household. Okay, sounds good.
If we allow a regressive transfer of one dollar from a man who makes $5 and give it to a man who makes $6, the new distribution is ($4, $5, $7, $10);(1, 4, 5, 1). The median is unchanged at 5.5. That means the Brandeis Ratio is unchanged despite what many people would see as an increase in inequality in that ten person economy.
The Brandeis Ratio fails the regressive transfer principle, something that the already extensively used Gini Coefficient does not. Actually, the Brandeis Ratio is just a fancy Kuznets Ratio, which is even more simple for calculation and still maintains the lethal failing of regressive transfers. I do not understand why we should adopt a new tax policy based on bad statistics.
I suppose the argument then is that the Brandeis Ratio only deals with the extreme case of the very rich, and I'm nit-picking about regressive transfers. In that case why not just use a Kuznets ratio and go with the share of the top 1% divided by the share of the bottom 40%?
The next might be the usefulness of measuring inequality in "medians". I'm still not sure what the difference is between measuring something wrong in medians and measuring something wrong in income shares?
Addendum:
Ian Ayres provides an account of why Brandeis instead of Gini here. It is in my opinion extremely interesting and well rationalized, but I still think the regressive transfer flaw is a weakness and not a strength.
Another Addendum:
Some questions on Ayres' reasoning.
1) The Gini, as I know it anyway, only looks at an income or wealth distribution. Unemployment and illegal immigration do not enter into it (see principle 1 above). It's a set of numbers, ordered from least to greatest. The entrance or exit of a household within the distribution by unemployment or (il)legal migration isn't really the issue. The numbers are the issue. I'm not sure where he's going with the Gini rationalization on unemployment and illegal immigration. It seems to be a stretch from the more basic Gini explanation.
2) I don't think "simplicity" equates to "transparency". The Brandeis is not "transparent" in that it ignores any transfers below the median. It is however simple enough for some one reading a newspaper article, but so are a lot of things. That does not mean those things are correct. I think a BA is sufficient to grasp a Lorenz Curve or a Gini Coefficient, and even if it wasn't why should we base policy on a statistic that is less correct?
3) I don't see the democracy reasoning either. The Brandeis Ratio is not a direct linkage to the top 1%'s ability to influence policy any more than the Gini is. The 1% disproportionately fund political campaigns. Okay, yes. But these plutocrats are measured in the Gini or Theil index as well. I don't see the advantage of using Brandeis over Gini.
4) The argument is the same for income, wealth, or assets.
If policy is going to be proposed based on statistics, let's make sure these are the best available. Not just the simplest.
Inequality has been on the minds of many economists, and some are proposing "fancy" or "simple" new ways of measuring it. What a lot of them seem to forget are the yardsticks by which a good inequality measure is determined. There are four principles to adhere to, and these are all outlined in chapter 6 of Debraj Ray's "Development Economics" (Princeton, 1998). Unfortunately I don't see these principles adhered to enough these days, or even mentioned really.
A good inequality measure must satisfy these four principles (translated to English):
1) who owns the wealth does not matter, or the only pertinent attribute of inequality is the amount of income, ("the anonymity principle"),
2) how many people participate in the economy does not matter, so that countries, regions, or sections of varying sizes can be compared ("the population principle")- otherwise you could never compare say New York to Oklahoma or China to Lesotho,
3) make the comparison on relative income shares and not absolute levels of income (the "relative income principle"), and most importantly
4) when you make the poor worse off to benefit the not poor, inequality should increase ("the regressive transfers principle" or "the Dalton Principle").
This is a minimum standard. I encourage my students to add on from there as they please. But let's stick to the minimum.
It's very easy to get 1 to 3. The regressive transfer principle is more tricky. As a side, a regressive transfer is simply "taking from some one who is not rich and giving to some one who is not poor". Think of it as a reverse-Robin Hood.
Which brings us to the "Brandeis Ratio" from Ayres and Edlin. Assume an economy of 10 people with a wealth distribution of ($5, $6, $10);(5, 4, 1). That is five people earn $5, four people earn $6, and one guy gets $10. The total wealth of the economy is $21, and the number of people is 10. The Brandeis Ratio is ($10)/($5.5) as $5.5 is the median of the wealth distribution, and we're going to cheat and use the richest 10% as opposed to 1% since there are only ten people. So that's what? The richest in this economy is 1.8 times richer than the median household. Okay, sounds good.
If we allow a regressive transfer of one dollar from a man who makes $5 and give it to a man who makes $6, the new distribution is ($4, $5, $7, $10);(1, 4, 5, 1). The median is unchanged at 5.5. That means the Brandeis Ratio is unchanged despite what many people would see as an increase in inequality in that ten person economy.
The Brandeis Ratio fails the regressive transfer principle, something that the already extensively used Gini Coefficient does not. Actually, the Brandeis Ratio is just a fancy Kuznets Ratio, which is even more simple for calculation and still maintains the lethal failing of regressive transfers. I do not understand why we should adopt a new tax policy based on bad statistics.
I suppose the argument then is that the Brandeis Ratio only deals with the extreme case of the very rich, and I'm nit-picking about regressive transfers. In that case why not just use a Kuznets ratio and go with the share of the top 1% divided by the share of the bottom 40%?
The next might be the usefulness of measuring inequality in "medians". I'm still not sure what the difference is between measuring something wrong in medians and measuring something wrong in income shares?
Addendum:
Ian Ayres provides an account of why Brandeis instead of Gini here. It is in my opinion extremely interesting and well rationalized, but I still think the regressive transfer flaw is a weakness and not a strength.
Another Addendum:
Some questions on Ayres' reasoning.
1) The Gini, as I know it anyway, only looks at an income or wealth distribution. Unemployment and illegal immigration do not enter into it (see principle 1 above). It's a set of numbers, ordered from least to greatest. The entrance or exit of a household within the distribution by unemployment or (il)legal migration isn't really the issue. The numbers are the issue. I'm not sure where he's going with the Gini rationalization on unemployment and illegal immigration. It seems to be a stretch from the more basic Gini explanation.
2) I don't think "simplicity" equates to "transparency". The Brandeis is not "transparent" in that it ignores any transfers below the median. It is however simple enough for some one reading a newspaper article, but so are a lot of things. That does not mean those things are correct. I think a BA is sufficient to grasp a Lorenz Curve or a Gini Coefficient, and even if it wasn't why should we base policy on a statistic that is less correct?
3) I don't see the democracy reasoning either. The Brandeis Ratio is not a direct linkage to the top 1%'s ability to influence policy any more than the Gini is. The 1% disproportionately fund political campaigns. Okay, yes. But these plutocrats are measured in the Gini or Theil index as well. I don't see the advantage of using Brandeis over Gini.
4) The argument is the same for income, wealth, or assets.
If policy is going to be proposed based on statistics, let's make sure these are the best available. Not just the simplest.
Monday, November 28, 2011
Foundation and Facism.
Sat down this Thanksgiving break and did what I'd been thinking of doing for a while: read the entire original Foundation trilogy. Was easier than I thought, and the writing was enjoyable. I wanted to do this due to some relatively recent endorsements in the speeches and articles by Paul Krugman and how it relates to economics. So I sat down to read the novels with an economist's approach and came away confused, disappointed, and a little shocked. In no way do I mean to disparage the writing of Asimov, I get that it really is just a sci-fi version of "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", but I would have thought he'd use a bit more forward thinking for his future galaxy.
Problem 1: The Galactic Empire. Unless I missed it, there is no real semblance of democracy. Asimov's gigantic Empire is best described as either a Facist or Oligarchic society. The emperor has total control over the life and death of his people. Then the great danger is the fall of a totalitarian government that oppresses billions and billions of people for the purpose of propping up a planet that Asimov describes as being totally devoted to the bureaucracy of a ruling political class? And the entire mathematical study of pyscho history is invented to replace this empire after its fallen? Not improve it? Not ensure that no one else is ever disappeared again or murdered on the whims of the politically powerful? Hari Seldon wants to return and recreate the all powerful totalitarian state? Again, I get that this is Rome in space, but the future of Earth after the Romans fell on average has been a big win. The fall of a comparable empire (the British) was followed by the largest increase in per capita income, health, and educational outcomes that history has ever seen. Wouldn't the idea be to avoid a second galactic empire for a better system? Or is the point that we can do no better? I am honestly in the dark here, if some one with a better understanding of the novel can help me out.
Problem 2: Totalitarianism through mind control. The Second Foundation, which is apparently the new governing body leading to this second empire controls events through emotional and mental manipulation. They are hidden in some kind of academic society, and commit themselves apparently to this rebirth of the old totalitarian state for the sake of stability. This is a good thing? An oligarchy with mind control? And all their motivations and desires are purely for the good of humanity and the completion of this Seldon plan for a second empire? They have no problem manipulating the villain (the one who is supposed to be the bad guy) into wiping out an entire planet just to stay hidden, and then leave some of their own to a lynch mob to convince everyone else they do not exist anymore. And why? Because knowledge of their existence throws some wrench into the plan? What the hell? These guys make Alan Moore's Ozymandias look like a rank amateur, because all he did was murder everyone living in New York City to avoid the nuclear war that he thought was coming (and I'm beginning to wonder if that outcome was as certain in Alan Moore's "Watchmen"). But even Moore gave you an idea of the sickness of this. He introduced you to the characters of the news paper stand owner, the boy reading the comics, the psychiatrist who tried so hard to save people one at a time (at the time of Ozymandias' massacre, he was trying to stop a street fight). He made the reader connect to them just before the "Grand Plan of Salvation" was put into place in all its terror. Asimov makes no attempt to introduce the people who are being slaughtered on a chapter by chapter basis all in the name of some vague greater good of re-founding a totalitarian state.
Unless this is actually Asimov's point and I've some how really missed the mark, the Foundation comes out more the villain as it subjugates and conquers the surrounding planetary system, leaving them open to rule by yet another distant and centralized government which does not truly represent them but rather rules them. And all for the sake of stability? The idea of survival of mankind? I'm lost, I admit it. Is the point that the Foundation is good or bad? Or is it just as it is? And was 30,000 years of instability with multiple self-ruled planets really not preferable to 1000 years of rule by a minority, chosen based only on their ability to perform abstract mathematical equations in an academic setting?
There are some economics arguments... but these two are the most unsettling for me. What confuses me more is how most people I talk to refer to Heinlein as a facist for his "Starship Troopers" novel based on a society that requires military service before citizens can vote (and not based on Nazi Germany, but on good ol' Switzerland) . But is anyone criticizing Asimov for portraying as progressive a totalitarian state run by manipulative and authoritarian academics as being facist? "Benevolent" dictatorship is still dictatorship. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
As a note: not saying the Heinlein arguments are wrong, but if we're going to talk totalitarianism, the guy who wrote "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" seems to have a one up on the guy who wrote Foundation. Just saying.
Problem 1: The Galactic Empire. Unless I missed it, there is no real semblance of democracy. Asimov's gigantic Empire is best described as either a Facist or Oligarchic society. The emperor has total control over the life and death of his people. Then the great danger is the fall of a totalitarian government that oppresses billions and billions of people for the purpose of propping up a planet that Asimov describes as being totally devoted to the bureaucracy of a ruling political class? And the entire mathematical study of pyscho history is invented to replace this empire after its fallen? Not improve it? Not ensure that no one else is ever disappeared again or murdered on the whims of the politically powerful? Hari Seldon wants to return and recreate the all powerful totalitarian state? Again, I get that this is Rome in space, but the future of Earth after the Romans fell on average has been a big win. The fall of a comparable empire (the British) was followed by the largest increase in per capita income, health, and educational outcomes that history has ever seen. Wouldn't the idea be to avoid a second galactic empire for a better system? Or is the point that we can do no better? I am honestly in the dark here, if some one with a better understanding of the novel can help me out.
Problem 2: Totalitarianism through mind control. The Second Foundation, which is apparently the new governing body leading to this second empire controls events through emotional and mental manipulation. They are hidden in some kind of academic society, and commit themselves apparently to this rebirth of the old totalitarian state for the sake of stability. This is a good thing? An oligarchy with mind control? And all their motivations and desires are purely for the good of humanity and the completion of this Seldon plan for a second empire? They have no problem manipulating the villain (the one who is supposed to be the bad guy) into wiping out an entire planet just to stay hidden, and then leave some of their own to a lynch mob to convince everyone else they do not exist anymore. And why? Because knowledge of their existence throws some wrench into the plan? What the hell? These guys make Alan Moore's Ozymandias look like a rank amateur, because all he did was murder everyone living in New York City to avoid the nuclear war that he thought was coming (and I'm beginning to wonder if that outcome was as certain in Alan Moore's "Watchmen"). But even Moore gave you an idea of the sickness of this. He introduced you to the characters of the news paper stand owner, the boy reading the comics, the psychiatrist who tried so hard to save people one at a time (at the time of Ozymandias' massacre, he was trying to stop a street fight). He made the reader connect to them just before the "Grand Plan of Salvation" was put into place in all its terror. Asimov makes no attempt to introduce the people who are being slaughtered on a chapter by chapter basis all in the name of some vague greater good of re-founding a totalitarian state.
Unless this is actually Asimov's point and I've some how really missed the mark, the Foundation comes out more the villain as it subjugates and conquers the surrounding planetary system, leaving them open to rule by yet another distant and centralized government which does not truly represent them but rather rules them. And all for the sake of stability? The idea of survival of mankind? I'm lost, I admit it. Is the point that the Foundation is good or bad? Or is it just as it is? And was 30,000 years of instability with multiple self-ruled planets really not preferable to 1000 years of rule by a minority, chosen based only on their ability to perform abstract mathematical equations in an academic setting?
There are some economics arguments... but these two are the most unsettling for me. What confuses me more is how most people I talk to refer to Heinlein as a facist for his "Starship Troopers" novel based on a society that requires military service before citizens can vote (and not based on Nazi Germany, but on good ol' Switzerland) . But is anyone criticizing Asimov for portraying as progressive a totalitarian state run by manipulative and authoritarian academics as being facist? "Benevolent" dictatorship is still dictatorship. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
As a note: not saying the Heinlein arguments are wrong, but if we're going to talk totalitarianism, the guy who wrote "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" seems to have a one up on the guy who wrote Foundation. Just saying.
Friday, November 18, 2011
Need a More Positive Outlook.
With so many great things going on in my life I really do wonder why I fixate on depressing news.
Need to re-evaluate. Research (when the data is cooperating) is going well. My little owl is wonderful. My wife is more beautiful every day.
Monday, November 14, 2011
Unnecessary Conversation.
Student: Hi, I'd like to discuss my grade.
Me: Okay. Which part?
Student: Well the presentation?
Me: The one you e-mailed me about ten minutes before class to say you would not be giving it*.
Student: Yes.
Me: Any reason?
Student: It just wasn't coming together.
Me: I assigned the presentation the second week of class. Other students have been in my office hours for the past two weeks preparing. Where have you been?
Student: Around.
Me: Well, you've failed.
Student: And how much is the Presentation worth?
Me: Well, the presentation is 40%, the Portfolio is 50%, and the homework is 10%. There is 5% extra credit if you complete a few other assignments. You have not turned in your last five chapter summaries at all though**.
Student: So... I should drop?
Me: Last day to drop is this Wednesday. After that you would have to seek a retroactive withdrawal from the college, so I really don't enter into that decision.
Student: So... I should drop?
Me: I'm not supposed to say one way or the other, but I would suggest you do the arithmetic on your current and potential grade and decide for yourself***.
And then there were 3. That's seven minutes of my life I will never get back.
*It is clearly stated in the syllabus that students must give 24 hours notice if they will not be giving their presentation and have a legitimate excuse with documentation (jury duty, medical emergency, etc.).
** The portfolio is a semester long project where students write a chapter summary applying the theories and concepts in the textbook to current events in their given country. They are two pages in length double spaced; they are not hard.
*** All of these numbers are easily available on Blackboard.
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Welcome Home, Little Owl.
10:31 PM. 10/14/2011. 8 pounds, 4 ounces.
Favorite doctor quote: "How can two such small people make such a big baby?"
My wife is champ.
Favorite doctor quote: "How can two such small people make such a big baby?"
My wife is champ.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
About Time.
The Free Trade deals that the Obama administration has been holding up since getting into office were finally passed.
Seriously this could have been done as soon as he was elected. It would not have pulled us out of the recession but it would not have hurt. The deal goes along with some sort of "re-training and financial aid" program for those who might lose jobs as a result. I'm still uncertain exactly how they determine that, but all three deals will be a net gain for the macroeconomy and a gain for three countries (Colombia, Panama, and South Korea) who we should have been dropping trade barriers with a long time ago.
"Free" (or at least more liberal- as in "more free") trade deals improve growth in economies that sorely need it. Growth is correlated with health, education, and welfare outcomes. Better health, education, and welfare outcomes lead to less tension, and less violence. That's Nobel Peace Prize material, Blagobamavich. So at the cost of improving lives, you held on to that "valuable f***ing thing" for three years. What'd Blagobamavich get in return? I guess his general weakness as a president in the face of opposition has advantages.
Seriously this could have been done as soon as he was elected. It would not have pulled us out of the recession but it would not have hurt. The deal goes along with some sort of "re-training and financial aid" program for those who might lose jobs as a result. I'm still uncertain exactly how they determine that, but all three deals will be a net gain for the macroeconomy and a gain for three countries (Colombia, Panama, and South Korea) who we should have been dropping trade barriers with a long time ago.
"Free" (or at least more liberal- as in "more free") trade deals improve growth in economies that sorely need it. Growth is correlated with health, education, and welfare outcomes. Better health, education, and welfare outcomes lead to less tension, and less violence. That's Nobel Peace Prize material, Blagobamavich. So at the cost of improving lives, you held on to that "valuable f***ing thing" for three years. What'd Blagobamavich get in return? I guess his general weakness as a president in the face of opposition has advantages.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
I'm... just... wow...
Just... I don't know what to say to this.
So is there like a pee-wee soccer team in Western China where parents are shouting, "Let's go, Menthols!"
And then there's this:
"“We’ve been trying to get the Ministry of Education to stop the tobacco companies from sponsoring these schools,” said Xu. “But the ministry wants us to show them proof that this is causing harm.” "
Quick Update:
Isn't "companies" a typo? The Tobacco industry in China is owned by the government, so wouldn't it be just the one? Or did Phillip Morris actually get into the Chinese school business too?
So is there like a pee-wee soccer team in Western China where parents are shouting, "Let's go, Menthols!"
And then there's this:
"“We’ve been trying to get the Ministry of Education to stop the tobacco companies from sponsoring these schools,” said Xu. “But the ministry wants us to show them proof that this is causing harm.” "
Quick Update:
Isn't "companies" a typo? The Tobacco industry in China is owned by the government, so wouldn't it be just the one? Or did Phillip Morris actually get into the Chinese school business too?
Friday, September 16, 2011
Called it. (Again With Jatropha)
I posted this in 2007.
CNN reported on this August 13th.
I am still very much in support of jatropha research as a biofuel. I'm a bit confused by CNN's statements on the ejido system being a large barrier to cultivation, but I must confess I do not have as good a grasp on Mexican land reform as I would like. Going to have to consult some old textbooks and see.
CNN reported on this August 13th.
I am still very much in support of jatropha research as a biofuel. I'm a bit confused by CNN's statements on the ejido system being a large barrier to cultivation, but I must confess I do not have as good a grasp on Mexican land reform as I would like. Going to have to consult some old textbooks and see.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
My Career Could Be in Their Hands.
Putting together my teaching portfolio and getting ready for the job-market. My evaluations are generally good, but then I really do wonder about the reliability of these scores.
If we look on RateMyProfessor, after all, we find that a professor who has recently been arrested on charges of dealing methamphetamine and heading a well-armed motorcycle gang did gangbusters.
Perhaps universities should not be relying on student evaluation of professors. Or perhaps I've been approaching teaching from the wrong angle... going to put "Breaking Bad" on my Netflix as soon as possible.
If we look on RateMyProfessor, after all, we find that a professor who has recently been arrested on charges of dealing methamphetamine and heading a well-armed motorcycle gang did gangbusters.
Perhaps universities should not be relying on student evaluation of professors. Or perhaps I've been approaching teaching from the wrong angle... going to put "Breaking Bad" on my Netflix as soon as possible.
Friday, September 09, 2011
Nice Campaign Speech.
I changed the channel once Obama said, "invest in infrastructure." I heard that one four years ago. Somehow I don't think I missed anything.
Thursday, September 08, 2011
Science is not a Democracy.
Governor Perry:
Science is not a democracy. My "economist" bias is that its more of a market place. People don't "vote" on the best product in a market place, they buy the one that works. Galileo was not "out-voted" on the fact that the Earth orbits the sun and not the other way around, he was imprisoned by the Inquisition and had his writings banned from the public. In fact Governor Perry, you could make a "big government" argument here about large, centralized institutions interfering in the optimal rational decisions of individual agents. For the record, the funeral wishes of Galileo's family were also denied by the Catholic church because of his "heresy." This was not out-voting, this was oppression by a tyrannical regime.
Why is evolutionary theory still around? Because it works: its grown better foods, its produced better vaccines, it is the only working model amongst the many that have tried and failed to gain traction. It was not up for a vote, it was tested in the marketplace of ideas and industry and it worked. Ideas such as "intelligent design" or traditions such as "creationism" have not produced any of the above. I'm not discounting faith or belief here, I am simply pointing out that the writings of Augustine and William Jennings Bryant contributed nothing to the vaccine for polio, or modern surgical techniques.
And for the record; think of "evolutionary theory" as if it were the "theory of gravity." It is a model that has proved extremely useful in explaining observations in nature and predicting/manipulating outcomes. I'm fairly certain that's not what you mean when you say something is "just a theory".
Why does climate change stick around? Because the models have worked to the point where 97% of scientists who specialize in it agree that it is the model that works; that human intervention does have consequences on climate.
And finally, it is not in the best interest of free markets or individual liberty to have a "vote" on scientific claims and theories. In fact it is incredibly socialist of you to surrender this competitive and productive market of ideas to the authority of a government, because that worked so well in the past. Why should scientists submit to a "vote"? They already submit to an extremely wrenching process of peer review, where their ideas, if not productive, are torn to shreds. It is more favorable towards individual liberty and capitalism to the let the market decide and the Invisible Hand does not vote- not in the sense that you mean.
Governor Perry your comment about Galileo was odious, ill-advised, anti-science, and in all honesty anti-liberty. Galileo was an inventive, entrepreneurial, and bold man, willing to take risks and entertain new ideas. He is exactly the kind of man we need in a new economy. To "out-vote" him would be a tragedy, an indecency, and a crime. Indeed, it was all of those three.
PS:
By the way, evolutionary theory was behind that HPV vaccine that you decided everyone should take. Just saying. For something you flippantly dismiss as "just a theory" you seem to have remarkable faith in its products.
Science is not a democracy. My "economist" bias is that its more of a market place. People don't "vote" on the best product in a market place, they buy the one that works. Galileo was not "out-voted" on the fact that the Earth orbits the sun and not the other way around, he was imprisoned by the Inquisition and had his writings banned from the public. In fact Governor Perry, you could make a "big government" argument here about large, centralized institutions interfering in the optimal rational decisions of individual agents. For the record, the funeral wishes of Galileo's family were also denied by the Catholic church because of his "heresy." This was not out-voting, this was oppression by a tyrannical regime.
Why is evolutionary theory still around? Because it works: its grown better foods, its produced better vaccines, it is the only working model amongst the many that have tried and failed to gain traction. It was not up for a vote, it was tested in the marketplace of ideas and industry and it worked. Ideas such as "intelligent design" or traditions such as "creationism" have not produced any of the above. I'm not discounting faith or belief here, I am simply pointing out that the writings of Augustine and William Jennings Bryant contributed nothing to the vaccine for polio, or modern surgical techniques.
And for the record; think of "evolutionary theory" as if it were the "theory of gravity." It is a model that has proved extremely useful in explaining observations in nature and predicting/manipulating outcomes. I'm fairly certain that's not what you mean when you say something is "just a theory".
Why does climate change stick around? Because the models have worked to the point where 97% of scientists who specialize in it agree that it is the model that works; that human intervention does have consequences on climate.
And finally, it is not in the best interest of free markets or individual liberty to have a "vote" on scientific claims and theories. In fact it is incredibly socialist of you to surrender this competitive and productive market of ideas to the authority of a government, because that worked so well in the past. Why should scientists submit to a "vote"? They already submit to an extremely wrenching process of peer review, where their ideas, if not productive, are torn to shreds. It is more favorable towards individual liberty and capitalism to the let the market decide and the Invisible Hand does not vote- not in the sense that you mean.
Governor Perry your comment about Galileo was odious, ill-advised, anti-science, and in all honesty anti-liberty. Galileo was an inventive, entrepreneurial, and bold man, willing to take risks and entertain new ideas. He is exactly the kind of man we need in a new economy. To "out-vote" him would be a tragedy, an indecency, and a crime. Indeed, it was all of those three.
PS:
By the way, evolutionary theory was behind that HPV vaccine that you decided everyone should take. Just saying. For something you flippantly dismiss as "just a theory" you seem to have remarkable faith in its products.
Saturday, September 03, 2011
The Fed Suits.
Okay, so the Feds are suing on behalf of Fannie and Freddie. This is a little different than what I was hoping for. This suit is brought by the Feds, for the Feds. It does hurt some of the major banks and its a better expenditure of time and effort by the Feds then what Congress and the President are doing these days, so best of luck.
What I was hoping for, in terms of government action is more like what state attorney generals are doing. And this is what the Blagobamavich administration is trying to "bring under control" (he's got this valuable thing, and he's not going to give it up for free). The states don't have to, and in my opinion should not, abide by the settlement because 1) we don't know exactly how many of these foreclosures are legit, and if they do settle we never will, 2) the banks are liars, and 3) because forget DC that's why.
The banks think this swamp of litigation is going to hurt the economy? Prove it. Seriously, I hear this but I see no legitimate backing for this claim. Support it, argue it. Don't just state it. This is practically the same BS line from GM about "What's good for GM is good for America." What's good for banks is good for America? Nope. There are other banks, who played fair out there, who will not get sued. Maybe they deserve some business since they did not get any government money.
Meanwhile the Feds suing each other... I mean.. suing other banks... over Fannie and Freddie? Do not care. I don't see how that puts people back in their homes. State attorney generals suing banks over their fraud, stopping possible foreclosures? That seems to be more like it. An army of pissed off, lawyered up individual Americans wearing down these guys with death by litigation? That's more like it.
What I was hoping for, in terms of government action is more like what state attorney generals are doing. And this is what the Blagobamavich administration is trying to "bring under control" (he's got this valuable thing, and he's not going to give it up for free). The states don't have to, and in my opinion should not, abide by the settlement because 1) we don't know exactly how many of these foreclosures are legit, and if they do settle we never will, 2) the banks are liars, and 3) because forget DC that's why.
The banks think this swamp of litigation is going to hurt the economy? Prove it. Seriously, I hear this but I see no legitimate backing for this claim. Support it, argue it. Don't just state it. This is practically the same BS line from GM about "What's good for GM is good for America." What's good for banks is good for America? Nope. There are other banks, who played fair out there, who will not get sued. Maybe they deserve some business since they did not get any government money.
Meanwhile the Feds suing each other... I mean.. suing other banks... over Fannie and Freddie? Do not care. I don't see how that puts people back in their homes. State attorney generals suing banks over their fraud, stopping possible foreclosures? That seems to be more like it. An army of pissed off, lawyered up individual Americans wearing down these guys with death by litigation? That's more like it.
Friday, September 02, 2011
What's the Difference Between the UN and the Catholic Church?
The UN has guns.
So, many media outlets have been giving credit to WikiLeaks for exposing rampant sex abuse by UN Peace Keepers. Uhm... no. This is just one more "already knew this" item that these guys are putting out there. This is not new, although on the bright side maybe people will pay more attention to this problem.
In 2008 the headlines read "Child Sex Abuse by UN Still Rampant..." (emphasis on the "still" is mine), and in 2005 CBS reported that somebody in the UN was maybe, possibly, talking about doing something about it. This is where they get all Catholic: "Currently, U.N. troops and employees accused of wrongdoing are sent home to be dealt with by their own government but are often never punished."
A 2010 cable from the US embassy investigating the misconduct of Beninese Peacekeepers is not some great discovery. The most sickening thing is that its business as usual for the UN, and the people in charge are saying ridiculous things like "we see it as a command and control problem."
The US provides somewhere around 20-25% of UN funding. The US sends tax payer money to the UN. The UN deploys troops around the world. There is a consistent pattern of abuse and corruption among these troops, with very little punishment for inappropriate behavior (to put it mildly). At least we can choose to not support the Catholic church.
Command and control? There is neither. Let's also mention the capability of UN Peacekeepers to bring foreign strains of disease into disaster areas if some particular governments don't screen their Peace Keepers properly!
So, many media outlets have been giving credit to WikiLeaks for exposing rampant sex abuse by UN Peace Keepers. Uhm... no. This is just one more "already knew this" item that these guys are putting out there. This is not new, although on the bright side maybe people will pay more attention to this problem.
In 2008 the headlines read "Child Sex Abuse by UN Still Rampant..." (emphasis on the "still" is mine), and in 2005 CBS reported that somebody in the UN was maybe, possibly, talking about doing something about it. This is where they get all Catholic: "Currently, U.N. troops and employees accused of wrongdoing are sent home to be dealt with by their own government but are often never punished."
A 2010 cable from the US embassy investigating the misconduct of Beninese Peacekeepers is not some great discovery. The most sickening thing is that its business as usual for the UN, and the people in charge are saying ridiculous things like "we see it as a command and control problem."
The US provides somewhere around 20-25% of UN funding. The US sends tax payer money to the UN. The UN deploys troops around the world. There is a consistent pattern of abuse and corruption among these troops, with very little punishment for inappropriate behavior (to put it mildly). At least we can choose to not support the Catholic church.
Command and control? There is neither. Let's also mention the capability of UN Peacekeepers to bring foreign strains of disease into disaster areas if some particular governments don't screen their Peace Keepers properly!
Thursday, September 01, 2011
Lawyer Up, part deux
I'm a big fan of Planet Money, and their series on "Toxie the Toxic Asset" might be taking a George Romero turn: it could be back from the dead.
If you haven't heard the series, you're missing out. Take some time to listen to it.
My heart does a quick little jig every time I hear about the banks involved with the crash getting sued. I've held some pretty waffling outlooks on the whole crash. I do understand and agree with the rescue of the banks by the Fed (secret loans) and the Treasury (TARP). Things could have been a lot worse if the financial system was allowed to crash. But I also, deep down, wanted to see BoA, Goldman, Citi, Chase, and the whole lot of them face the music. They made bad investments. They should go down, just like Lehman. I balked at the bail-out of GM and Chrysler after all, and rightly viewed it as government rewarding poor performance from bad companies, and punishing good performance from others (no help for Tesla? really?). How are they different from the banks? Well the banks had the economy hostage. Liquidity freeze is a serious issue, and it can lead to worse outcomes than 9% unemployment.
But there seemed to be no punishment for banks behaving badly. In fact BoA and Citi have been getting away with fraud and attempting to foreclose on homes that didn't even have mortgages, until some good people hired lawyers and proceeded to sue the hell out of them. Its important to remember that these banks are FRAUDS. And our current "Hope and Change" president is trying to pressure a settlement with these banks which would bar future litigation. The president apparently wants to negotiate with the banks for a general settlement in return for letting them get away with rampant fraud. This has worked out so well for him in the past, because our Nobel Prize Winning law professor has no balls when it comes to negotiations. No back-bone, no huevos, no intestinal fortitude, NO COURAGE. The man can't even get through a trivial schedule change without looking like an imbecile.
We did not have the chance, when the economy was crashing to punish these banks. So why not take the another route and sue them. The government won't regulate or punish them in any meaningful way, because they are corrupt and cowardly. Time for us to love the lawyers. Time for us to love every manipulative, scheming, greedy stereotype lawyer that we can find, because when I open up the paper they seem to be the last people with any decency left.
And as a fun one, let's review the accomplishments of our president that are worthy of his Nobel Peace Prize, something he shares with other greats like Yassir Arafat and Henry Kissinger:
1) kept Guantanamo Bay open, despite promising to close it "within a year" of his election,
2) signed an extension of the Patriot Act, allowing for the continuance of violation of privacy of his own citizens under the guise of "security,"
3) signed into law a mandate that all Americans purchase insurance, without providing an affordable public alternative (imagine requiring everyone to go to school, but then not providing public schools and how that might affect one's budget),
4) delayed free trade agreements (how is that "strengthening international diplomacy"?)
and now (5), he is attempting to interfere with people's right to sue through our legal system large organizations who have defrauded and harassed them. We're past the crash, and we're into stagnation. A little (or even a lot ) of litigation isn't going to be the end of the world; in fact it might give some of the medium and small size banks, who have been competitively disadvantaged by the government's and Federal Reserve's favoritism to the large banks, get a leg up and compete with the big boys.
Love your lawyer, sue the banks.
If you haven't heard the series, you're missing out. Take some time to listen to it.
My heart does a quick little jig every time I hear about the banks involved with the crash getting sued. I've held some pretty waffling outlooks on the whole crash. I do understand and agree with the rescue of the banks by the Fed (secret loans) and the Treasury (TARP). Things could have been a lot worse if the financial system was allowed to crash. But I also, deep down, wanted to see BoA, Goldman, Citi, Chase, and the whole lot of them face the music. They made bad investments. They should go down, just like Lehman. I balked at the bail-out of GM and Chrysler after all, and rightly viewed it as government rewarding poor performance from bad companies, and punishing good performance from others (no help for Tesla? really?). How are they different from the banks? Well the banks had the economy hostage. Liquidity freeze is a serious issue, and it can lead to worse outcomes than 9% unemployment.
But there seemed to be no punishment for banks behaving badly. In fact BoA and Citi have been getting away with fraud and attempting to foreclose on homes that didn't even have mortgages, until some good people hired lawyers and proceeded to sue the hell out of them. Its important to remember that these banks are FRAUDS. And our current "Hope and Change" president is trying to pressure a settlement with these banks which would bar future litigation. The president apparently wants to negotiate with the banks for a general settlement in return for letting them get away with rampant fraud. This has worked out so well for him in the past, because our Nobel Prize Winning law professor has no balls when it comes to negotiations. No back-bone, no huevos, no intestinal fortitude, NO COURAGE. The man can't even get through a trivial schedule change without looking like an imbecile.
We did not have the chance, when the economy was crashing to punish these banks. So why not take the another route and sue them. The government won't regulate or punish them in any meaningful way, because they are corrupt and cowardly. Time for us to love the lawyers. Time for us to love every manipulative, scheming, greedy stereotype lawyer that we can find, because when I open up the paper they seem to be the last people with any decency left.
And as a fun one, let's review the accomplishments of our president that are worthy of his Nobel Peace Prize, something he shares with other greats like Yassir Arafat and Henry Kissinger:
1) kept Guantanamo Bay open, despite promising to close it "within a year" of his election,
2) signed an extension of the Patriot Act, allowing for the continuance of violation of privacy of his own citizens under the guise of "security,"
3) signed into law a mandate that all Americans purchase insurance, without providing an affordable public alternative (imagine requiring everyone to go to school, but then not providing public schools and how that might affect one's budget),
4) delayed free trade agreements (how is that "strengthening international diplomacy"?)
and now (5), he is attempting to interfere with people's right to sue through our legal system large organizations who have defrauded and harassed them. We're past the crash, and we're into stagnation. A little (or even a lot ) of litigation isn't going to be the end of the world; in fact it might give some of the medium and small size banks, who have been competitively disadvantaged by the government's and Federal Reserve's favoritism to the large banks, get a leg up and compete with the big boys.
Love your lawyer, sue the banks.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)