Thoughts following the recent shootings by and of police

I see a lot of similarities between killing of innocent and/or unarmed black men by police and terrorism by Muslims.

• In both cases, there definitely seems to be a strong disproportionate link. Yes, there are innocent and/or unarmed white people killed by police. Yes, there are non-Muslim terrorists. But neither of those changes the fact that black men are far more likely to be the victim of police shootings and terrorist attacks are far more likely to be committed by Muslims.
• In both cases, the "bad actors" are a tiny minority of the whole. The overwhelming majority of police officers never shot anyone. The overwhelming majority of Muslims would have nothing to do with terrorism.
• Nevertheless, in both cases, there is an awful lot of "I don't approve of this, but...." excuse making.
• In both cases, there is backlash against innocent people wrongly associated with the original injustice, be it anti-Muslim backlash or anti-police backlash. And some people get more concerned about the backlash than the initial injustice. And some people pull out "I don't approve of this backlash, but...."

There are, of course, some significant differences.

• With police shootings, there's SOME element of error. I don't think any cop sets out saying "I'm going to kill an innocent black man today." Terrorist attacks are deliberate.
• I think police should be held to a much higher standard than the average man on the street. It's unfair to expect perfection, but we're a long way from perfection.
• There is a much more established institutional framework around the police than there is around Islam. There are police authorities who can choose who to make police and fire those who aren't living up to standard. There's no real parallel by which "Muslim authorities" could formally expel a "bad Muslim" (like, say a Catholic could be formally excommunicated). And even if they were to do so, it's not like it would really impact their ability to carry out a terrorist attack.

There seem to be some real cultural problems both in law enforcement and in Islam, and while in neither case do you want to tar everyone with the same brush, it seems they could both do with being less defensive and really looking inward to try to fix things. At the same time, a) I'm neither a cop nor a Muslim, so it's pretty easy for me to say they should get their house in order, but b) I have no idea what that would mean in any specific way.

Thoughts on Brexit

NOTE: For those of you who have been reading my sailing blog, first, thank you for following it. But, second, this is not a sailing post. This is more what I started the blog for in the first place, a place to write on miscellaneous, often political topics, to put into print things I've been going over in my head, with little expectation of anyone actually reading. But if you'd like to keep reading, please do. Finally, there are still a few wrap-up sailing posts coming, so stay tuned.

And with that out of the way....

I recently became a UK citizen. As soon as that became official, I registered to vote, so I was able participate in the Brexit referendum. Since registering, I've been working to figure out my opinion. And because a few people asked about my opinion, I decided to sketch out my decision and thinking here... too late to actually influence anyone else, as the vote is now closed and results are coming in.

Short answer: Remain.

Slightly longer answer: I think the best possible result would be to leave the EU and do it well, i.e. negotiating an agreement that would maintain most of the benefits of membership while getting rid of most of the burdens. I just think it's incredibly unlikely that it would happen that way. Not only is the uncertainty of leaving huge, I think the downside is more likely than the upside.

So let's get into a few specifics. To the extent the EU is a force for free trade in goods and services and for free movement of people, I think it's generally a good thing. There are some theoretical reasons why limited free-trade areas might be less efficient that a consistent set of tariffs on all trade (basically, you might divert trade from a lower-cost external producer to a higher-cost external producer within the free-trade area), but I don't think this is a significant practical issue. Partial free-trade is more of a stepping stone toward wider free trade.

There are, however, a lot of burdensome regulations that come from the EU. One famous example is regulations on the curvature of bananas/ While often exaggerated in the popular Eurosceptic imagination, the fact they exist at all is ridiculous enough. In one televised debate, an audience member credited EU regulation with ensuring minimum room size in rented accommodation. I don't know the details, but let's assume she's right. This just makes it harder for lower-paid people to afford housing. There are more regulations on working hours and conditions. EU banking regulation can sometimes be a poor fit for the UK market. Each of these examples is individually small, and it's hard to point to clearly identifiable negative impact from each, but they accumulate and reduce the efficiency of the economy. However, at the end of the day, I think the UK is all too capable of imposing burdensome regulation all on its own, so it's not at all clear to me how much there would be to be gained by leaving the EU.

Perhaps the biggest disaster of the European experiment is the euro. Fortunately, the UK has remained out of the single currency and there is no indication that we would ever join, so that's a non-issue here.

A lot of the most heated debate is around immigration. Nobody seems to worried about immigration from Western Europe. Illegal immigration from, say, Northern Africa is illegal anyway. The UK isn't part of the Schengen area, so it does check everyone coming in, who whatever issues there are with lax border control in some parts of the continent giving illegal immigrants access to other countries, it doesn't really impact things here. The biggest real question is around newer EU members, specifically those in Eastern Europe, plus the potential for Turkey. I'm not at all concerned about immigrants "coming here and taking our jobs". In many cases these immigrants are great workers. The Polish bricklayer or the Spanish waiter are stereotypes but also reality, and we're lucky to have them. Do some immigrants come here for more generous benefits? Maybe. But they seem to me to be substantially outnumbered by workers. And there are proposals to require a period of residency before someone is eligible for benefits, which addresses the issue much more directly. Finally, there is some concern over refugees, being welcomed warmly by some countries who are then looking to force others to do the same. This is a complex one for me. I'd like to see a decent alternative for those, e.g., fleeing the war in Syria. But at the same time, I think people are right to be worried about large numbers of refugees coming in,  becoming ghettoized (perhaps through self-segregation, perhaps through normal-segregation), not integrating into society, and becoming a disaffected permanent underclass. I don't have a good answer for this, but I'm not sure that leaving the EU provides that missing answer.

Finally, I think the anti-foreigner sentiment provides so much of the animating energy of the Leave campaign, that I like a Remain vote for its anti-anti-foreigner symbolism. I don't want to paint too broadly here. There are many sensible arguments for leaving, and many sensible people I know making them. But they are nearly drowned out by the objectionably ones. A lot of the Remain arguments are also bad. I actually find most of the arguments I hear from both sides to be pretty awful. But while the Leave side has most of the best arguments, it also has the worst. And the worst are much louder. And that counts for something.

Anyway, soon we'll know. Something.

Evil

I listen to a number of Slate podcasts -- sports, culture, politics, money....  It's good quality general-interest discussion. And, when they get into political docs, it's a good exposure to center-left thinking.

Recently, it struck me that across several different podcasts, I'd hear a lot of references to "evil":
-- Walmart
-- Amazon
-- Uber
-- for-profit colleges
-- the SAE guys from Oklahoma singing racist songs

I'm certainly not defending the SAE racists, and the for-profit colleges seem to have engaged in at least some very bad practices. I can even see the case against the other businesses, even if I don't agree with it.

But here's the thing. I'm about 85% sure all the people saying these things would have been mocking George Bush for using the word "evil" to refer to Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. What does that say?

News to some

It's an old piece -- never mind how I stumbled across it -- but the "public editor" of the New York Times asks "Is the New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?" His answer, "Of course it is."

It's worth reading in its entirety to see what exactly he means by this. It's not likely to satisfy the Times' harshest critics, but it should give supporters something to think about.

Ezra Klein might be right on this one

Interesting analysis of a recent Pew report on political polarisation. And by "interesting", I mean "supportive of a number of my pre-existing views, with a slightly new take and actual data".

I like the distinction between extreme views and polarised views, especially as someone who holds a few extreme views but in what I like to think is an eclectic mix (legalise drugs and free markets, expand immigration but crack down on those who've already violated immigration law, libertarian(ish) domestically but neo-conservative(ish) in foreign policy....).

I also like the fairly symmetric view of the world here. Polarisation is happening on both left and right. Democrats, Republicans, and their partisans spend a lot of time painting the other side as extreme where I see a fair amount of moderation of positions (albeit not in all areas) but both sides digging in more.

One thought on the 50th anniversary of of the assassination of JFK

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

- John F. Kennedy, Inaugural Address

In recent years, a recurring assertion of many Democrats has been that various past Republicans would no longer be welcome in the party, Reagan and George Romney being two favorites. This may or may not be true. But I'm not so sure JFK would be welcome in today's Democratic party either.

Rorschach test -- Federal spending version

Matt Yglesias looks at this chart and sees an "unprecedented decline in government spending". To me, it looks like despite forecast (but not assured) declines, government spending (constant dollars) will remain higher than it was at any point between 1960 (as far back as the chart goes) and 2008.

Of course, we're both right, but we're also both seeing what we want to see.

Why this isn't the time

Another mass shooting, again at a school, and the reactions are predictable as ever. "We need to talk about gun control." "Don't politicize the tragedy." "To not talk about it would be to politicize it." "I love you guys, but Americans are fucking idiots" (from a Canadian friend of mine).

Anyway, I don't think there's anything wrong with politicizing the attack -- it's an inherently political topic -- but this is still the wrong time to be talking about changing policy. Why? We're in the wake of an attention-getting but unrepresentative event. Emotional reactions don't lead to good policy.

While this attack is clearly a terrible event for those directly involved, it's a detail from a public policy standpoint. There are roughly 9,000-10,000 per year in the US. That's 25-30 per day, every day. Newtown is, in a very real sense, just another day.

It also seems that most commonly proposed gun control measures wouldn't do much to prevent attacks like this. Waiting periods, background checks, registration, all sensible but not relevant to the situation at hand. These mass shootings tend to be perpetrated by people with no prior criminal record, a long planning horizon, and no concerns about getting caught.

What might help? The most effective policy would probably be to suppress media coverage. These people are copycats, looking for attention. We give it to them. I recently read about some countries that suppressed reports of suicide-by-train, with a resulting drop in rates (large drop by train, smaller one overall). It seems like a similar dynamic But would I advocate that? I'm not so sure. The only other thing I'd see maybe working would be eliminating all guns, but I'm not even sure that would be possible, setting aside for the moment the costs and Constitutional issues.

A unified theory of politics

I think I might have figured it out.

1. Most Democratic voters are seriously uninformed, haven't thought very deeply about the issues, and are voting mainly on tribal loyalty.
2. But a lot of them are well informed, have thought deeply about the issues, and are voting based on values and some good thought about how the world works.
3. Points 1 and 2 apply equally to Republican voters.

I could probably extend point 3 to Labour, Tories, Lib Dems, PRI, SDP, and any other large party anywhere. (You're probably less likely to support a minor party, be it Libertarians or Greens, without having thought about it a lot.)

What are the implications? Well, first, it should show that it's not that impressive to point out stupid things said by supporters of the opposition; supporters of your side are saying lots of stupid things too. You want to get somewhere, try to engage with the better arguments from the opposition.

And that leads nicely into my second point, which is that the opposition generally has some good arguments for their position. Not all people who disagree with you are uninformed. Often it comes down to a difference in values. Sometimes it's differing predictions about the effect of a policy. It's almost always subjective differences, not objective ones.

This is why I rarely try to changes peoples opinions about policy. Instead, I just try to change their opinions of my opinions. If I can convince someone that you don't have to be an idiot to support, say, market-based health care reforms, I'll call that a success, even if I can't convince them that those reforms are the best policy.

How well do you understand the other guy?

So, I just saw this on facebook

I'm not going to name the person who linked to it, mainly because I'm not trying to criticise him personally, but also because he's one of those facebook 'friends' I don't even really know. And that's also why I'm not taking this point to him directly.

It does, however, seem like a good time to link to one of my favorite Greg Mankiw posts.

Two very different approaches. And I'm not going to claim that the former represents all the left or the latter all the right. There are straw men being attacked from both sides as well as people engaging constructively. We'll only get more of the good debate if we demonstrate we want it.

Imperfect polices

The left says we need tighter gun laws. The right answers that criminals don't follow the law in the first place. The left replies that making it harder to get a gun will stop some criminals, even if not all of them.

The right says we need tighter border enforcement. The left answers, "Show me a ten-foot fence, I'll show you an eleven-foot ladder." The right replies that making it harder to sneak into the country will stop some illegal immigration, even if not all of it.

I simplify a bit by saying left and right, but this is probably a pretty good segmentation of society. Obviously, everyone is able to realize that an imperfect policy might still be desirable. If the choice is between accomplishing none of your objectives and some of them, you might as well take the partial win. Yet somehow, people still act as if, "Your suggested policy is imperfect" is a convincing argument.

There are other arguments to be made for these policies. Tighter gun laws may or may not reduce crime. Illegal immigration may or may not be beneficial for citizens. Let's engage at that level.

One more thing about Romney's taxes....

We don't know how much Romney paid in taxes from 2000-2009, the period for which Harry Reid claims (without any evidence) that he paid none.

But we do have Romney's tax return for 2011. How much did he pay that year? $3,226,623.

And we have Romney's tax return for 2010. How much did he pay that year? $3,009,766.

That's a total of $6,236,389 over two years. That's a lot of money, more than most people will pay in their entire lives. And how much did Harry Reid pay during those two years? We don't know. He isn't releasing any of his own tax returns.

Burden of proof

 “I don't think the burden should be on me,” he said. “The burden should be on him. He's the one I've alleged has not paid any taxes.” -- Harry Reid on his anonymously sourced claims about Mitt Romney's taxes.

I don't disagree that's the standard that's taken hold in politics -- sling mud, see if it sticks, guilty until proven innocent. I'm just surprised to see the Senate Majority Leader acknowledging it so explicitly.

This claim is as baseless and about as implausible as were claims about Obama's Kenyan birth. And in both cases the subject of the rumors could have put them to rest by releasing some documents but chose not to. Of course, there are some differences:

• Obama would be legally ineligible for office if the rumors were true. Romney has disclosed everything legally required.
• I suspect Romney does have 'something to hide'. My guess is that in 2008, possibly 2009 as well, massive capital losses as the market took a dive led to minimal, maybe even zero, tax paid. Legal, but not something most people would understand. By contrast, I could never figure out why Obama refused for so long to release all his birth records. He was probably just annoyed at the stupidity of it all. (This might also be a factor in Romney's decision.)
• The birther claims were believed by a substantial minority of Republican voters (23% per Wikipedia) and several prominent commentators but no senior elected Republicans. (There was some innuendo from some fairly senior figures, e.g. Bachmann, Palin, and a few quotes attributed but denied.) The tax claims are being made by the Senate Majority Leader. (So far, the White House hasn't officially joined in, but they too have piled on the innuendo.)

Of course, the other difference is the degree to which one set of implausible claims was treated as proof of the intellectual degeneracy of the right while the other is treated as just smart politics.

(Just to be clear, I think both situations are evidence of bipartisan degeneracy.)

Context

People quote each other out of context sometimes. For campaigning politicians it's a pervasive tactic. This crosses party lines and national borders. The usual response is to complain and provide the full context, which is then ignored by supporters of the first politician, while they simultaneously complain "Your guy did it too... and worse!"

Which is why I thought the recent back-and-forth over Obama's "You didn't build that" was really interesting.

That line was part of a speech by the President in Roanoke on 13 July. "If you've got a business, you didn't build that -- somebody else made that happen." Opponents jumped on it -- Obama telling the Wright brothers "You didn't built that", "That Nobel prize, you didn't earn that", the most interesting man in the world saying "I don't always build it myself, but when I do, Obama says others made it happen", etc.

Obama supporters and staff objected, saying the quote had been taken out of context. Eventually, the President himself responded with the following ad. Have a look. He says he's been taken out of context and proceeds to expand his argument, but he doesn't actually provide any more context.


FAIR went a step further, not just claiming lack of context but actually headlining a story "You Didn't Build That -- or Say It". But say it he did. And who was more than happy to provide the full context? The American Future Fund, a conservative non-profit.

The RNC got in on the act as well, here.

When your opponents are jumping to provide more of what you said, lack of context might not have your problem.

Reply to Lemony Snicket on Occupy Wall Street

Because stuff like this needs to be answered:

1. If you work hard and don't become as successful as you'd like, it's not necessarily because someone else screwed you over.

2. Some words have many meanings. If you forget that, you might mix things up and make mistakes. "Fortune" actually has nine definitions according to Merriam-Webster, and that's not even counting usage as a verb. So yeah, not two.

3. Protesters are like children -- loud and with little sense of personal responsibility. When they cry, you can give them what they want, but then they'll never learn.

4. People who say hard work doesn't matter are like people who say American beer isn't good -- they probably haven't tried very much and are locked into some preconceived notions.

5. If someone doesn't give you a piece of their cake, it may be because they don't know you, they baked it themselves with an oven and ingredients they bought, and they'd rather share it with their friends and family. If you want a cake, no one is stopping you from buying an oven and some ingredients and making one yourself. You might even learn to make ovens, sell them, and use the money to buy ingredients. Or cake.

6. Nobody wants to fall into a safety net. Most of them would much rather be very successful without working hard. But that doesn't happen very often. And if the safety net is comfortable enough, some people will decide it's nicer to stay there than do a lot of work that isn't very fun.

7. Someone feeling wronged is like someone feeling thirsty. They're really irritable and not thinking as well as they would otherwise. On the other hand, someone feeling thirsty will usually just get themselves a drink instead of insisting you get one for them.

8. Don't just ask yourself is something is fair. Give it some real thought. Lots of people in the street may say it isn't fair, but that doesn't mean they're right.

9. People gathering in the streets feeling wronged tend to be loud, because as it is a lot easier and more fun than being productive.

10. There are many people who find shouting in the streets about injustice to be more fun than coming up with answers, and they think other people should come up with answers for them. It's possible that this approach to life might be part of why they aren't successful.

11. Historically, a story about people standing in streets shouting and demanding things of people inside impressive buildings often turns out to be a story with an unhappy ending for everyone -- the people in the buildings and the people doing the shouting. (See France under the Reign of Terror, Russia under Communism, China under Mao, etc.) Stories with happy endings generally involve a lot less shouting and demanding, more taking responsibility for oneself.

12. If you form a large crowd and shout outside someone's building, you might be able to intimidate them into giving you things.

13. 1 percent is a very small percentage. 28 percent is much larger. That is the share of total federal taxes paid by the top 1 percent of income earners. Of course, 99 percent is bigger still, and if 99 percent decide they want even more from the 1 percent, it's probably going to happen, whether it's right or wrong.

If you only take away one metaphor about Greece and Germany....

This is a perfect example of why I love to read Megan McArdle -- good insight, great turn of phrase. (Her 'libertarian-ish but not a purist about it' perspective doesn't hurt.)

If EU economic policy were a soap opera--and apparently, it is--Greece would be the sultry, irresponsible beauty in a tumultuous love-hate relationship with rigid, authoritarian Germany.  Obviously after years of tumultuous breakups and teary reunions, this is the season finale where he finally beats the hell out of her during a screaming fight over thier impending bankruptcy, and in despair, she drives both of them, and his prize Volkswagen, off a cliff.

The whole thing is good... of course.

The American Spirit?

Just listened to a really interesting debate. The resolution was "Big government is stifling the American spirit" -- Phil Gramm and Arthur Laffer arguing for, Nouriel Roubini and Laura Tyson against, so some pretty serious economic firepower on both sides.

I can recommend checking it out, and the Intelligence Squared series of debates in general, but one part in particular got my attention. An audience member asked the panel what exactly the "American spirit" that was being stifled was supposed to be. Dr. Tyson's answer:

So if you think of the American spirit as art programs, if you think of it as music programs, if you think of it as athletic programs, if you think of it as foreign language programs, if you think of it as your child going to school in a safe building structure that's energy efficient, all of those things are being stifled.

And Dr. Gramm's (Yes, Phil Gramm has a PhD in Economics. I had no idea.):

To me the American spirit is a belief that based on your own merit, based on your own hard work, no matter who your daddy was or who he wasn't, or who your mama was, that people are going to judge you on your ability, and that you have it within your power to succeed. Now, obviously it's better to be it's better to be clever, and pretty, and rich. But being plain, and ordinary, and poor, those things are not insurmountable obstacles in America. And it's that belief of what we can do, but you can't have unlimited government and unlimited opportunity. You have to make a choice. Art and I aren't against government, but we believe that it has got to be limited if we're going to have that kind of opportunity. And Americans are optimistic people because of who we are and what our history has been. We can't have France's government and be Americans.

Two slightly different world views on display.

P.S. Dr. Tyson was introduced as the first female dean of the London School of Economics. It's London Business School! COME ON! You know we have a branding issue. You know this happens all... the... time. Would it have killed you to set them straight?

One political thought about Tunisia

I loved my trip to Tunisia -- lots to see, very friendly people, easy to get around. But doing a little reading after I came back, I discovered that it is an amazingly un-free country. I knew going in that it, like many countries in the region, was fairly politically oppressive, but the only way this was at all noticeable when I was there was that there were a few too many pictures of the president around and one point where a police officer told me not to take a picture of an intersection. (This one. Can't imagine why they cared.)  No advance visa requirements, no challenge at immigration, no sense of limits on where I could go or what I could do, no feeling that I couldn't discuss anything with anyone (except for the language issue!), and not even a slightly intimidating feel from the police (even the one who stopped my picture taking).

But according to the people who make up 'freedom indices', Tunisia rates very poorly. The Economist Intelligence Unit's Democracy Index rates Tunisia 2.96 out of 10, good for 'Authoritarian' and 141st place, behind the likes of China (136th) and Cuba (125th). Freedom House rates Tunisia 'Not Free', its lowest category, though it does manage a 5 for civil liberties (with 7 being worst). According the Index of Economic Freedom, Tunisia is 'Mostly Unfree', the second worst category. And the Worldwide Press Freedom Index finds a "Very Serious Situation" there.

I'm not entirely sure what to make of this. The 'glass half full' view is that oppression just isn't what it used to be. You can be in one of the world's least free countries and barely even know it. Sure, there's still North Korea, but it's a real outlier, maybe even unique. I had a similar sense while in China, Vietnam, and a few other countries that I knew intellectually to be un-free without actually feeling it. On the other hand, it can also be seen as a cautionary tale, illustrating how much freedom you can not have and barely even notice it's missing. Until it's long gone.