Take that, economists!

Byoliveridley

Brownlee’s mistake was to put into practice something that worked only in theory.

Meet the economists who know why we buy what we buy | Money | The Guardian

Buried in an excellent article introducing the field of behavioural economics to a wider audience is that one line takedown of economics theory! I happen to believe that economists just aren’t scientific enough to understand how modeling works. A well behaved, rational human being who makes every decision independently of other decisions based solely on maximizing her economic utility is like (warning, quantum theory reference) a physicist reading about the particle in a box model and deciding to predict the behavior of all subatomic particles. Yes, it is a neat theory with some neat math, but it’s only the first step!

Scientists try to be a little more humble with their modeling. They seem to know that the chaos and probability driven events in even the simplest of real world settings make models/simulation mostly exercises in trend seeking, not deterministic end points.

To predict the economic behavior of people, you have to include the variables that make them people! Not assume that all people will follow all your assumptions of their behavior strictly, and to not call them names when they don’t act to maximize their short term utility!

Anyway, apropos nothing, I like to rant about economists! The article also notes that Barack Obama is a follower of behavioral economics, good for him. I wonder if McCain even knows what that phrase means.

Similar Posts

  • | |

    Chemical Warfare

    Byoliveridley

    This story from a local Chicago TV station does an excellent job of documenting the chemical weapons dropped on Vietnam by the United States in the 1960s, the effects they still have on Vietnam, and the Americans who handled these so called “defoliants”.

    cbs2chicago.com – Agent Orange: A View From Vietnam

    During the eight years of the Vietnam War that the U.S. Military dusted the Vietnamese landscape with Agent Orange, it was only intended to kill vegetation. It was a combination of two herbicides 2,4D and 2,4,5T mixed together into the most potent plant killer ever made. It was spread over 3 1/2 million acres of forests and crops to kill the trees and vegetation so the United States troops could see the enemy. The Armed Forces were told it was harmless. But in March 1978, Bill Kurtis broke the story on CBS 2 that American veterans of Vietnam who had been exposed to Agent Orange were complaining of illnesses, birth defects among their children, skin rashes, cancer, nervous problems and respiratory problems.

    orange3_small.jpgPeople tend to blame dioxins for all the health effects. But 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T, constituents of Agent Orange, are no spring chickens. Exposure during spraying, especially of the grossly excessive amounts that rained down upon Vietnam, can cause various health effects as well, not to mention long-term devastation of entire ecosystems.

    Side note: New Zealand, in 2004, apologized to New Zealand’s “veterans” for their exposure to Agent Orange during the Vietnam war. Not a word to the Vietnamese, of course.

    Side note 2: A US Federal court, in 2005, dismissed the first claims brought by Vietnamese plaintiffs against Dow Chemicals and Monsanto, here was the government’s  reasoning:

    In a brief filed in January, it said opening the courts to cases brought by former enemies would be a dangerous threat to presidential powers to wage war.

    Translation: We reserve the right to drop chemical weapons on our “enemies”, and doing anything to abrogate this right is “dangerous”.

    Image courtesy of Reuters shows a Vietnamese child, one of many with birth defects associated with Agent Orange exposure.

  • Vice President Piyush (Bobby) Jindal?

    Byoliveridley

    On Feb. 8, a caller to The Rush Limbaugh Show asked the conservative host if there were any chance of McCain adding Newt Gingrich to the presidential ticket. Sighing audibly, Limbaugh regretfully described it as unlikely before rattling off the usual list of names of potential VPs. One stood out. “Bobby Jindal,” the host declared, pausing for effect. “I did an interview with Bobby Jindal. He is the next Ronald Reagan, if he doesn’t change. Bobby Jindal, the new governor of Louisiana, is the next Ronald Reagan.”

    Vice President Bobby Jindal? | The American Prospect

    Piyush Jindal was an unnaturally precocious kid who picked up his name bobby at the age of four from watching the Brady Bunch. Did he know then that Bobby Jindal would be Rush Limbaugh’s choice for Vice President, whereas Piyush Jindal would be earning millions in a law firm somewhere? As a South Asian, I guess I am expected to feel good about this guy who won political office multiple times in the state of Louisiana, no less. He’s only 36 years old! When has the presidential candidate been twice as old as his running mate?

    Obviously, he’s something special, someone so smart and charismatic that he’s reached achieved great power and fame in politics at an age when most people are just starting out. One note of caution on his achievements, they’ve all been in the state of Louisiana, a state so mismanaged and corrupt that the application of a technocratic approach would yield such immediate and obvious benefits.

    During his tenure, Jindal turned a $400 million deficit into a budget surplus by cutting per-beneficiary Medicaid spending  and reducing the work force by 1000 employees,

    Low hanging fruit, eh! (maybe not, he’s a smart guy who knows how to get things done!)

    His religious and social beliefs?

    On social issues, Jindal has a record only James Dobson could love. He strongly and openly opposes abortion (without exception, even in cases of rape and incest), supports teaching intelligent design in public schools, has proposed bans on both stem-cell research and flag burning, and voted for a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman. McCain, on the other hand, has flip-flopped on all these issues except flag burning.

    On McCain’s biggest problem with the conservative base, immigration, Jindal would be an effective counterbalance: He has consistently been an outspoken opponent of illegal immigration, and voted in favor of building a border fence. His economic record is a bit less dogmatic. He tends to vote against free trade agreements like CAFTA but consistently sides with energy interests over environmentalists. For example, he favored a motion to lift the moratorium on offshore gas drilling, one of many votes that led the League of Conservation Voters to give him a rating of just 7 percent.

    There you have it, full on religious fanatic anti-environment far-right conservative! Here’s a guy who would force a 12 year old girl to give birth to a child that was the product of her father raping her. Hate to get graphic, but that’s what Mr Jindal supports, plain and simple.

    It would be very interesting to get into Mr Jindal’s head. What made this kid in high school convert to Christianity? This article tries to shed some light. However, its only source is a letter written by Bobby himself. Like with most human beings, that whole post-event rationalization is on full tilt!

    His combination of skills and ideas is hardly rare in South Asian circles. South Asians of a certain upbringing tend to be well educated, competent, technocratic (can’t get that word out of my head, that’s what he is, Bobby “the technocrat” Jindal), while simultaneously being very socially conservative. I can understand the abortion ideas, or the anti-gay ideas,  and the further anti-evolution and anti-environment pandering. He seems to have made a quick study of every conservative virtue and has decided to make them all his own, no straying for Bobby “the conformist” Jindal! he even has one token non-conformist “anti free-trade” position, Cho Chweet!!

    But no, if I had a vote, I would never vote for him, even if we may share an ethnicity. His ideas about government, church-state separation, evolution, war, abortion and the environment are abhorrent to me. But, he will make a fairly formidable candidate. This is probably not his time, I would give him a few more years.

    FWIW, McCain’s probably going to pick Huckabee as his VP to reel in the religious right, but Jindal’s not going anywhere yet.

  • |

    Pakistan and the Taliban

    Byoliveridley


    At Border, Signs of Pakistani Role in Taliban Surge – New York Times

    The most explosive question about the Taliban resurgence here along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan is this: Have Pakistani intelligence agencies been promoting the Islamic insurgency?

    The government of Pakistan vehemently rejects the allegation and insists that it is fully committed to help American and NATO forces prevail against the Taliban militants who were driven from power in Afghanistan in 2001.

    Western diplomats in both countries and Pakistani opposition figures say that Pakistani intelligence agencies — in particular the powerful Inter-Services Intelligence and Military Intelligence — have been supporting a Taliban restoration, motivated not only by Islamic fervor but also by a longstanding view that the jihadist movement allows them to assert greater influence on Pakistan’s vulnerable western flank.

    Read the whole article, it is instructive. Most South Asians (including Pakistanis) would say “D’uh”! We’ve known this for years! It’s considered a well known fact that the Pakistan’s Intelligence Agency ISI helped create the Taliban with US assistance and coordinated the Mujahideen resistance in Afghanistan. Read this article from 2001 for a good summary.

    My point is not to discuss the rightness or wrongness of these actions. Most competent countries will do whatever is in their best interests. Everyone’s known this piece of information about the ISI for years, and the U.S government knows this as well. It is in every country’s best interest to be as hypocritical/devious as possible in the pursuit of foreign policy. 

    But  it is incumbent on any newspaper covering the government to not participate in this hypocrisy. The NY times writes three pages on the Taliban without providing any background on U.S involvement. It is an article of faith among South Asians like me that American mass media is an organ of U.S diplomacy and/or propaganda. Articles like these only confirm this hypothesis.

  • |

    The U.S Emperor's new edict on regulation

    Byoliveridley

    Wow, plutocracy-protectionary principle alert.

    Chemical & Engineering News: Latest News – Changing The Rules On Regulations

    A new directive from President George W. Bush to federal agencies adds layers of bureaucracy to the process of issuing regulations and gives the White House greater control over agencies’ rules. Critics say the directive, issued Jan. 18, will slow down regulation. They say it also shifts regulatory priorities, which were set by Congress in federal laws, away from protection of health and environment to economic rationales. Some industry groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, praise the directive. “It’s the first truly significant attempt by an Administration to hold federal bureaucrats to account and insist they act with discretion when imposing new and expensive burdens on businesses and consumers,” says William Kovacs, the chamber’s vice president of environment, energy, and regulatory affairs. Under the new directive, agencies can regulate only when they can demonstrate to the White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) that the free market is not producing the desired results of the rule, such as health protection. To show that a new rule is warranted, agencies must identify what economists call “market failures”—such as when an industrial sector with unfettered pollution sells its products more cheaply than it would have had it included the cost of pollution control into the price of its goods.

    Sounds reasonable, does it not! All the good buzzwords thrown in there, “Cost-Benefit Analysis”, “Market Failure”, etc. But note that the burden of proof is on the regulating body to come up with a clearcut “proof” before passing regulation.

    In addition, the directive requires each agency to have a presidentially appointed “regulatory policy officer.” The agency cannot begin work on a new rule—even one required by Congress through a law—until it gets a green light from its regulatory policy officer or unless the head of the agency gives approval.

    The Emperor gets to appoint a viceroy to police the agency to ensure that no such regulation will get passed.

    Note the modus operandi:

    1. Appoint lackey to head agency
    2. Appoint viceroy to oversee regulation
    3. Rewrite rules to increase power of executive over legislative
    4. Shift burden of proof away from the regulated to the regulators
    5. Slash budgets so regulating agencies cannot do the work adequately
    6. Hound competent employees out of the agency
    7. Routinely bash said agency as an example of “big government”. Repeat steps 4-7 as often as necessary to ensure “success”

    Banana republic, indeed.

  • |

    Vote Strategically for the Environment

    Byoliveridley

    via Vote For Environment / Voter Pour l’Environnement.

    This site wants you to vote strategically to avoid splitting the anti-conservative vote on the assumption that all things being equal, the conservatives are much worse for the environment than any of the other parties. This is not really how you want an election to be decided, but a party that represents the minority of Canadians should not get a parliamentary majority simply because of a flawed voting system.

    I would heartily endorse a preferential ballot system for us. How does this work?

    Instant-runoff voting (IRV) is a voting system used for single-winner elections in which voters have one vote and rank candidates in order of preference. If no candidate receives a majority of first preference rankings, the candidate with the fewest number of votes is eliminated and that candidate’s votes redistributed to the voters’ next preferences among the remaining candidates. This process is repeated until one candidate has a majority of votes among candidates not eliminated. The term “instant runoff” is used because IRV is said to simulate a series of run-off elections tallied in rounds, as in an exhaustive ballot election.

    Under this system, if you like the Green Party the best because of their environmental policies, but know they cannot win, you can still vote for them. Just have the liberals/NDP as the second choice. It is overwhelmingly likely that if you like the Green Party policies, you like the policies of the conservatives more than the policies of the liberals or the NDP. With our current system, that’s exactly what your vote will say. Your vote for a Green Party candidate in this election is essentially a vote for the Conservatives.

    In the absence of the preferential ballot, or instant runoff voting, using web 2.0 methods to vote strategically is the next best thing, and a great idea!

  • |

    Musharraf's Wife to Run for President

    Byoliveridley

    If you have not been following the soap opera that is Pakistani politics in the last month, you should. Between exiling one corrupt ex-prime minister (Nawaz Sharif) while letting another equally corrupt one to return (Benazir Bhutto), it’s quite a sordid tale.

    It now gets worse, with Musharraf’s wife planning to run as a “proxy” candidate, and Nawaz Sharif’s wife trying to do the same, it seems to be a battle of famous wives and mothers.

    >Musharraf set to do a Lalu on Pakistan-The United States-World-The Times of India

    Military ruler Pervez Musharraf is all set to do a Lalu on the hapless nation, foisting his wife Sehba as a proxy presidential candidate to get around the constitutional and judicial hurdles he faces. Under a formula hammered out under Uncle Sam’s watchful eyes, Sehba Musharraf will be a cover candidate for Musharraf in the upcoming Presidential poll, with or without Benazir Bhutto running for Prime Minister. The military government will also allow exiled prime minister Nawaz Sharief’s wife Kulsoom Nawaz to return to Pakistan and run for election if she wishes maintaining that she is not bound by the exile arrangement that has kept her husband and his brother out of the country.

    The “Lalu” reference is to a rather notorious Indian politician, Lalu Prasad Yadav, while mired in corruption charges, put his rather inexperienced wife Rabri Devi in charge of the state he was governing.

    I guess, this is one way for women to get to power, though not the best way, I guess. South Asia has had (to my count) 5 elected women heads of state in the last 40 years. They have all been either daughters or wives of men previously in power. More importantly, they have all proven to be their own people in the end.

    Indira Gandhi – Daughter of Nehru
    Benazir Bhutto – daughter of Zulfikar Bhutto
    Khaleda Zia – wife of Ziaur Rehman
    Hasina Wazed – Daughter of Mujibur Rehman
    Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga – Daughter of Solomon Bandaranaike.

    Well, while this is strange and dynastic, it is atleast refreshing that the daughters of famous men find power in South Asia. In most other countries, the monarchy is patrilineal!

One Comment

  1. Pingback: India Shining (Not) « The Olive Ridley Crawl

Comments are closed.