Winner of the “most awkward concession speech” category in our election prediction contest was nepharis, who picked Paladino to say, “I’m going to kill every last one of you”. Turns out he was pretty close!
- Decision 2010 I’m a bit more bullish than most about the Democrats’ chances. This is mainly because I believe that polls are much less independent than even Nate Silver suspects. Pollsters were all over the place in 2008, and then mostly converged to a 7-point Obama win. I don’t think numbers are fixed, but I do think there was a substantial amount of groupthink that goes into weighing and likely voter models. Given that Rasmussen has been absolutely flooding the market with polls, I have a hunch that even non-Rasmussen pollsters have been converging on their averages.
- Baseball Speaking of Nate Silver, his Secret Sauce stat has the Giants as one of the best-ranked teams, pretty much ever. I’m not surprised they’re in the Series (the Rangers were ranked highly too).
- Unnecessary Roughness Reading up on the impact of concussions on football players later in life has sucked the joy out of hard hits for me. I’m not paying to see people try to hurt each other, even if that’s what posturing commentators claim the game is about.
15-second opinions about recent news.
- Juan Williams: It’s not about freedom of speech! Nobody disagrees that he has the freedom to say whatever he wants on TV. What outraged conservatives forget is that NPR has just as much right to fire him for being a dumbass.
- Tim Profitt: It is incorrect to generalize this act of aggression to imply that all {Republicans, Rand Paul supporters, Southerners} are evil head-stomping crazies. It is correct to enjoy as the guy digs a deeper hole with increasingly comical non-apologies.
- Christine O’Donnell: Sure, the Constitution doesn’t literally say “separation of church and state”. But it also doesn’t literally say anything about “health care”, and the Bible doesn’t discuss the literal phrase “choking the chicken”. So I guess those are OK.
- Unnecessary roughness: Sports commentators can’t both applaud the NFL for cracking down on dangerous hits and applaud the Giants defense for knocking QBs out of the game.
- Brad Childress: [15 seconds of laughter]
< Zack> as a general question, unrelated to China policy at the moment since the question seems quite a bit bigger than that, should we be trying to engineer our economy to support more domestic manufacturing?
< Diapadion> I’m gonna go with no
<Zack> you know, we usually try to explain our opinions in this channel
<Zack> Conventional theory is that trying to do such a thing can only make the world economy less efficient and reduces resources for everyone.
<Diapadion> hee hee
<Diapadion> yeah, I agree with those points
<Diapadion> and I don’t think that it will help with the immgration issues as well
<Zack> don’t think what will help?
<Diapadion> trying to push tward more manufacturing in our economy
<Zack> The thing that I’m trying to work into this conventional view is the robustness of the economy. It seems like as an economic system gets more efficient it also becomes more fragile.
<Diapadion> hmmm
<Diapadion> yes, I could deifnitely see that
<Zack> which is also two sided, that fragility is a strong deterrant from war
<Zack> as shown from the fact that we’re scared to death of pissing off China
<Diapadion> more succeptible to exploitation within the ecnomies, I think
<Zack> care to elaborate?
<Diapadion> shit
<Diapadion> it might have flown the coop, but I had it in my head for a few min
<Zack> I’m also worred about ‘race to the bottom’ economically. The things that free markets optimize aren’t exactly in line what we want to optimize as a society. We try to fix this domestically with regulation, but that doesn’t work on the world stage.
<Diapadion> oh, I think I remembered
<Zack> Normally we would say that as other economies progress in standard of living they will come into line with what we want domestically.
<Diapadion> because its so fragile, the workers in the ecnomoy could easily be exploited in order to keep the system afloat. They could more simply be forced to do whatever is necessary for “the greater good” and not have escape options.
<Zack> like a bank bailout?
<Diapadion> potentially, I was thinkin on a more individual level though
<Zack> ok
<Zack> I’m worried about the transient effects of large economies like India and China coming online having a severe negative impact on our system. Assuming free trade with them it’s economically impossible to produce most goods domestically. Our economy is increasingly pushed toward high-tech advancement, finance, and entertainment.
<Diapadion> that probably wouldn’t be good on the human rights side, but transnational business seems to be the way to go
<Diapadion> troubling though it may be, I can’t think of a way to stop it
<Zack> In combination with this, there’s no reason that these new players who are still in the growth transient can’t also be doing these high end things too. It seems like our economic position in the world winks out existance in this transition period unless we lower our standard of living to theirs.
<Diapadion> *maybe* if we really guarded our educational system and trade secrets etc, but that’ll never be very successful of an endeavor
<Zack> It seems like protectionism would be the a way to make this transition less violent, where we can lower our standard of living a little bit on our own terms. Our goods are are less efficiently produced, but we stay in existance economically.
<Diapadion> IDLE gatorade shopping
<harveyj> wait, what’s the problem here?
<Zack> I’m trying to understand the effects of protectionism
<harveyj> “developing” GDPs have been growing at 10% annually for a while, while developed gdps have kept growing
<Zack> I guess what I’m wondering is, why should we be economically relevant when someone else can do what we do at a lower cost?
<Zack> The reason someone else would be able to do everything we do at a lower cost would be because they’re in a high growth period where they have some highly developed economic sectors in combination with low standard of living / low regulation sectors at the same time.
<Zack> It seems like the growth transient is a very dangerous period for us
<harveyj> nobody el
<harveyj> er
<harveyj> nobody can do what we do
<Zack> what do we do then?
<harveyj> continue leading the global economy?
<harveyj> > Our economy is increasingly pushed toward high-tech advancement, finance, and entertainment
<harveyj> what’s wrong with this?
<harveyj> also you should add medicine and education as sectors we’re world leaders in
<Zack> I don’t see any reason why we’re the leader in those fields except for timing
<harveyj> in addition, as discussed prior we’re not actually shrinking in terms of manufacturing output
<harveyj> also access to capital, a stable legal and financial system, an educated workforce, and network effects
<Zack> I’d like to come to some sort of reasoning as to why we’re the leader in those fields and how we can stay there. Is it impossible to grow high tech only in our kind of environment?
<harveyj> not to mention that most of those are self-reinforcing
<Zack> yes, I agree with all your points, I just have a lot of nagging doubt about it as I watch China push Japan around with the rare earth metals embargo
<Zack> if someone tries to push us like that, how can we push back if those parts of our economy don’t even exist
<Zack> the upstarts seem much more resilient because they can tell us to fuck off with all our tech and finance and keep rolling
<harveyj> the rare earth embargo seems to be about access to a limited natural resource
<Zack> my impression is that we have a good deal of rare eath reserves
<Zack> it’s just not economically feasable to have the industry here
<Zack> and the ramp-up time is on the order of ten years
<nepharis> that’s certainly the conventional wisdom, but I think it’s slowly changing
<nepharis> at least with high tech
<harveyj> shrug, economies adjust to supply shocks
<harveyj> the first thing that would happen in response to a severe rare earth metal shortage would be a price spike
<harveyj> which would all of the sudden make mining economically feasible
<nepharis> see also: gold
<nepharis> a lot of mining operations are gearing back up in the US
<nepharis> which is nice, because it means my sister stays employed
<Zack> but these industries are so capital intensive that getting caught with our pants down means we could be economically runied
<Zack> ruined
<harveyj> then we bomb china and take their mines
<Zack> and I’m offering some protectionism to hedge against that fragility, where the discussion started
<nepharis> what’s the worst that could happen?
<harveyj> your whole argument seems to be predicated on the chinese being willing to create a second great depression via trade war/embargoes
<harveyj> first of all, i don’t think any embargo would pose an existential threat to the US economy
<harveyj> second of all, i don’t see anyone, especially a trade partner as major as china, willing to cut off their nose to spit us
<harveyj> spite
<Zack> the prediction I’m offering is that we’re not a major player in 20 years because we don’t do anything inherently special, yet we have all sorts of special demands for standard of living
<Zack> and I’m trying to figure out what it is that makes us so special as to be where we are now, so we can continue that
<Zack> or, if we aren’t special, how we can deal with that transition to being a minor player in the world
<harveyj> why do you think our financial, business, and political institutions are easily replicable?
<harveyj> we’ve spent a trillion dollars trying to replicate them in a nation a tenth of the size and fucked it up royally
<harveyj> i reject the entire premise
<Zack> I see them as replaceable because I don’t see the American people as inherently superior in any way.
<nepharis> (..and substitute my own!)
<harveyj> there’s a big difference between people and institutions
<nepharis> yeah, we’ve got ~200 years on most other countries
<Zack> so your argument is that these institutions take long enough to build that we don’t need to artifically dampen these shocks with protective measures?
<Legion> it sounds like you’re basing this on rejecting the notion of “We’re America! Everyone loves us because we’re so free and great!”
<Zack> I guess I can buy that
<Zack> (talking to harveyj)
<Zack> there’s something about how the environment for American business is different from the rest of the world that I don’t understand yet
<Legion> like an implied security/reliability?
<Zack> that combined with a drive for innovation that doesn’t seem to exist elsewhere
<harveyj> less corruption, access to capital, access to skilled labor
<Zack> corrpution could be a bigger deal than I give credit to
<nepharis> harveyj: ==, + stability and generally low levels of regulation
<Zack> in that case, should we be trying to make our regulatory environment more european? It may make more sense to go the other direction
<Legion> i thought our current state was fine
<Zack> (I realize I have no idea what ‘the other direction’ is)
<Legion> or is this meant as a preventive measure for when China overshadows us and doesn’t need us anymore?
<Zack> does current state include our shithole of a health insurance system?
<Zack> I don’t really know, I don’t think there’s a need to worry about getting overshadowed if we’re able to continue competing at what we’re good at. I definitely buy into the arugment that a rising tide raises all ships.
<harveyj> gerrymandering, marginalization of third parties
<Aerion> would it really solve the third-party problem?
<harveyj> not in small states
<Aerion> so in CA, TX, and NY you might get a seat or two
<harveyj> yeah
<Aerion> and vermont >_>
<harveyj> ha
<harveyj> personally i’m not that sure third parties are actually that marginalized
<harveyj> i do think it would help with regards to districting
<Aerion> it would eliminate districting
<Aerion> which would be awesome
<harveyj> exactly
<Aerion> does this screw, e.g., upstate new york?
<Zack> depending on how the vote works, it might not matter
<Zack> (my assumption being that upstate New York should be screwed with regard to congressional representation)
<Aerion> currently they have some 9-10 districts
<Aerion> NY-20 through NY-29, i think?
<Zack> would such a change happen as a popular vote or by district in NY?
<Aerion> ?
<Aerion> if the new york DNC and RNC nominate a bunch of NYC people to their slate, do upstaters have recourse?
<Aerion> i suppose a regional party could form and win some seats
<harveyj> why would they want to do that?
<Aerion> the “Up Yours Party”
<Zack> I’m talking about the vote to change how reps are elected
<harveyj> if they wanted to commit electoral suicide
<Legion> vs. the “Whaddayagondoboutit Party”?
<harveyj> Zack: my understanding is it’d be the same as passing any state law
<Aerion> it would be a little dumb, perhaps
<harveyj> or maybe amending the state constitution
<Zack> which would mean that it’s actually possible
<Aerion> but then again, would it really?
<Aerion> what are upstaters going to do about it?
<Zack> complain?
<harveyj> Legion: go ahead, throooow your vote away!
<Legion> Don’t blame me, I voted for Crist
<harveyj> Aerion: DNC does this, RNC nominates two upstaters, RNC gets 30% of NYC, 80% upstate
<harveyj> splits the delegation
<Aerion> where does the RNC put the upstaters on its candidate slate?
<Aerion> at the top? (then there’s no incentive to vote for them because they’ll be elected anyway)
<Aerion> i mean, i suppose it’s not a stable equilibrium
<harveyj> mmmmm
<Aerion> but it does seem like somebody could get disenfranchised accidentally
<Legion> this is assuming a model where upstaters necessarily vote heavily other upstaters?
<Aerion> yeah
<Aerion> well, it’s really a model where upstaters always complain about nyc
<Legion> fuck, i’m from CT, and we do that
<Aerion> fuckin’ yankees
<Legion> wicked pissah
<Aerion> harveyj: should we do this on the blag?
<harveyj> yes
So there was no vote on tax cuts. THEREFORE DEMOCRATS ARE DUMB AND I WILL NOT VOTE THIS NOVEMBER TO TEACH THEM A LESSON
(Quick, everyone, spot what’s wrong with this reasoning!)
Too many people think politicians are your friends. If your friends treat you like crap, you take your ball and go home. Politics is about the exercise and control of power. Voting isn’t rooting for a sports team, it’s exercising your (albeit limited) ability to control politicians. Voters make a huge difference, not only in who is elected, but far more importantly in that politicians tailor their actions to the electorate.
You can either take the action most beneficial to your (self/family/country), and wield what power you can, or you can consciously decide to make your voice not heard. Shrug.
<Zack> we also need to talk about this government shutdown business
<Zack> looking at how republican obsturctionism has been viewed by the
public over the past two years I see it going extremely badly for
democrats
<Zack> the formula is really simple, refuse to pass a budget unless
democrats make some key concessions
<Zack> the concessions can be anything they want, repeal health care
mandate, make Pelosi pledge to vote republican forever, tax cut
extension
<Zack> talk up how democrats won’t even make some little compromise in
order to save your social security checks
<Zack> and watch the democrats completely fail at messaging like usual
<Zack> what about this plan doesn’t work?
<harveyj> currently dems are perceived as having 100% of the power when
they really have about 66%
<harveyj> after the election they’ll be perceived as having 50% of the
power when they really have about 50%
<harveyj> coalitions are really easy to hold together when there’s no incentive to break them
<harveyj> that becomes not the case as soon as the republicans take a majority
<harveyj> you’re attributing dems’ failures to lack of messaging instead of shitty fundamentals
<harveyj> as soon as republicans take power the shitty fundamentals are going to reflect on them too
<harveyj> especially if they push us into a double dip
<Zack> won’t it all be perceived as Obama in charge?
<harveyj> one would think? but in 94 it wasn’t
<harveyj> i think because the media loves to set up “power divided” memes
<harveyj> it’s going to be really clear that it’s obama v. somebody
Equal protection: the second-most interesting part of the 14th Amendment, now that challenging birthright citizenship is apparently all the rage these days. (“Until November, anyway,” says the completely-justified cynic.)
As I tried to resist getting out of bed on Thursday morning, I heard the morning radio show discussing Prop 8 in the wake of Judge Walker’s decision. One of the guests was arguing that equal protection doesn’t apply to marriage because heterosexual couples can procreate, and the state has a vested interest in incentivizing procreation, and hence, heterosexual marriages. I am not making this up; he quoted an e-mail he received from a supporter:
I voted for Proposition 8 not out of any animus or belief that same-sex couples are inferior, but because I believe communities have a vital interest in incentivizing that procreative-capable couplings occur within stable relationships.
If I’m following this argument correctly, this implies that a ban on same-sex marriage would encourage gay people to somehow become straight and start pumping out babies. Furthermore, it suggests that the state should forbid an infertile person from marrying a fertile one, because it not only creates a couple that cannot procreate, but reduces the available fertile population. Am I missing something about the procreation argument that makes it not completely stupid?
The Prop 8 proponent continued on to claim that children are best raised by their biological parents, because the parents have a “deep-seated biological incentive”. It’s not really clear to me why this bears on gay marriage. If you truly believe that the state should promote, to the extent possible, that children be raised by their biological parents, then doesn’t that make you an opponent of adoption by gay couples, and not of gay marriage, per se? (In fact, it should make you an opponent of adoption by anyone.)
I was happy, at least, that the old argument that gay people threaten the “sanctity” of heterosexual marriage wasn’t trotted out. (At least, not while I was awake.) I see this as a ray of hope that maybe the opposition has realized just how dumb that argument is.
I mean, in defense of the caller, it *is* hard to come up with reasonable arguments to support straight-up bigotry.
<harveyj> Someone ask Sarah Palin if we should ban the NRA from Oklahoma City