Saturday, May 24, 2008
Plagiarism in the Digital World
In my previous post on Clergygate, I remarked that ideas should not be held responsible for their supporters. It wasn't an original idea. In fact, it may have been almost the same wording that someone else used earlier, although that person in turn may have borrowed the phrase. I could try to track it down, since search engines make the job so much easier now, but it's not worth the effort.
I will simply admit that I don't invent every phrase I use. It would be almost impossible to track down everything we know we're borrowing, let alone the many phrases that our subconscious minds allow us to think are original but which came largely intact from some previous source.
Surely, it shouldn't matter when political candidates borrow freely. In February, Obama was accused by the Clinton campaign of plagiarism in a speech. Who cares? We don't elect people to office with the idea that their platforms are original. Why should it matter if they language in support that closely mimics some prior speech by someone else?
Especially since almost no words that come out of a candidates mouth are his own anyway. They are produced by speechwriters. Does anyone think that George W. Bush actually composes his thoughts in the language you hear from him in formal situations? Not likely. But no one accuses him of plagiarizing his own speechwriter. If we're going to demand originality, let's be consistent.
I will simply admit that I don't invent every phrase I use. It would be almost impossible to track down everything we know we're borrowing, let alone the many phrases that our subconscious minds allow us to think are original but which came largely intact from some previous source.
Surely, it shouldn't matter when political candidates borrow freely. In February, Obama was accused by the Clinton campaign of plagiarism in a speech. Who cares? We don't elect people to office with the idea that their platforms are original. Why should it matter if they language in support that closely mimics some prior speech by someone else?
Especially since almost no words that come out of a candidates mouth are his own anyway. They are produced by speechwriters. Does anyone think that George W. Bush actually composes his thoughts in the language you hear from him in formal situations? Not likely. But no one accuses him of plagiarizing his own speechwriter. If we're going to demand originality, let's be consistent.
Being responsible for supporters
I recall several years ago when I formed an organization known as OLL -- Oregonians to Limit Lawyers. It was a small organization, consisting of precisely myself and my mimeograph machine. OK, it wasn't technically a mimeograph, but the I like to recall it that way as a more colorful story. As an organization, however, it was definitely just me.
Our platform, using "our" in the imperial form now, was that there were already too many lawyers in Oregon and the private law schools at Willamette and Lewis & Clark were sufficient. The University of Oregon should close its. I sent out a memo to all the candidates for the state legislature, asking for their position. It was a campaign year and indeed, a few responded. Most ignored me.
I actually got a little publicity out of it and people sent me letters. One guy even sent a check, which helped cover my printing and mailing costs. Unfortunately, they seemed generally to be nut cases. I felt then, and feel now, that we have too many lawyers and the state should get out of the business of producing more of what taxpayers want less of. But it became clear that this position attracted an undesirable number of wackos, so I dropped the campaign.
I remember this situation as I watch the current presidential campaign unfold, with candidates now busily trying to explain their relationships with clergymen whose views on public matters make my anti-lawyer adherents look statesmanlike.
This is sad. Ideas should not be regarded as responsible for their supporters. No one (except perhaps some talk show host somewhere) has ever suggested that Barack Obama planned to take advise from Jeremiah Wright should he be elected, or that McCain shares Hagee's views on Hitler. As a practical matter, their support should not matter to the voter.
It's actually a bit more disturbing that although McCain now condemns Hagee's theoretical views, he hasn't moved an inch from the mindless pro-Israeli policies that Hagee's theology led him to. Obama is at least separate from Wright as regards practical impact. McCain seems like a nice guy, but when you consider that he thinks not only the Iraq War but, in retrospect, the Vietnam War as well have been good ideas, it worries me.
Our platform, using "our" in the imperial form now, was that there were already too many lawyers in Oregon and the private law schools at Willamette and Lewis & Clark were sufficient. The University of Oregon should close its. I sent out a memo to all the candidates for the state legislature, asking for their position. It was a campaign year and indeed, a few responded. Most ignored me.
I actually got a little publicity out of it and people sent me letters. One guy even sent a check, which helped cover my printing and mailing costs. Unfortunately, they seemed generally to be nut cases. I felt then, and feel now, that we have too many lawyers and the state should get out of the business of producing more of what taxpayers want less of. But it became clear that this position attracted an undesirable number of wackos, so I dropped the campaign.
I remember this situation as I watch the current presidential campaign unfold, with candidates now busily trying to explain their relationships with clergymen whose views on public matters make my anti-lawyer adherents look statesmanlike.
This is sad. Ideas should not be regarded as responsible for their supporters. No one (except perhaps some talk show host somewhere) has ever suggested that Barack Obama planned to take advise from Jeremiah Wright should he be elected, or that McCain shares Hagee's views on Hitler. As a practical matter, their support should not matter to the voter.
It's actually a bit more disturbing that although McCain now condemns Hagee's theoretical views, he hasn't moved an inch from the mindless pro-Israeli policies that Hagee's theology led him to. Obama is at least separate from Wright as regards practical impact. McCain seems like a nice guy, but when you consider that he thinks not only the Iraq War but, in retrospect, the Vietnam War as well have been good ideas, it worries me.
Monday, May 19, 2008
The Problem of the Median Home Buyer is Nonsense
I have a keen ear for statistical nonsense. Once again, I hear that it's a
great crisis in this country that a person with the median income cannot afford the cost of the median home in his area. This is not only not a crisis, it's something close to a mathematical certainty.
Not quite, because it's not certain that the average person will pay as much for a house as he can afford. Some will buy homes that are well within their abilities, although it is now clear that some others were spending above that level. But for the sake of argument, let's suppose that builders will build enough home at every price level that everyone can find a home at the highest price they can afford, which is not true but good enough to make this point.
However, not everyone will buy a home. Even though in America, there is a very high level of home ownership, there is still a segment of the population that will be unable for economic reasons to own a home. Usually, this is a question of income.
About 31% of housing units are occupied by non-owners. Add to that the number of people who don't occupy any housing, i.e. the homeless, deduct the number who are simply happy renting. For the sake of argument, let's call it 20% who would buy a home if they could but haven't got enough income.
Then the class of Americans who would be buying and selling homes is about 80%. The median among them would buy the median home, which is what they can afford (see assumption above). That would be the median of the top 80%, or the 60th percentile overall.
Consequently, people with the median income among all Americans would be around the 38th percentile of home buyers and would NOT be able to afford the type of home which someone at the 50th percentile of home buyers could afford.
This does not say that there isn't a housing price problem. One of our greatest problems is that when we're in our working years, we think we can "save" for our retirement by buying oversized houses which we expect to sell at still higher rates to the next generation so we can live off the capital gain. It's a national "greater fool" theory.
We need to be living more modestly, perhaps renting more often, and putting our money collectively into roads, bridges, and the like, and individually into productive parts of the economy. We can then leave a legacy to the next generation which will allow them to support themselves and us as well. Creating national wealth by building houses is foolishness.
great crisis in this country that a person with the median income cannot afford the cost of the median home in his area. This is not only not a crisis, it's something close to a mathematical certainty.
Not quite, because it's not certain that the average person will pay as much for a house as he can afford. Some will buy homes that are well within their abilities, although it is now clear that some others were spending above that level. But for the sake of argument, let's suppose that builders will build enough home at every price level that everyone can find a home at the highest price they can afford, which is not true but good enough to make this point.
However, not everyone will buy a home. Even though in America, there is a very high level of home ownership, there is still a segment of the population that will be unable for economic reasons to own a home. Usually, this is a question of income.
About 31% of housing units are occupied by non-owners. Add to that the number of people who don't occupy any housing, i.e. the homeless, deduct the number who are simply happy renting. For the sake of argument, let's call it 20% who would buy a home if they could but haven't got enough income.
Then the class of Americans who would be buying and selling homes is about 80%. The median among them would buy the median home, which is what they can afford (see assumption above). That would be the median of the top 80%, or the 60th percentile overall.
Consequently, people with the median income among all Americans would be around the 38th percentile of home buyers and would NOT be able to afford the type of home which someone at the 50th percentile of home buyers could afford.
This does not say that there isn't a housing price problem. One of our greatest problems is that when we're in our working years, we think we can "save" for our retirement by buying oversized houses which we expect to sell at still higher rates to the next generation so we can live off the capital gain. It's a national "greater fool" theory.
We need to be living more modestly, perhaps renting more often, and putting our money collectively into roads, bridges, and the like, and individually into productive parts of the economy. We can then leave a legacy to the next generation which will allow them to support themselves and us as well. Creating national wealth by building houses is foolishness.
Sunday, May 04, 2008
Not so quick, Wall Street
Things seem to be looking up in the financial markets. optimism has returned, it seems.
This is a little premature. Remember that although 1929 had the Great Crash in October, November was a pretty good month. Overall, 1929 wasn't a bad year. 1930 was a bad year. As was 1931, 1932, ...
The usual cycle involves things getting good, people getting too optimistic and overexpanding, then pulling back at the same time. Eventually, demand is unmet and expansion begins again.
This cycle was different. We drove consumption upwards while manufacturing migrated overseas. The engine was, as economists and journalists kept telling us, the housing market, which remained robust even as the trade deficit rose.
The housing market is bust and it isn't going to be fixed. We'll of course need some housing, but not on the same scale. Manufacturing will also not rebound. We haven't had plants cutting overtime, they've just been closing down. They aren't there anymore. And because we aren't really into engineering in this country, the likelihood that the next generation of world class manufacturing will take place in America is slight.
Jobs growth in April came in unsustainable areas -- education, health, government. These are things we do for ourselves. If we want to continue to import what we need and/or want, we need to have something to barter with.
What we produce that the world wants, in exchange for the oil to which we are addicted, isn't a lot. Food, certainly. Some raw materials. A handful of manufactured goods where we're still near the top, like commercial aircraft and software. We also have tourism and higher education, but they aren't significant in the big trade picture. The dollar will fall further and we'll be required to consume less, as foreigners lose interest in funding our consumption. This recession is going to continue for a long time.
This is a little premature. Remember that although 1929 had the Great Crash in October, November was a pretty good month. Overall, 1929 wasn't a bad year. 1930 was a bad year. As was 1931, 1932, ...
The usual cycle involves things getting good, people getting too optimistic and overexpanding, then pulling back at the same time. Eventually, demand is unmet and expansion begins again.
This cycle was different. We drove consumption upwards while manufacturing migrated overseas. The engine was, as economists and journalists kept telling us, the housing market, which remained robust even as the trade deficit rose.
The housing market is bust and it isn't going to be fixed. We'll of course need some housing, but not on the same scale. Manufacturing will also not rebound. We haven't had plants cutting overtime, they've just been closing down. They aren't there anymore. And because we aren't really into engineering in this country, the likelihood that the next generation of world class manufacturing will take place in America is slight.
Jobs growth in April came in unsustainable areas -- education, health, government. These are things we do for ourselves. If we want to continue to import what we need and/or want, we need to have something to barter with.
What we produce that the world wants, in exchange for the oil to which we are addicted, isn't a lot. Food, certainly. Some raw materials. A handful of manufactured goods where we're still near the top, like commercial aircraft and software. We also have tourism and higher education, but they aren't significant in the big trade picture. The dollar will fall further and we'll be required to consume less, as foreigners lose interest in funding our consumption. This recession is going to continue for a long time.
Saturday, May 03, 2008
Five uncomfortable truths
I'm not usually much of a fan of Thomas Friedman but his editorial this morning was one of his better efforts. "Who will tell the people?" he wants to know. They want to hear the truth, he believes. They want to know what it would take to make America great again. I doubt it, since any politician who tries is successfully beaten down by idiocy, over and over, everywhere, all the time. However, since he brought the subject up, here are five truths to tell the American people.
First, our medical system is atrociously inefficient. We spend more than any other industrialized country with nothing on balance to show for it. We have spectacular abilities in certain specialized areas and we lead in research, but we are crushing our manufacturing sector with costs that other nations do not have.
Second, we have too many lawyers and accountants. Other countries have fewer of these and more engineers. Our children enter the fields where the money is, and as long as we reward people for gaming the system more than engineers who contribute to productivity, we're going to misdirect our best minds.
Third, we use too much oil and we must reduce our use whatever it takes. The first thing it should take is increased cost. Simultaneously, in fact with the tax money that drives up the cost, we should engage in massive research to make our energy use more efficient in general, and less dependent on oil in particular. Drilling in Alaska isn't going to do anything but postpone the inevitable by a year.
Fourth, not all teachers are created equal. I have nothing but respect for people who teach first grade or art, but their skills are not as difficult to find in the market as those of a high school physics teacher. Teachers with real world experience are more valuable than those who have done nothing since college outside of classrooms. The NEA mantras on these subjects are debilitating to education.
Fifth, we can't win the war on drugs. Some people are going to abuse drugs. Not a lot, but some. Let 'em go. Offer free treatment to those who want to get off drug dependency, offer cheap drugs to the addicts so they will stop burglarizing homes to pay for their habits. This is an enormously expensive undertaking with almost nothing to show for it.
None of these positions are politically possible. Even the modest idea of HMOs has been torpedoed by Americans' wish to have no constraints on their use of the highest cost treatment conceivable. The lawyers represent an enormously powerful lobby and for some reason, their argument that they help the little guy is hard to counter. Higher gas prices mean short term discomfort, which nobody will support. The NEA has successfully equated support for teacher unionism with support for education. And no politician can be seen as "soft on drugs."
I'm certainly not the first to identify any of these issues. However, they come up against the sacred cows of both left and right. It's not that Americans don't hear the truth. They don't want to listen.
First, our medical system is atrociously inefficient. We spend more than any other industrialized country with nothing on balance to show for it. We have spectacular abilities in certain specialized areas and we lead in research, but we are crushing our manufacturing sector with costs that other nations do not have.
Second, we have too many lawyers and accountants. Other countries have fewer of these and more engineers. Our children enter the fields where the money is, and as long as we reward people for gaming the system more than engineers who contribute to productivity, we're going to misdirect our best minds.
Third, we use too much oil and we must reduce our use whatever it takes. The first thing it should take is increased cost. Simultaneously, in fact with the tax money that drives up the cost, we should engage in massive research to make our energy use more efficient in general, and less dependent on oil in particular. Drilling in Alaska isn't going to do anything but postpone the inevitable by a year.
Fourth, not all teachers are created equal. I have nothing but respect for people who teach first grade or art, but their skills are not as difficult to find in the market as those of a high school physics teacher. Teachers with real world experience are more valuable than those who have done nothing since college outside of classrooms. The NEA mantras on these subjects are debilitating to education.
Fifth, we can't win the war on drugs. Some people are going to abuse drugs. Not a lot, but some. Let 'em go. Offer free treatment to those who want to get off drug dependency, offer cheap drugs to the addicts so they will stop burglarizing homes to pay for their habits. This is an enormously expensive undertaking with almost nothing to show for it.
None of these positions are politically possible. Even the modest idea of HMOs has been torpedoed by Americans' wish to have no constraints on their use of the highest cost treatment conceivable. The lawyers represent an enormously powerful lobby and for some reason, their argument that they help the little guy is hard to counter. Higher gas prices mean short term discomfort, which nobody will support. The NEA has successfully equated support for teacher unionism with support for education. And no politician can be seen as "soft on drugs."
I'm certainly not the first to identify any of these issues. However, they come up against the sacred cows of both left and right. It's not that Americans don't hear the truth. They don't want to listen.
Friday, May 02, 2008
Gas Tax Folly, the Endless Circle
John McCain is at least consistent, in his notion that we should get relief from the federal gas tax for a few months and just add it to the tab. Hillary Clinton thinks we should have it and pay with an excess profits tax. If for no other reason, I think I'd support Barack Obama for calling this the folly that it is.
We are not in this situation because of greed. Everyone is greedy and always has been, yet five years ago, petroleum fetched about a third of what it does now. The change has been supply and demand, notably the rapid rise of Chinese consumption.
What we need is not a drop in the tax, but a $1 increase. The intent would be to deliberately reduce U.S. demand, which would lead to lower prices for the product. The net effect would be less than $1 for Americans. In the longer term, we could reduce demand by advancing our technology, and we should but we can't do this overnight.
Any demagogic proposal to cut the tax this summer, when supply pressure is already likely to be at its worst, should be denounced. Obama wins this one.
We are not in this situation because of greed. Everyone is greedy and always has been, yet five years ago, petroleum fetched about a third of what it does now. The change has been supply and demand, notably the rapid rise of Chinese consumption.
What we need is not a drop in the tax, but a $1 increase. The intent would be to deliberately reduce U.S. demand, which would lead to lower prices for the product. The net effect would be less than $1 for Americans. In the longer term, we could reduce demand by advancing our technology, and we should but we can't do this overnight.
Any demagogic proposal to cut the tax this summer, when supply pressure is already likely to be at its worst, should be denounced. Obama wins this one.
American Generosity Courtesy of China
The Bush Administration has proposed an increase in the level of food assistance provided by the United States. We should all feel proud of this latest example of American generosity.
Except, of course, that we're not paying for it. If George W. Bush had said to the American people, "There are folks starving all around the world. I want each of you to dig into your pockets and come up with $2 to help them," he would have received about almost nothing. If he had asked Congress to institute a new tax that would generate $770 million to cover the aid, he would have been denounced by his own party.
Instead, it's another appropriation with no funding, which means more public debt. Just doing back of an envelope work, it's looking like half a trillion annually to cover the never-ending rise in the monthly cost of Iraq/Afghanistan, the economic stimulus, and slowing revenues due to the recession.
I remember when half a trillion would have been serious money, enough to get people talking, political candidates posturing, and headlines blaring. Not anymore.
Except, of course, that we're not paying for it. If George W. Bush had said to the American people, "There are folks starving all around the world. I want each of you to dig into your pockets and come up with $2 to help them," he would have received about almost nothing. If he had asked Congress to institute a new tax that would generate $770 million to cover the aid, he would have been denounced by his own party.
Instead, it's another appropriation with no funding, which means more public debt. Just doing back of an envelope work, it's looking like half a trillion annually to cover the never-ending rise in the monthly cost of Iraq/Afghanistan, the economic stimulus, and slowing revenues due to the recession.
I remember when half a trillion would have been serious money, enough to get people talking, political candidates posturing, and headlines blaring. Not anymore.
Less Good News than Meets the Eye
Wall Street is delighted that the April jobs report shows fewer jobs lost than anticipated and fewer than previous months. On closer inspection, though, we see the usual pattern of earlier months being adjusted downward. The revised figures show more than a quarter million jobs lost in the first four months of the year. There's a good chance that April will be worse than 20,000 when the dust settles in another 60 days.
Worse than that is that the nearly neutral effect of April was achieved by offsetting huge loses in manufacturing and construction with gains in services and government. Generally, a service job is probably worth half one of the first two, so from an economic standpoint, this wasn't neutral at all.
And government jobs are rising. One wonders how this could be. Except for the feds, who simply print whatever amount of money they need, governments are limited roughly by tax receipts, which are falling short of expectations. Apparently they haven't yet adjusted payrolls but it's just a matter of time.
Here in Oregon, the process will be distressing. The annual budget cycle for most less-than-statewide units is intense in May. The figures everyone is using assumes that whatever money has been coming from the state, which is most important for schools and community colleges, will stay at the level promised a year ago. A new state tax projection should be coming out within a few days. When it shows another sharp decline, a lot of those budgets, and hence hiring expectations, are going to need revisions.
Worse than that is that the nearly neutral effect of April was achieved by offsetting huge loses in manufacturing and construction with gains in services and government. Generally, a service job is probably worth half one of the first two, so from an economic standpoint, this wasn't neutral at all.
And government jobs are rising. One wonders how this could be. Except for the feds, who simply print whatever amount of money they need, governments are limited roughly by tax receipts, which are falling short of expectations. Apparently they haven't yet adjusted payrolls but it's just a matter of time.
Here in Oregon, the process will be distressing. The annual budget cycle for most less-than-statewide units is intense in May. The figures everyone is using assumes that whatever money has been coming from the state, which is most important for schools and community colleges, will stay at the level promised a year ago. A new state tax projection should be coming out within a few days. When it shows another sharp decline, a lot of those budgets, and hence hiring expectations, are going to need revisions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)