I wrote a post two years ago where I predict that we will see manual driving of cars in our lifetimes be outlawed. One advantage of automated driving?
"No need to stop at red lights. Automated cars could perfectly time passage such that we travel through intersections seamlessly from all ways without slowing down. This might be a little harrowing at first, I'll admit."
Now you can watch a video representation of that prediction. It's kind of cool.
Showing posts with label Predictions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Predictions. Show all posts
Monday, March 12, 2012
Sunday, March 11, 2012
I guess this is another one for the "I told you so" file.
Maybe I'm jumping the gun. Approximately two years ago, I took stock of the Tea Party Revolution:
"I do not believe political gains made by [false intellectual pretenses] are sustainable. Republicans may have accomplished electoral victory this year but there will be a big question whether or not they accomplish legislative victory; the former is worth nothing without the latter. When you gain political momentum on false pretenses...for example, by lying about Obama and demonizing his intentions, you aren't winning an argument in the minds of the American people, you're just scaring them.
...Conservatives should be less short-sighted. The foundation of a strong conservative movement won't come from cheap sound bytes put forth by idiot news casters on Fox. They'll come from real thinkers who don't need to beat their political adversaries with lies - they can beat them with better ideas and stronger arguments. That was the movement that Buckley and Goldwater supposedly started and it lasted a generation. The movement of intellectual hacks like Palin and Gingrich will last two years. If that."
The conservative resurgence in 2010 was based on a large degree on generating emotional reactions by describing a simplistic view of complicated issues. Simplistic views, by definition, are extreme in that they do not appreciate nuance. This was successful in electoral terms, for sure (its easy to get people to the polls when you convince them that Obama is a radical socialist who is remaking America). It has been a disaster in legislative terms. Many republicans, who were elected as purists, have had no ability to appreciate the complexity of the serious issues this nation has faced. This has made it impossible for them to organize a coherent agenda and come up with bills that are sane enough that they can all agree on, much less get any Democratic support.
The Republican Party has not achieved one significant legislative victory since taking the House. They have not secured not a single compromise that advances their agenda; they have not cut spending a single iota. They have squandered their electoral mandate on useless fights over reproductive rights and settling political scores. To appeal to such a party that has become so detached from reality, their candidates for president are either insane or have had to become so extreme that they may be unelectable in a general (the rest didn't even bother running). Less and less we are hearing talk of the GOP taking the Senate and the White House, and more we are hearing about whether or not they will even hold onto the house.
America has serious issues facing it. This country cannot move forward without two functioning political parties. Until the GOP has members who understand the complex issues we face and are capable of compromise, the political system will remain gridlocked and real conservative change will remain elusive. I have argued before: in the absence of real reform, big government wins by default. The road to a single payer health care system - actual government run health care, will be paved with a lack of compromise.
"I do not believe political gains made by [false intellectual pretenses] are sustainable. Republicans may have accomplished electoral victory this year but there will be a big question whether or not they accomplish legislative victory; the former is worth nothing without the latter. When you gain political momentum on false pretenses...for example, by lying about Obama and demonizing his intentions, you aren't winning an argument in the minds of the American people, you're just scaring them.
...Conservatives should be less short-sighted. The foundation of a strong conservative movement won't come from cheap sound bytes put forth by idiot news casters on Fox. They'll come from real thinkers who don't need to beat their political adversaries with lies - they can beat them with better ideas and stronger arguments. That was the movement that Buckley and Goldwater supposedly started and it lasted a generation. The movement of intellectual hacks like Palin and Gingrich will last two years. If that."
The conservative resurgence in 2010 was based on a large degree on generating emotional reactions by describing a simplistic view of complicated issues. Simplistic views, by definition, are extreme in that they do not appreciate nuance. This was successful in electoral terms, for sure (its easy to get people to the polls when you convince them that Obama is a radical socialist who is remaking America). It has been a disaster in legislative terms. Many republicans, who were elected as purists, have had no ability to appreciate the complexity of the serious issues this nation has faced. This has made it impossible for them to organize a coherent agenda and come up with bills that are sane enough that they can all agree on, much less get any Democratic support.
The Republican Party has not achieved one significant legislative victory since taking the House. They have not secured not a single compromise that advances their agenda; they have not cut spending a single iota. They have squandered their electoral mandate on useless fights over reproductive rights and settling political scores. To appeal to such a party that has become so detached from reality, their candidates for president are either insane or have had to become so extreme that they may be unelectable in a general (the rest didn't even bother running). Less and less we are hearing talk of the GOP taking the Senate and the White House, and more we are hearing about whether or not they will even hold onto the house.
America has serious issues facing it. This country cannot move forward without two functioning political parties. Until the GOP has members who understand the complex issues we face and are capable of compromise, the political system will remain gridlocked and real conservative change will remain elusive. I have argued before: in the absence of real reform, big government wins by default. The road to a single payer health care system - actual government run health care, will be paved with a lack of compromise.
Friday, March 02, 2012
America is getting punked by congress.
Mitt Romney wrote Obama in 2009 urging him to include an individual mandate??? Wait a minute. I've seen this before. This isn't real. This was a TV show starring Ashton Kutcher. Our government has to be pranking us. In my mind, this is more or less how the conversation went:
"OK guys here's the plan. Everyone just say really crazy things about Obama. At the same time, Mitt, make sure there is zero daylight between you and Obama on all political and social issues. You should routinely criticize the things that you have both done. The only difference between you and Obama is that you should be sure not to relate to people in a human way, and occasionally make comments that perfectly caricature what liberals think about rich people.
Mitt, when you run for president in 2012 the only people who will compete with you should be completely unelectable. I'm thinking we either go with people who would not be out of place in an asylum...Bachmann and Perry, I'm looking at you...or we dig up some has-been politicians from the 90's who left office defeated and in disgrace. Does anyone have Newt or Santorum's number?
Lets come up with plenty of slogans that don't really mean anything and that aren't internally coherent. Sarah, I love your "keep your government off of my medicare" and "death panel" bits, keep them up! While peddling those, we'll bring up issues that we have already argued about and solved in previous decades.
Liberal Americans will feel like they've entered the twilight zone. The narrative will be so convoluted that they won't even know where to begin. Conservative Americans will be found sobbing on the floor in the fetal position with Rush ranting in the background.
Right then, we all run out and yell "you got punked!" Then we pass the "We Sure Got You Good Act" which balances the budget next year, pays off the deficit in 5, includes the Iran peace treaty that we negotiated last year, funds entitlements, lowers taxes, implements effective financial regulation, simplifies the tax code, and expands military spending. Then we can adjourn for the rest of the year since there will be nothing else to do."
"OK guys here's the plan. Everyone just say really crazy things about Obama. At the same time, Mitt, make sure there is zero daylight between you and Obama on all political and social issues. You should routinely criticize the things that you have both done. The only difference between you and Obama is that you should be sure not to relate to people in a human way, and occasionally make comments that perfectly caricature what liberals think about rich people.
Mitt, when you run for president in 2012 the only people who will compete with you should be completely unelectable. I'm thinking we either go with people who would not be out of place in an asylum...Bachmann and Perry, I'm looking at you...or we dig up some has-been politicians from the 90's who left office defeated and in disgrace. Does anyone have Newt or Santorum's number?
Lets come up with plenty of slogans that don't really mean anything and that aren't internally coherent. Sarah, I love your "keep your government off of my medicare" and "death panel" bits, keep them up! While peddling those, we'll bring up issues that we have already argued about and solved in previous decades.
Liberal Americans will feel like they've entered the twilight zone. The narrative will be so convoluted that they won't even know where to begin. Conservative Americans will be found sobbing on the floor in the fetal position with Rush ranting in the background.
Right then, we all run out and yell "you got punked!" Then we pass the "We Sure Got You Good Act" which balances the budget next year, pays off the deficit in 5, includes the Iran peace treaty that we negotiated last year, funds entitlements, lowers taxes, implements effective financial regulation, simplifies the tax code, and expands military spending. Then we can adjourn for the rest of the year since there will be nothing else to do."
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Occupy The Middle Kingdom?
Income inequality isn't only a problem in America. I do believe that China's Gini coefficient (a measure of inequality) recently overtook the US. This will be tolerable to the legions of workers while China experiences the 10% growth that it currently enjoys. With a significant slowdown, it won't be tolerable.
Westerners tend to ascribe virtues of competence and wisdom to the Chinese government. If these leaders were wise, they would be starting to implement political reforms now. That way, pressure release valves are already in place when the system gets dealt a shock. Have they not been watching the news at all over the last year?
Westerners tend to ascribe virtues of competence and wisdom to the Chinese government. If these leaders were wise, they would be starting to implement political reforms now. That way, pressure release valves are already in place when the system gets dealt a shock. Have they not been watching the news at all over the last year?
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Why I am bullish on America in one simple picture
Its demography, the X-factor that everyone always seems to forget when looking at the past and the future:
France was a dominant world power in part because it used to be the third most populous nation on earth (after China and India). Its population growth stagnated in the 19th and 20th centuries and it was overtaken by Germany, among others. Europe as a whole used to count for 20%+ of the world population, now they are barely 5%. Fears in 1989 were that Japan would overtake America economically. But the Japanese population growth stopped, and reversed, while Americas steamed ahead (we've added another 50 million people, IE, the entirety of England, while Japan has added essentially none). Or think of historical antagonists. In 1900 Britain had 40 million people to Iran's 7 million. Today, Britain has 60 million to Iran's 70.
Anyone who thinks China is destined to overtake America has not learned the lessons of demography. We Americans right now are haggling over debts and austerity, but at the end of the day, we're going to add another 150 million people by the year 2050, which is almost a 50% increase. China is going to start shrinking in population. Their ratio of workers to retirees will dramatically worsen, while ours will stay about the same (hence the oft repeated phrase that "China will get old before it gets rich").
If it was up to me we would encourage this even more, instead of turning into a xenophobic cocoon. A huge advantage that we still have is that most people would rather immigrate to the United States instead of China. Why not open our doors to skilled or driven foreigners from around the world? Every immigrant is a taxpayer. Immigrants are hard workers. They start business, and since they often have big families, they buy houses. Every immigrant is another ambassador to their home country, increasing the soft power of America around the world.
To an America with 500 million people, the debts of today are entirely manageable (assuming we can slow the growth of the debt to some extent). In contrast, the crushing burden of supporting retirees with the waning of the demographic dividend that China is now experiencing is a recipe for stagnation or worse.
America will probably be the second largest economy in the world by mid century. Rather than China that overtakes us, my bet is that it will be India. By 2050 demographers are projecting population growth of another 400 million people on the subcontinent.
France was a dominant world power in part because it used to be the third most populous nation on earth (after China and India). Its population growth stagnated in the 19th and 20th centuries and it was overtaken by Germany, among others. Europe as a whole used to count for 20%+ of the world population, now they are barely 5%. Fears in 1989 were that Japan would overtake America economically. But the Japanese population growth stopped, and reversed, while Americas steamed ahead (we've added another 50 million people, IE, the entirety of England, while Japan has added essentially none). Or think of historical antagonists. In 1900 Britain had 40 million people to Iran's 7 million. Today, Britain has 60 million to Iran's 70.
Anyone who thinks China is destined to overtake America has not learned the lessons of demography. We Americans right now are haggling over debts and austerity, but at the end of the day, we're going to add another 150 million people by the year 2050, which is almost a 50% increase. China is going to start shrinking in population. Their ratio of workers to retirees will dramatically worsen, while ours will stay about the same (hence the oft repeated phrase that "China will get old before it gets rich").
If it was up to me we would encourage this even more, instead of turning into a xenophobic cocoon. A huge advantage that we still have is that most people would rather immigrate to the United States instead of China. Why not open our doors to skilled or driven foreigners from around the world? Every immigrant is a taxpayer. Immigrants are hard workers. They start business, and since they often have big families, they buy houses. Every immigrant is another ambassador to their home country, increasing the soft power of America around the world.
To an America with 500 million people, the debts of today are entirely manageable (assuming we can slow the growth of the debt to some extent). In contrast, the crushing burden of supporting retirees with the waning of the demographic dividend that China is now experiencing is a recipe for stagnation or worse.
America will probably be the second largest economy in the world by mid century. Rather than China that overtakes us, my bet is that it will be India. By 2050 demographers are projecting population growth of another 400 million people on the subcontinent.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Time to see if I was right
Over 3 months ago, I posted my predictions for the debt ceiling battle over the horizon. Well, judgment day is here. A recap of two essential points:
1. Republican intransigence was, and continues to be, unwarranted. The Republicans were always holding a weak hand, although it actually shocks me that apparently none of them figured this out. When they approached this debt ceiling issue as a battle, they set themselves up for defeat. At this very moment, the pressure is relentlessly building. The House is being inundated with angry phone calls from constituents. The IMF and credit agencies are warning of a downgrade and economic calamity. Obama is taking to the bully pulpit nightly to (rightly) berate the GOP for being uncompromising. And at the end of the day, the Tea Party isn't playing chicken with Obama. Rather, Boehner and powerful GOP backers are playing chicken with the 41 most liberal members of the senate, led by recently re-elected Harry Reid.
2. This in particular turned out to be true:
I absolutely believe that if Republicans put partisan battles aside, Democrats would join them and real progress on spending could be made. There are tons of low-hanging fruits that could be plucked to get real reductions in government spending.
Obama was offering Republicans a bill that cut the debt by FOUR TRILLION DOLLARS. It was something like 85% spending cuts, including cuts to entitlements. 85% is a very historically fair figure when looking at austerity situations. Democrats were furious at Obama for making such an offer, but luckily the GOP bailed them out by refusing Obama's deal. The Economist, a right-of-center newspaper, had a few good editorials about what a great deal the GOP passed up.
At this moment there is what, a week left before D-Day? I think the Democrats have the advantage at this moment. The Republicans WILL jump, but it remains to be seen whether the Democrats get scared and jump first.
1. Republican intransigence was, and continues to be, unwarranted. The Republicans were always holding a weak hand, although it actually shocks me that apparently none of them figured this out. When they approached this debt ceiling issue as a battle, they set themselves up for defeat. At this very moment, the pressure is relentlessly building. The House is being inundated with angry phone calls from constituents. The IMF and credit agencies are warning of a downgrade and economic calamity. Obama is taking to the bully pulpit nightly to (rightly) berate the GOP for being uncompromising. And at the end of the day, the Tea Party isn't playing chicken with Obama. Rather, Boehner and powerful GOP backers are playing chicken with the 41 most liberal members of the senate, led by recently re-elected Harry Reid.
2. This in particular turned out to be true:
I absolutely believe that if Republicans put partisan battles aside, Democrats would join them and real progress on spending could be made. There are tons of low-hanging fruits that could be plucked to get real reductions in government spending.
Obama was offering Republicans a bill that cut the debt by FOUR TRILLION DOLLARS. It was something like 85% spending cuts, including cuts to entitlements. 85% is a very historically fair figure when looking at austerity situations. Democrats were furious at Obama for making such an offer, but luckily the GOP bailed them out by refusing Obama's deal. The Economist, a right-of-center newspaper, had a few good editorials about what a great deal the GOP passed up.
At this moment there is what, a week left before D-Day? I think the Democrats have the advantage at this moment. The Republicans WILL jump, but it remains to be seen whether the Democrats get scared and jump first.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Impressions from East Africa: historical development, communities, and finances
Imagine Tanzania in the year 1900. This is a land that is 50% larger than the state of Texas, supporting a population of maybe 3 million. There was no infrastructure, no centralized government, and really, no history of a centralized government. Contrast that to Qing China, the Manchurian dynasty which ruled China up to modern times. Qing China in 1900 was arguably still one of the great powers of the world even if it was quickly falling apart. Back then, the population of China was several hundreds of millions. There was a history of civilization going back four millennia and certainly a tradition of strong centralized government, despite the fact that China is so geographically large.
One of the things required to create a modern nation state and the appropriate institutions is a sufficient population density in the surrounding area. China apparently hit that necessary population density thousands of years ago, but we should remember that Tanzania was nowhere near that threshold even one hundred years ago. A great book that expounds on this topic is "Guns, Germs, and Steel" for anyone interested. Despite these great contrasts, GDP per person in China and Tanzania 30 years ago was not so different. The take-home point is this: strong economic and political development doesn't just happen by default. It can get hindered by any number of things.
Think back to Tanzania in 1900: sparsely populated, inaccessible, every community for themselves. These communities, like other small communities throughout history, would need to be close knit. Vertical ties may involve patronage from a chief or leader who has surplus resources. That leader can distribute those resources to neighbors and subordinates in order to strengthen ties and bonds between them. Horizontal ties would involve relationships between friends, relatives, and neighbors who are on equal footing. In a small self-sufficient society, it is all about hedging risk. Sometimes one family has a good hunt, or a good harvest. Another family may fail to find an animal, or will have crops which get killed by fungus. Obviously, if neighbors are willing to readily share everything they have, the risk gets hedged throughout the community as a whole and everyone is better off.
In a century, the population of Tanzania has increased by 10-fold or more. It has been thrown into the modern world, and expected to develop sound Western institutions of government. Are these aforementioned cultural survival traits just going to disappear in a single human lifetime? Vertical ties of patronage in 1900 are manifested in the modern world as endemic corruption. Horizontal ties between neighbors manifest as a lack of savings. Let me expound on this last point. When we were in Kenya, one Westerner was telling me that if any person makes money or has a big payday, they immediately go out and spend it on all of their friends at the bar or restaurant. An employee of this person didn't want to keep her money at her house. She was afraid a friend or family would ask for it, and she would be obligated to give it away. These two examples help illustrate a source of serious economic problems. Without savings, there can be no investment. Without investment, there is no productivity growth.
I do appreciate that this dynamic is a testament to the strength of the community in Tanzania and Kenya, which is a wonderful thing. I've figured out that it is a big part of the attraction that Colleen feels to east Africa. Really, it is the same for me. The palpable sense of community is something we just don't have in the West anymore for the most part, and its something one can never perceive from photos of Africa. One has to be there to feel that pulse. Not to denigrate my own culture, because I love the West and I think it is the pinnacle of human existence: but this resource-sharing dynamic in east Africa is more instinctively "normal", in the sense that humans are hard-wired to operate that way. Sharing of resources in small, close-knit communities has been the norm throughout human history.
The communal spirit is what enabled clans and small groups of people to survive, because everyone is hedging their successes and failures on their close relatives. Only with the advent of larger towns and cities using national currencies have people in the West in particular moved away from this. There is still an intense attraction to what they have in east Africa, because I believe our brains were designed to function in small communities like they have (and we used to have) instead of the relatively lonely and unfriendly places in which we live in the West. In fact I've read psychological studies which suggest that 150 people is the ideal community size for Homo sapiens; we can keep tabs on and socially interact with that many people.
The move from small self-sufficient community groups to larger cities and towns in the West occurred over an extended period of hundreds of years. This gradual transition allowed for the culture to adjust slowly. We were able to develop a norm of anti-corruption (even though it still happens everywhere). Since everyone was participating in government we began to think in terms of nation or kingdom instead of tribe or clan. Notice in places where political participation was forbidden by some group or another (Jews in Europe, African Americans in the USA) there remained into modern times sort of "tribal" (us versus them) schisms that we see in the news all the time in east Africa and are oh so shocked by. Tribal tendencies, xenophobia, racism - we are talking about the same thing. Barack Obama, show us your birth certificate!
Anyway. If I had one point to this post, I guess it would be this: many people look at the lack of economic development in Africa and think "what has gone wrong?" My reaction is completely different: How could they be anywhere else? There has been so much change in such a short amount of time in east Africa, there is just no way it could have happened smoothly. In east Africa we've been expecting them to make the sort of adjustments in 100 years that in the West we made over the last 700 and in China they made over the last 4,000. This isn't even adding in the complicated history of colonialism, the effect instability of neighbors has on local development, and the effect of poor government economic policies. I don't even need to think about colonialism to not be surprised by the current political and economic position in east Africa. Yet only 30 years ago China was every bit as poor as Tanzania. 70 years ago Italy still had endemic malaria, a high birth rate, and extremely high infant mortality. I don't know how the current situation could make anyone pessimistic about the future of Africa, because to me it makes perfect sense that Africans are where they are now given from where they have come.
Its all about where they are going, and I think the future is promising. Maybe I'm too optimistic, but its never smart to bet against humanity. Topic for another post.
One of the things required to create a modern nation state and the appropriate institutions is a sufficient population density in the surrounding area. China apparently hit that necessary population density thousands of years ago, but we should remember that Tanzania was nowhere near that threshold even one hundred years ago. A great book that expounds on this topic is "Guns, Germs, and Steel" for anyone interested. Despite these great contrasts, GDP per person in China and Tanzania 30 years ago was not so different. The take-home point is this: strong economic and political development doesn't just happen by default. It can get hindered by any number of things.
Think back to Tanzania in 1900: sparsely populated, inaccessible, every community for themselves. These communities, like other small communities throughout history, would need to be close knit. Vertical ties may involve patronage from a chief or leader who has surplus resources. That leader can distribute those resources to neighbors and subordinates in order to strengthen ties and bonds between them. Horizontal ties would involve relationships between friends, relatives, and neighbors who are on equal footing. In a small self-sufficient society, it is all about hedging risk. Sometimes one family has a good hunt, or a good harvest. Another family may fail to find an animal, or will have crops which get killed by fungus. Obviously, if neighbors are willing to readily share everything they have, the risk gets hedged throughout the community as a whole and everyone is better off.
In a century, the population of Tanzania has increased by 10-fold or more. It has been thrown into the modern world, and expected to develop sound Western institutions of government. Are these aforementioned cultural survival traits just going to disappear in a single human lifetime? Vertical ties of patronage in 1900 are manifested in the modern world as endemic corruption. Horizontal ties between neighbors manifest as a lack of savings. Let me expound on this last point. When we were in Kenya, one Westerner was telling me that if any person makes money or has a big payday, they immediately go out and spend it on all of their friends at the bar or restaurant. An employee of this person didn't want to keep her money at her house. She was afraid a friend or family would ask for it, and she would be obligated to give it away. These two examples help illustrate a source of serious economic problems. Without savings, there can be no investment. Without investment, there is no productivity growth.
I do appreciate that this dynamic is a testament to the strength of the community in Tanzania and Kenya, which is a wonderful thing. I've figured out that it is a big part of the attraction that Colleen feels to east Africa. Really, it is the same for me. The palpable sense of community is something we just don't have in the West anymore for the most part, and its something one can never perceive from photos of Africa. One has to be there to feel that pulse. Not to denigrate my own culture, because I love the West and I think it is the pinnacle of human existence: but this resource-sharing dynamic in east Africa is more instinctively "normal", in the sense that humans are hard-wired to operate that way. Sharing of resources in small, close-knit communities has been the norm throughout human history.
The communal spirit is what enabled clans and small groups of people to survive, because everyone is hedging their successes and failures on their close relatives. Only with the advent of larger towns and cities using national currencies have people in the West in particular moved away from this. There is still an intense attraction to what they have in east Africa, because I believe our brains were designed to function in small communities like they have (and we used to have) instead of the relatively lonely and unfriendly places in which we live in the West. In fact I've read psychological studies which suggest that 150 people is the ideal community size for Homo sapiens; we can keep tabs on and socially interact with that many people.
The move from small self-sufficient community groups to larger cities and towns in the West occurred over an extended period of hundreds of years. This gradual transition allowed for the culture to adjust slowly. We were able to develop a norm of anti-corruption (even though it still happens everywhere). Since everyone was participating in government we began to think in terms of nation or kingdom instead of tribe or clan. Notice in places where political participation was forbidden by some group or another (Jews in Europe, African Americans in the USA) there remained into modern times sort of "tribal" (us versus them) schisms that we see in the news all the time in east Africa and are oh so shocked by. Tribal tendencies, xenophobia, racism - we are talking about the same thing. Barack Obama, show us your birth certificate!
Anyway. If I had one point to this post, I guess it would be this: many people look at the lack of economic development in Africa and think "what has gone wrong?" My reaction is completely different: How could they be anywhere else? There has been so much change in such a short amount of time in east Africa, there is just no way it could have happened smoothly. In east Africa we've been expecting them to make the sort of adjustments in 100 years that in the West we made over the last 700 and in China they made over the last 4,000. This isn't even adding in the complicated history of colonialism, the effect instability of neighbors has on local development, and the effect of poor government economic policies. I don't even need to think about colonialism to not be surprised by the current political and economic position in east Africa. Yet only 30 years ago China was every bit as poor as Tanzania. 70 years ago Italy still had endemic malaria, a high birth rate, and extremely high infant mortality. I don't know how the current situation could make anyone pessimistic about the future of Africa, because to me it makes perfect sense that Africans are where they are now given from where they have come.
Its all about where they are going, and I think the future is promising. Maybe I'm too optimistic, but its never smart to bet against humanity. Topic for another post.
Monday, April 11, 2011
The Republican Debt Ceiling Bluff
Last fall, Obama compromised with Republicans to extend the Bush tax cuts for another two years. He was roundly criticized by the left for caving in to Republican demands. I actually thought Obama got a great deal when you consider how weak his negotiating position really was. An outcome of failed compromise was more tolerable to the GOP than it was to Obama, for various reasons, so he really couldn't force their hand on anything. Obama recognized his weak bargaining position, and took what he could get. It may not have been satisfying but it was the right move.
Fast forward to several weeks from now, when Republicans will apparently be "demanding fundamental changes in policy on health care, the environment, abortion rights and more, as the price of their support for raising the debt ceiling." This is code for Republican intent to defund planned parenthood and strip the EPA of regulatory authority. Contentious issues, no doubt, but they are also issues that don't really affect government spending. They are a partisan distraction.
In the coming battle over the debt ceiling, I don't think Republicans realize how weak their bargaining position actually will be. The fundamental problem for the GOP is that they control one house of congress, but not the other. Since they control the House, it is absolutely a foregone conclusion that the House GOP will, at some point, vote to raise the debt ceiling. Concessions by democrats or no, forcing the US government to default would be most intolerable to the GOP's powerful backers. Obama himself is shielded from the process because any bill will have to make it through the Democrat-controlled senate; a bill with lots of partisan riders won't pass. Even if the GOP managed to buy off some of the few remaining centrist democrats, there will be at least 41 liberal Democrats who would filibuster an intolerable GOP-sponsored bill.
In the context of failed negotiations, the end-game is this: the GOP-led house passes a bill with severe cuts and partisan riders while the Democrat-led senate passes a modest bill with a few token spending cuts. At that point it is a game of chicken to see who jumps first. Who fears a US government default more, the Republican Party or the 41 most liberal Democrats in the senate? Is it plausible that banks, corporations, and other business interests will tolerate a US government default over a petty battle about say planned parenthood? As the default deadline approached, the Republicans would be forced to pass the senate bill by overwhelming pressure from their powerful backers.
Conservatives, now more than ever, need to start looking for the pragmatic voices in the Republican Party to lead in these negotiations. I absolutely believe that if Republicans put partisan battles aside, Democrats would join them and real progress on spending could be made. There are tons of low-hanging fruits that could be plucked to get real reductions in government spending. I am not confident that the GOP can yet be led by pragmatists. I anticipate they will insist on continuing to fight distracting partisan battles. If Republicans charge into this looking to win a political fight, they may be dealt a defeat of staggering proportions when the Democrats call their bluff.
Fast forward to several weeks from now, when Republicans will apparently be "demanding fundamental changes in policy on health care, the environment, abortion rights and more, as the price of their support for raising the debt ceiling." This is code for Republican intent to defund planned parenthood and strip the EPA of regulatory authority. Contentious issues, no doubt, but they are also issues that don't really affect government spending. They are a partisan distraction.
In the coming battle over the debt ceiling, I don't think Republicans realize how weak their bargaining position actually will be. The fundamental problem for the GOP is that they control one house of congress, but not the other. Since they control the House, it is absolutely a foregone conclusion that the House GOP will, at some point, vote to raise the debt ceiling. Concessions by democrats or no, forcing the US government to default would be most intolerable to the GOP's powerful backers. Obama himself is shielded from the process because any bill will have to make it through the Democrat-controlled senate; a bill with lots of partisan riders won't pass. Even if the GOP managed to buy off some of the few remaining centrist democrats, there will be at least 41 liberal Democrats who would filibuster an intolerable GOP-sponsored bill.
In the context of failed negotiations, the end-game is this: the GOP-led house passes a bill with severe cuts and partisan riders while the Democrat-led senate passes a modest bill with a few token spending cuts. At that point it is a game of chicken to see who jumps first. Who fears a US government default more, the Republican Party or the 41 most liberal Democrats in the senate? Is it plausible that banks, corporations, and other business interests will tolerate a US government default over a petty battle about say planned parenthood? As the default deadline approached, the Republicans would be forced to pass the senate bill by overwhelming pressure from their powerful backers.
Conservatives, now more than ever, need to start looking for the pragmatic voices in the Republican Party to lead in these negotiations. I absolutely believe that if Republicans put partisan battles aside, Democrats would join them and real progress on spending could be made. There are tons of low-hanging fruits that could be plucked to get real reductions in government spending. I am not confident that the GOP can yet be led by pragmatists. I anticipate they will insist on continuing to fight distracting partisan battles. If Republicans charge into this looking to win a political fight, they may be dealt a defeat of staggering proportions when the Democrats call their bluff.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Intervention in Libya, Intervention in Congo
A lot of people have questioned why we intervene in Libya and not in places like the Congo, where civil war has resulted in the deaths of millions of people. The answer is that the nature of the threat to civilians in general is completely different. A useful analogy: if you have a gun, you can use it to protect your child from a wolf, but not from disease-carrying mosquitoes.
What is happening in the Congo and in many other failed states is a tragedy, but its very difficult for outsiders to stop the sort of low-tech civil war that goes on in places like that. The only real way to do it is to send massive numbers of US ground troops to impose order, and even then its very difficult and politically risky. There are situations in which it should be done anyway (Rwanda) but its easy to see that building up the political momentum for that kind of a mission might take longer than the conflict lasts.
By contrast, it is very easy for the US to stop civilian deaths if we can focus our efforts on a few targets, IE high-tech military forces like tanks and airplanes. Our military is built to deal with such threats. We can get there really quickly, because we have carriers all over the world. It is also far easier to secure political backing for such sorts of missions, since the risks are far lower.
Anyway, I do think that this effort has a reasonable shot at working. If you break the back of Qaddafi's military forces, and get a stalemate, then its just a war of attrition. If we are serious about getting him out, at that point we just impose an embargo on his oil exports and starve him out. Once his cronies realize the money well has dried up they will turn on him.
It is nice to dream of a world where our interventions are purely based on the gravity of the situation in the affected nation, but the reality is we have to pick our battles. We simply don't have the ground forces or the money to occupy every troubled spot in the world. But we do have an military that is really, really good at blowing up enemy tanks and airplanes. So if those are the weapons that a dictator chooses to use to kill his civilians, why not neutralize them?
What is happening in the Congo and in many other failed states is a tragedy, but its very difficult for outsiders to stop the sort of low-tech civil war that goes on in places like that. The only real way to do it is to send massive numbers of US ground troops to impose order, and even then its very difficult and politically risky. There are situations in which it should be done anyway (Rwanda) but its easy to see that building up the political momentum for that kind of a mission might take longer than the conflict lasts.
By contrast, it is very easy for the US to stop civilian deaths if we can focus our efforts on a few targets, IE high-tech military forces like tanks and airplanes. Our military is built to deal with such threats. We can get there really quickly, because we have carriers all over the world. It is also far easier to secure political backing for such sorts of missions, since the risks are far lower.
Anyway, I do think that this effort has a reasonable shot at working. If you break the back of Qaddafi's military forces, and get a stalemate, then its just a war of attrition. If we are serious about getting him out, at that point we just impose an embargo on his oil exports and starve him out. Once his cronies realize the money well has dried up they will turn on him.
It is nice to dream of a world where our interventions are purely based on the gravity of the situation in the affected nation, but the reality is we have to pick our battles. We simply don't have the ground forces or the money to occupy every troubled spot in the world. But we do have an military that is really, really good at blowing up enemy tanks and airplanes. So if those are the weapons that a dictator chooses to use to kill his civilians, why not neutralize them?
Sunday, March 20, 2011
In Libya, we send a message to the militaries of autocracies.
The debate over Obama's actions in Libya have been hopelessly muddled by what happened in two other recent situations: what George W. Bush did in Iraq, and what Bill Clinton let happen in Rwanda. We must remember that there is a middle ground between "send 150,000 troops to occupy and nation build" and "let millions of people get massacred while the world watches". While Obama attempts to find that middle ground, critics are hysterical on both sides with claims that he is doing too much ("just like George Bush!") or not enough.
The truth is, our intervention in Libya is likely to be inconsequential more than anything. Our help may come too late to save the rebels. Even if they do hold out, they may not be able to finish the drive to the capitol to remove Qaddafi. Thats OK though, because the consequences of our intervention are similarly modest. We have a UN resolution and support from the Arab league. We aren't sending ground troops. Meanwhile, the Libyan military poses zero threat to us or our allies around the world. At best, we allow a revolution to drive out a dictator; at worst, our actions won't change anything.
There is another very good reason to intervene that I don't see many people talking about. This is an extremely important time in world history, with more revolutions in the Middle East almost certain to come. Our actions in Libya are very important, as they provide a very stark contrast for other militaries to consider. When a dictator in the future orders his military to attack civilians, what should the military do? They can take the example of the Egyptian military, and ignore their dictator's orders to shoot, thereby winning the adoration of their people, the support of the world, and the favors of America. Alternatively, they can follow the example of Libyan military, which followed Qaddafi's evil orders and ended up a smoldering, flaming wreckage as a consequence.
The threat of force won't deter everyone. For geopolitical reasons, we can't intervene in Iran, Syria, Bahrain, or some other potential hot spots. Still, this season of revolution is certain to be unpredictable. The single most important factor for the success of peaceful revolution is whether or not the military attacks the people. The last thing we want to do is send a message that it is OK for an air force or military to start attacking civilians. We would almost be inviting massacres. Even though it would be nice if some other country could deal with things for once, Obama is doing the right thing.
The truth is, our intervention in Libya is likely to be inconsequential more than anything. Our help may come too late to save the rebels. Even if they do hold out, they may not be able to finish the drive to the capitol to remove Qaddafi. Thats OK though, because the consequences of our intervention are similarly modest. We have a UN resolution and support from the Arab league. We aren't sending ground troops. Meanwhile, the Libyan military poses zero threat to us or our allies around the world. At best, we allow a revolution to drive out a dictator; at worst, our actions won't change anything.
There is another very good reason to intervene that I don't see many people talking about. This is an extremely important time in world history, with more revolutions in the Middle East almost certain to come. Our actions in Libya are very important, as they provide a very stark contrast for other militaries to consider. When a dictator in the future orders his military to attack civilians, what should the military do? They can take the example of the Egyptian military, and ignore their dictator's orders to shoot, thereby winning the adoration of their people, the support of the world, and the favors of America. Alternatively, they can follow the example of Libyan military, which followed Qaddafi's evil orders and ended up a smoldering, flaming wreckage as a consequence.
The threat of force won't deter everyone. For geopolitical reasons, we can't intervene in Iran, Syria, Bahrain, or some other potential hot spots. Still, this season of revolution is certain to be unpredictable. The single most important factor for the success of peaceful revolution is whether or not the military attacks the people. The last thing we want to do is send a message that it is OK for an air force or military to start attacking civilians. We would almost be inviting massacres. Even though it would be nice if some other country could deal with things for once, Obama is doing the right thing.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Purging the moderates
I was thinking the other day about something that I think has pretty important implications, and so I am going to write it down. There were many reasons why I voted for Obama in 2008, but one of them was particularly relevant for conservatives. I've always considered myself slightly right of center, but I had grown to be so disgusted with the Republican party that I considered electing Obama to be an important repudiation of those policies. I mean here we have the "party of small government and fiscal conservatism" turning a surplus into a deficit, expanding unfunded entitlements, engaging in reckless and often aimless foreign policy...it was precisely the opposite of what "conservative" means to me. And so I told many of my friends and family in 2008, especially conservatives - vote for Obama to show the GOP how disgusted you are with them.
The problem is that over the last two years the GOP hasn't learned the lessons that I wanted them to learn. They've simply gone after the easy solutions and talking points and avoided the tough questions. The real issue Republicans should be grappling with is how we can efficiently reform our health care system...how can we reform medicare, can we privatize or reform social security? How can we moderate our foreign policy aims? These are all very, very tough questions. These questions would require very intelligent people to grapple with in an effective way. But instead of doing that, who do we have? Well, most prominently we have Sarah Palin.
She is a know-nothing, and she is a perfect metaphor for the entire GOP "revival" in the last two years. The new batch of tea-party Republicans know how to get votes by appealing to religion and xenophobia, but they have no real ideas. They've retrenched into the worst excesses of the Bush era but have learned none of the lessons of Bush's mistakes. They are going to waltz into power November 2nd, and suddenly realize how none of them has the intelligence or the political courage to even begin to come close to grappling with some of our serious problems. The most they will do is cut taxes for the wealthy and defund Obamacare - both of which will actually worsen our deficit woes. No doubt, it IS a big step backward. And this is NOT what I had in mind when I wanted to vote for Obama to teach the Republicans a lesson. They've learned all the wrong lessons.
Anyway, the main point of this article is this insight I had. I was thinking about how Mitch Daniels basically got the smack-down by the conservative establishment for proposing a value-added tax. A VAT or consumption tax would actually be a pretty effective tax because it would provide lots of revenue, could be manipulated to be progressive, but wouldn't penalize investment and saving. But anything with the word "tax" is anathema to today's conservatives, so Daniels got put in his place.
I was thinking to myself how sad it is that an entire political movement could have become so close minded and outright committed to group-think. But you know what? That is the exact same thing I thought about Democrats in 2005. I used to HATE reading progressive blogs because I found them nauseating. Anyone who so much as lifted a toe out of the accepted "party line" was immediately put back into place. I used to think that was such a great sign of intellectual weakness.
I suppose I haven't been alive long enough to really draw a correlation here, but maybe that is what parties who are out of power do. They retract into a shell, where they coalesce around their more radical ideas and shun anyone who speaks of compromise. Even when they are out of power, they become more ridiculous, more insular, and more radical. Which, intuitively, would make them STAY out of power if everyone voted like me. But I guess what they are doing is waiting until the party that is IN power screws up badly enough that they win it back by default. I guess thats the state of our political system.
This insight was oddly comforting.
The problem is that over the last two years the GOP hasn't learned the lessons that I wanted them to learn. They've simply gone after the easy solutions and talking points and avoided the tough questions. The real issue Republicans should be grappling with is how we can efficiently reform our health care system...how can we reform medicare, can we privatize or reform social security? How can we moderate our foreign policy aims? These are all very, very tough questions. These questions would require very intelligent people to grapple with in an effective way. But instead of doing that, who do we have? Well, most prominently we have Sarah Palin.
She is a know-nothing, and she is a perfect metaphor for the entire GOP "revival" in the last two years. The new batch of tea-party Republicans know how to get votes by appealing to religion and xenophobia, but they have no real ideas. They've retrenched into the worst excesses of the Bush era but have learned none of the lessons of Bush's mistakes. They are going to waltz into power November 2nd, and suddenly realize how none of them has the intelligence or the political courage to even begin to come close to grappling with some of our serious problems. The most they will do is cut taxes for the wealthy and defund Obamacare - both of which will actually worsen our deficit woes. No doubt, it IS a big step backward. And this is NOT what I had in mind when I wanted to vote for Obama to teach the Republicans a lesson. They've learned all the wrong lessons.
Anyway, the main point of this article is this insight I had. I was thinking about how Mitch Daniels basically got the smack-down by the conservative establishment for proposing a value-added tax. A VAT or consumption tax would actually be a pretty effective tax because it would provide lots of revenue, could be manipulated to be progressive, but wouldn't penalize investment and saving. But anything with the word "tax" is anathema to today's conservatives, so Daniels got put in his place.
I was thinking to myself how sad it is that an entire political movement could have become so close minded and outright committed to group-think. But you know what? That is the exact same thing I thought about Democrats in 2005. I used to HATE reading progressive blogs because I found them nauseating. Anyone who so much as lifted a toe out of the accepted "party line" was immediately put back into place. I used to think that was such a great sign of intellectual weakness.
I suppose I haven't been alive long enough to really draw a correlation here, but maybe that is what parties who are out of power do. They retract into a shell, where they coalesce around their more radical ideas and shun anyone who speaks of compromise. Even when they are out of power, they become more ridiculous, more insular, and more radical. Which, intuitively, would make them STAY out of power if everyone voted like me. But I guess what they are doing is waiting until the party that is IN power screws up badly enough that they win it back by default. I guess thats the state of our political system.
This insight was oddly comforting.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Enjoy your right to drive a car
Google has been successful in designing cars that drive themselves. I've believed for years that it is a matter of time before the average person can no longer legally drive. Here is how I foresee the chain of events:
1. Automated cars come on the market
2. Automated cars demonstrate vastly superior safety record and reduced accidents.
3. Insurance companies will think to themselves, "why should we insure a manual driver when we know automated cars have a near-perfect driving record?" Insurance costs will skyrocket for manual drivers.
4. At some point there will be a lawsuit involving a manual driver who errs and kills passengers in an automated car. Manual driver will be sued and lose the case. At that point, there will be legal precedent for suing every person who drives manually and makes a mistake.
5. Manual driving is made illegal by new legislation, or becomes de facto prohibited secondary to high costs and vulnerability in court.
Think about it this way: we used to let people drive and drink alcohol, right? At some point we recognized that driving under the influence of alcohol is significantly more dangerous than driving sober. Therefore, driving under the influence is illegal. Nobody will insure you if you drive drunk. You can go to jail if you drive drunk. What happens when we find that driving manual is significantly more dangerous than letting the computer drive? Probably the same thing.
I look forward to this inevitable outcome, and you should too. There are tons of advantages to a fleet of automated cars:
-Smoother traffic. Computer models have shown that traffic jams are due to sub-optimal spacing between cars that cause slight fluctuations in speed; these fluctuations ripple backward through traffic and amplify. Automated cars would never have this problem.
-Less traffic in cities. At any given time, a large percentage of traffic in a congested area is represented by drivers who are circling and looking for a parking spot. The computers of automated cars could automatically located the closest empty spot and drive straight to it, reducing the overall traffic load. Alternatively, the car could drop the passenger off at the destination and then drive to a nearby lot to wait until the passenger needs pick-up.
-No need to stop at red lights. Automated cars could perfectly time passage such that we travel through intersections seamlessly from all ways without slowing down. This might be a little harrowing at first, I'll admit.
-Faster average driving speeds, since the automated driver won't make mistakes.
-More relaxed travel. Instead of fighting traffic and dealing with road raging psychos, we could catch up on our reading, watch movies, or nap.
-Tens of thousands of people won't die in auto accidents every year.
I will finish this with a funny college humor article: what if Google released Skynet?. FYI, "Skynet" is the sentient artificial intelligence in the Terminator movies that attempts to destroy humanity.
1. Automated cars come on the market
2. Automated cars demonstrate vastly superior safety record and reduced accidents.
3. Insurance companies will think to themselves, "why should we insure a manual driver when we know automated cars have a near-perfect driving record?" Insurance costs will skyrocket for manual drivers.
4. At some point there will be a lawsuit involving a manual driver who errs and kills passengers in an automated car. Manual driver will be sued and lose the case. At that point, there will be legal precedent for suing every person who drives manually and makes a mistake.
5. Manual driving is made illegal by new legislation, or becomes de facto prohibited secondary to high costs and vulnerability in court.
Think about it this way: we used to let people drive and drink alcohol, right? At some point we recognized that driving under the influence of alcohol is significantly more dangerous than driving sober. Therefore, driving under the influence is illegal. Nobody will insure you if you drive drunk. You can go to jail if you drive drunk. What happens when we find that driving manual is significantly more dangerous than letting the computer drive? Probably the same thing.
I look forward to this inevitable outcome, and you should too. There are tons of advantages to a fleet of automated cars:
-Smoother traffic. Computer models have shown that traffic jams are due to sub-optimal spacing between cars that cause slight fluctuations in speed; these fluctuations ripple backward through traffic and amplify. Automated cars would never have this problem.
-Less traffic in cities. At any given time, a large percentage of traffic in a congested area is represented by drivers who are circling and looking for a parking spot. The computers of automated cars could automatically located the closest empty spot and drive straight to it, reducing the overall traffic load. Alternatively, the car could drop the passenger off at the destination and then drive to a nearby lot to wait until the passenger needs pick-up.
-No need to stop at red lights. Automated cars could perfectly time passage such that we travel through intersections seamlessly from all ways without slowing down. This might be a little harrowing at first, I'll admit.
-Faster average driving speeds, since the automated driver won't make mistakes.
-More relaxed travel. Instead of fighting traffic and dealing with road raging psychos, we could catch up on our reading, watch movies, or nap.
-Tens of thousands of people won't die in auto accidents every year.
I will finish this with a funny college humor article: what if Google released Skynet?. FYI, "Skynet" is the sentient artificial intelligence in the Terminator movies that attempts to destroy humanity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)