I find Juan Cole's blog extremely useful and have a very very high opinion of Cole. However, Idon't always agree with him. For me, disagreement with Juan Cole is so rare that it sticks in my mind and bothers me.
Just now, before opening his blog, I was puzzled as to why we disagree about the Iraqi 3 man presidency, which is designed to protect ethnic and religious minorities from possible tyranny of the Shi'ite Arab majority. Like Cole, I would have proposed a bicameral parliament with an upper house which over represented small population gorvernates. In fact, I used the "ask Sistani" link to ask Sistani if that would be ok with him (he didn't answer). However, the presidency seems to be another means to the same end. It even sounds more democratic since the 2 sub presidents are the 1st and 2nd runner up in the vote (in parliament).
Cole thinks that an executive made of a 2 person presidency and a prime minister would be unwieldy. I'm not sure given the role of the president in a parliamentary republic. The president in a parliamentary republic acts like a constitutional monarch. The main choice of the president or monarch is who to propose to parliament as prime minister. This is a very important role if the parliament is highly divided. Another role is partly ceremonial and symbolic. representing the unity, or in this case the diversity, of the country. That is the president has great powers which are to be used very vrey rarely, basically only when the constitution is threatened. A 3 person presidency which can only act if unanimous seems to me to be exactly the right body to act very rarely. I don't want to go overboard, but it seems to me that the 3 person presidency is an excellent institution suited to Iraq and many other countries. My only regret is that I didin't think of it.
Anyway, the fact that I am troubled by the fact that Cole disagrees shows how much I respect him.
The patient reader will have guessed that I am about to disagree with Cole in a less obsequious way.
I think his interpretation of the recent poll of British moslems is marred by dishonest special pleading. Cole notes that "The two most sensational findings are that about 12% of British Muslims say they support the attack on the US of September 11 (and think further such attacks could be justified) and that 47 % of them said that if they were Palestinians they would consider becoming suicide bombers. " but argues that this is consistent with the title of his post "British Muslims Abandoning Labor;
In Poll Show Mainstream European Attitudes."
The example of mainstream Europeans with mixed opinions about 9/11 is a poll of Italians. I didn't notice the poll when it was published and I am amazed and suspicious of the results. I live in Italy and I certainly didn't notice any ambivilance in the reaction to 9/11.
Still I am willing to accept Cole's argument that 12% twisted sickos is about average for any population. I am less convinced by his argument that many UK moslems don't know what happened on September 11th, which seems to me totally incredible and is unsupported by any evidence.
My main objection is to his argument about the more shocking 47% result. I actually object strongly because he describes the result in two contradictory ways. : "47 % of them said that if they were Palestinians they would consider becoming suicide bombers. " when presenting it and "the poll found that 47% could imagine themselves becoming suicide bombers if they were Palestinians" when analysing and downplaying it. "Consider" and "imagine" are different words with different meanings. In this case, the substitution of "imagine" for "consider" changes the meaning of the question substantially. There is no justifucation for substituting "imagine" for "consider". I think it is dishonest to do so.
The phrasing "And almost half said they might consider becoming a suicide bomber if they lived as a Palestinian" is from an article by James Lyons to which cole links.
I did not find the word "imagine" in the news stories to which Cole links.
Now I was interested and somewhat sympathetic to Cole's argument that hypothetical questions can be trick questions. To understand the poll, as presented by Cole, one has to understand what "were" means. This is not like understanding the difference between "consider" and "imagine". In particular, how am I to guess what I would consider doing if I were a Palistinian. This is not imagining what I would do under certain circumstances but also imainging what sort of person I would be if I were a different person.
The interpretation of the poll would be much simpler if the pollsters had used the idiom "would you consider becoming a suicide bomber if you were in a Palistinians shoes". That is, the question should make clear that it is asking what the actual polled non Palistinian person would do under the circumstances of being a stateless person in the occupied territories.
Here again there is, I'm sorry to say, a question of simple honesty. The question as presented by Lyons does not include the word "were" but rather "lived as" which is much much clearer. I can't find the exact phrasing of the question, but I assume that Cole's understanding of the question is based on Lyons' article so he should have quoted Lyon's paraphrase of the pollsters instead of paraphasing it further.
Still, I agree that it is possible that some respondents interpreted the question as "what would you do if you were transported into the womb of a Palistinian woman in say 1970 then born and bred a Palistiniam" which seemst to me roughly equivilant to "do you think most Palistinians consider becoming suicide bombers". By the way my answer to that question is no.
I think it is much more reasonable to interpret the question as "what would you do if you were transported to the occupied territories and deprived of UK citizenship". That is the question that a reasonable Pollster would ask, and, I think it was, by far, the most common interpretation of the not perfectly clear question.
Anyway this question, what does were mean, is a hard question and, although I don't agree with Cole, I don't consider his argument dishonest.
I guess mainly I am very very disturbed by the "consider" to "imagine" shift.
Tuesday, March 16, 2004
Saturday, March 13, 2004
Columnist Corrections Corrected [corrected again March 16]
Published: March 13, 2004
This page has been created to prove a point; not to in any way, shape, or form claim to be an official Robert Cox article. I mainly note that Cox has not followed the NYT rules for corrections. He repeatedly repeats the error in the correction.
"Mirror Site"- alles correspondance auf Deutsch bitte
kate@downtime.templeofhate.com
"another Site" - correspondenza in italiano per favore.
David Brooks column entitled "Clash of Titans" from March 6, 2004 incorrectly described the percentage of Democratic party candidates whose "family had an upper-deck berth on the Mayflower" and the percentage of Republican Party candidates who own "a ranch the size of Oklahoma". Over the past forty years, the percentage of Democratic Party nominees for President were descendents of the original Pilgrims who settled the Massachusetts colony is 0%. The percentage of Republican party nominees for President who have ever owned a ranch the size of Oklahoma is 0%.
A Paul Krugman column entitled "Social Security Scares" from March 5, 2005 stated the Social Security Administration's 2003 Social Security and Medicare Trustees Reports showed "a system in pretty good financial shape". The SSA Trustees Report describes the fundamentals of the financial status of Social Security as "highly problematic" and projects that trust funds will be exhausted in little more than two decades and will "not permit full payment of currently scheduled benefits." The Report states "Medicare's financial difficulties come sooner--and are more severe--than those confronting Social Security."
Look this is (relatively) serious, the Krugman article, available, like all his columns at http://www.pkarchive.org/, clearly explained that "pretty good financial shape" means that the Social Security shortfall can be covered with tax increases or benefit cuts which Krugman considers not terribly extreme. When Krugman wrote "the Bush tax cuts are a much bigger problem for the nation's fiscal future than the Social Security shortfall." he did not deny that there was a social security shortfall. For Krugman, being a smaller problem than the Bush tax cuts does not narrow things down much.
Krugman very clearly stresses the fact that the Medicare shortfall is much more serious than the social security shortfall "First, two words — "and Medicare" — make a huge difference. According to the Treasury study, only 16 percent of that $44 trillion shortfall comes from Social Security." and "Medicare, though often lumped in with Social Security, is a different program facing different problems." The column is perfectly consistent with Cox's quotations from the Trustees report.
Note the link in the mirror site is to an "abstract" of the column which was not written by Paul Krugman
Cox's "corrections" as well as his link strongly suggest that he has not read the column which he is "correcting". He might disagree with Krugman about what "pretty good shape" means, but he could not possibly have imagined that the observation that the Medicare trust fund is in much worse shape than the social security trust fund, which was very explicitly made in 8th line of the column, was a correction, if he had actually read the column which he criticizes. I'm all for freedom of speech but also note that it is sometimes freedom to make a fool of oneself.
• A William Safire column entitled "Found: A Smoking Gun" from February 11, 2004 incorrectly described the assertions about evidence concerning a possible link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq presented in an article, "U.S. Says Files Seek Qaeda Aid In Iraq Conflict", which ran in The New York Times the previous day. The article cited by Mr. Safire stated that the letter was not evidence of a link between al Qaeda and Ansar al-Islam. The same column also incorrectly described the affiliation of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Mr al-Zarqawi is the head of al-Tawhid, a citizen of Jordan, a Moslem, and a member of the al-Zarqawi family.
• A Paul Krugman column entitled "Our So-Called Boom" from December 30, 2003 concludes from recent economic data that "an unusually large number of people have given up looking for work." Employment data from the U.S. Department of Labor shows that the government's official measure of "discouraged workers", currently .32% has fluctuated between .15% and .45% over the past ten years. There is nothing unusual about the current rate of "discouraged workers".
It goes without saying that the only possible interpretation of the ordinary English phrase "people have given up looking for work" is that it is identical to the technical term "discouraged workers". Needless to say, the fact that the two phrases consist of different words would not lead any honest person to imagine that they might have different meanings, or even that Krugman might honestly believe that the definition of "discouraged workers" is overly restrictive.
• A William Safire column entitled "Missing Links Found" from November 23, 2003 incorrectly assessed the extent to which two articles in The Weekly Standard based on a leaked memo are a crock of shit. The Pentagon issued a public statement which declared that reports claiming that the new information proved there had been contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraq "are inaccurate." OK OK the NYT style sheet would suggest phrasing "a container of fecal material" but hey give me a break.
• A Maureen Dowd column entitled "Bewitched, Bothered, Billy-Goated" from November 16, 2003 quoted Rep. George Nethercutt (R-WA) out of context regarding media coverage of Iraq. The quotation was taken from Mr. Nethercutt's remarks to a Seattle-Post Intelligencer reporter. The full text of his remarks follows: "So the story is better than we might be led to believe in the news. I'm just indicting the news people. But it's, it's, it's a bigger and better and more important story than losing a couple of soldiers every day, which, which heaven forbid, is awful." The use of the partial quotation created the arguable impression that Mr. Nethercutt was indifferent to the death of American soldiers in Iraq and realised at the last moment that he had better not admit it.
• A Paul Krugman column entitled "This Can't Go On" from November 4, 2003 quoted Rep. George Nethercutt (R-WA) out of context regarding media coverage of Iraq. The quotation was taken from Mr. Nethercutt's remarks to a Seattle-Post Intelligencer reporter. The full text of his remarks follows: "So the story is better than we might be led to believe in the news. I'm just indicting the news people. But it's, it's, it's a bigger and better and more important story than losing a couple of soldiers every day, which, which heaven forbid, is awful." The use of the partial quotation created the arguable impression that Mr. Nethercutt was indifferent to the death of American soldiers in Iraq and realised at the last moment that he had better not admit it.
• A Maureen Dowd column entitled "Osama's Offspring" from May 14th, 2003 quoted President Bush out of context regarding the threat posed by al-Qaeda terrorists. The quotation was taken from the president's May 5 remarks in Little Rock. The full text of his remarks follows: "That group of terrorists who attacked our country is slowly, but surely, being decimated. Right now, about half of all the top al-Qaeda operatives are either jailed or dead. In either case, they're not a problem anymore." The use of the partial quotation created the false impression that the president was dismissing the threat posed by al-Qaeda as a whole rather than its members who had been killed or apprehended. It also suggested that the president doesn't know what decimated means.
The Times does not welcome information about errors that call for correction in columns written by Times' Op-Ed columnists. Since The New York Times refuses to hold their columnists to any standard of accuracy, The National Debate has taken upon itself to offer this Supplemental Corrections Page for New York Times readers.
Unfortunately, the NYT has also threatened to sue Robert Cox at The National Debate for trade mark infringement in a disgraceful assault on freedom of communication. Much less importantly, Robert Cox neglected to follow NYT policy to never repeat the error in a correction. Medium importantly, Cox completely mischaracterised Paul Krugman's column "Social Security Scares" and did not link to the column as written by Krugman but rather to an abstract written by someone else.
Published: March 13, 2004
This page has been created to prove a point; not to in any way, shape, or form claim to be an official Robert Cox article. I mainly note that Cox has not followed the NYT rules for corrections. He repeatedly repeats the error in the correction.
"Mirror Site"- alles correspondance auf Deutsch bitte
kate@downtime.templeofhate.com
"another Site" - correspondenza in italiano per favore.
David Brooks column entitled "Clash of Titans" from March 6, 2004 incorrectly described the percentage of Democratic party candidates whose "family had an upper-deck berth on the Mayflower" and the percentage of Republican Party candidates who own "a ranch the size of Oklahoma". Over the past forty years, the percentage of Democratic Party nominees for President were descendents of the original Pilgrims who settled the Massachusetts colony is 0%. The percentage of Republican party nominees for President who have ever owned a ranch the size of Oklahoma is 0%.
A Paul Krugman column entitled "Social Security Scares" from March 5, 2005 stated the Social Security Administration's 2003 Social Security and Medicare Trustees Reports showed "a system in pretty good financial shape". The SSA Trustees Report describes the fundamentals of the financial status of Social Security as "highly problematic" and projects that trust funds will be exhausted in little more than two decades and will "not permit full payment of currently scheduled benefits." The Report states "Medicare's financial difficulties come sooner--and are more severe--than those confronting Social Security."
Look this is (relatively) serious, the Krugman article, available, like all his columns at http://www.pkarchive.org/, clearly explained that "pretty good financial shape" means that the Social Security shortfall can be covered with tax increases or benefit cuts which Krugman considers not terribly extreme. When Krugman wrote "the Bush tax cuts are a much bigger problem for the nation's fiscal future than the Social Security shortfall." he did not deny that there was a social security shortfall. For Krugman, being a smaller problem than the Bush tax cuts does not narrow things down much.
Krugman very clearly stresses the fact that the Medicare shortfall is much more serious than the social security shortfall "First, two words — "and Medicare" — make a huge difference. According to the Treasury study, only 16 percent of that $44 trillion shortfall comes from Social Security." and "Medicare, though often lumped in with Social Security, is a different program facing different problems." The column is perfectly consistent with Cox's quotations from the Trustees report.
Note the link in the mirror site is to an "abstract" of the column which was not written by Paul Krugman
Cox's "corrections" as well as his link strongly suggest that he has not read the column which he is "correcting". He might disagree with Krugman about what "pretty good shape" means, but he could not possibly have imagined that the observation that the Medicare trust fund is in much worse shape than the social security trust fund, which was very explicitly made in 8th line of the column, was a correction, if he had actually read the column which he criticizes. I'm all for freedom of speech but also note that it is sometimes freedom to make a fool of oneself.
• A William Safire column entitled "Found: A Smoking Gun" from February 11, 2004 incorrectly described the assertions about evidence concerning a possible link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq presented in an article, "U.S. Says Files Seek Qaeda Aid In Iraq Conflict", which ran in The New York Times the previous day. The article cited by Mr. Safire stated that the letter was not evidence of a link between al Qaeda and Ansar al-Islam. The same column also incorrectly described the affiliation of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Mr al-Zarqawi is the head of al-Tawhid, a citizen of Jordan, a Moslem, and a member of the al-Zarqawi family.
• A Paul Krugman column entitled "Our So-Called Boom" from December 30, 2003 concludes from recent economic data that "an unusually large number of people have given up looking for work." Employment data from the U.S. Department of Labor shows that the government's official measure of "discouraged workers", currently .32% has fluctuated between .15% and .45% over the past ten years. There is nothing unusual about the current rate of "discouraged workers".
It goes without saying that the only possible interpretation of the ordinary English phrase "people have given up looking for work" is that it is identical to the technical term "discouraged workers". Needless to say, the fact that the two phrases consist of different words would not lead any honest person to imagine that they might have different meanings, or even that Krugman might honestly believe that the definition of "discouraged workers" is overly restrictive.
• A William Safire column entitled "Missing Links Found" from November 23, 2003 incorrectly assessed the extent to which two articles in The Weekly Standard based on a leaked memo are a crock of shit. The Pentagon issued a public statement which declared that reports claiming that the new information proved there had been contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraq "are inaccurate." OK OK the NYT style sheet would suggest phrasing "a container of fecal material" but hey give me a break.
• A Maureen Dowd column entitled "Bewitched, Bothered, Billy-Goated" from November 16, 2003 quoted Rep. George Nethercutt (R-WA) out of context regarding media coverage of Iraq. The quotation was taken from Mr. Nethercutt's remarks to a Seattle-Post Intelligencer reporter. The full text of his remarks follows: "So the story is better than we might be led to believe in the news. I'm just indicting the news people. But it's, it's, it's a bigger and better and more important story than losing a couple of soldiers every day, which, which heaven forbid, is awful." The use of the partial quotation created the arguable impression that Mr. Nethercutt was indifferent to the death of American soldiers in Iraq and realised at the last moment that he had better not admit it.
• A Paul Krugman column entitled "This Can't Go On" from November 4, 2003 quoted Rep. George Nethercutt (R-WA) out of context regarding media coverage of Iraq. The quotation was taken from Mr. Nethercutt's remarks to a Seattle-Post Intelligencer reporter. The full text of his remarks follows: "So the story is better than we might be led to believe in the news. I'm just indicting the news people. But it's, it's, it's a bigger and better and more important story than losing a couple of soldiers every day, which, which heaven forbid, is awful." The use of the partial quotation created the arguable impression that Mr. Nethercutt was indifferent to the death of American soldiers in Iraq and realised at the last moment that he had better not admit it.
• A Maureen Dowd column entitled "Osama's Offspring" from May 14th, 2003 quoted President Bush out of context regarding the threat posed by al-Qaeda terrorists. The quotation was taken from the president's May 5 remarks in Little Rock. The full text of his remarks follows: "That group of terrorists who attacked our country is slowly, but surely, being decimated. Right now, about half of all the top al-Qaeda operatives are either jailed or dead. In either case, they're not a problem anymore." The use of the partial quotation created the false impression that the president was dismissing the threat posed by al-Qaeda as a whole rather than its members who had been killed or apprehended. It also suggested that the president doesn't know what decimated means.
The Times does not welcome information about errors that call for correction in columns written by Times' Op-Ed columnists. Since The New York Times refuses to hold their columnists to any standard of accuracy, The National Debate has taken upon itself to offer this Supplemental Corrections Page for New York Times readers.
Unfortunately, the NYT has also threatened to sue Robert Cox at The National Debate for trade mark infringement in a disgraceful assault on freedom of communication. Much less importantly, Robert Cox neglected to follow NYT policy to never repeat the error in a correction. Medium importantly, Cox completely mischaracterised Paul Krugman's column "Social Security Scares" and did not link to the column as written by Krugman but rather to an abstract written by someone else.
Thursday, March 11, 2004
Where are Gilbert and Sullivan when you need them ?
Senate Sergeant at arms William Pickle has been assigned the task of investigating the leak of an unredacted
copy of his report on leaks of confidential Democratic e-mails from the Senate judiciary committee. A sergeant at arms' work is never done. I assume he fears that he will soon have to investigate the leak of an unredacted copy of his report on the leak of the unredacted copy of his report on leaks of confidential Democratic e-mails from the Senate judiciary committee and so ad infinitum or, thankfully for him, until he reaches retirement age.
Senate Sergeant at arms William Pickle has been assigned the task of investigating the leak of an unredacted
copy of his report on leaks of confidential Democratic e-mails from the Senate judiciary committee. A sergeant at arms' work is never done. I assume he fears that he will soon have to investigate the leak of an unredacted copy of his report on the leak of the unredacted copy of his report on leaks of confidential Democratic e-mails from the Senate judiciary committee and so ad infinitum or, thankfully for him, until he reaches retirement age.
Sunday, March 07, 2004
Autoimmune thrombocytopenic purpura (AITP) is, at least in large part due to antibodies directed against the alphaIIbbeta3 integrin. Such anti-alphaIIbbeta3 autoantibodies could be cleared from the blood by asialo galactosilated solubilized alphaIIbbeta3 integrin or by alpha3-galactosylated solubilized alphaIIbbeta3 integrin. this is a potential theraputic approach to AITP-
Saturday, March 06, 2004
I am quitting the Ayatollah Sistani fan club. After fighting for democracy and against fake caucuses he seems to have switched to blocking signing of the Iraqi basic law in order to support tyranny of the majority. After meeting with him, SCIRI delegates refused to sign the document as reported in the New York Times
"The [5]Shiite leaders are objecting to two parts of the constitution. They say they want to get rid of a provision that would allow a minority of Iraqi voters to reject a permanent constitution. According to the document now in dispute, the constitution will go before Iraqis in a nationwide referendum. If a majority of Iraqis approve it, it will become permanent, unless two-thirds of the voters in three Iraqi provinces reject it. In that case, the constitution would go down to defeat.
The Shiite leaders, who represent a majority of Iraqis, want to delete the provision that would allow the three provinces, called governerates, to defeat the constitution.
The Shiite leaders are also seeking an expansion of the powers of the presidency. Under the proposed constitution, the national assembly would choose a president and two deputy presidents, who would choose a prime minister by an unanimous vote.
Shiite leaders said they want to either increase the number of presidents and deputies to five, or they simply want to expand the powers of the single presidency. "
The 3 president, presidency was designed as the principal protection against tyranny o fhte Shiite majority.
I think this is very bad news. I suspect that Sistani's stated belief that clergyman should stay out of politics (made when Saddam Hussein was in power) had at least as much to do with Sistani's eagerness to stay out of his grave as with his true beliefs.
"The [5]Shiite leaders are objecting to two parts of the constitution. They say they want to get rid of a provision that would allow a minority of Iraqi voters to reject a permanent constitution. According to the document now in dispute, the constitution will go before Iraqis in a nationwide referendum. If a majority of Iraqis approve it, it will become permanent, unless two-thirds of the voters in three Iraqi provinces reject it. In that case, the constitution would go down to defeat.
The Shiite leaders, who represent a majority of Iraqis, want to delete the provision that would allow the three provinces, called governerates, to defeat the constitution.
The Shiite leaders are also seeking an expansion of the powers of the presidency. Under the proposed constitution, the national assembly would choose a president and two deputy presidents, who would choose a prime minister by an unanimous vote.
Shiite leaders said they want to either increase the number of presidents and deputies to five, or they simply want to expand the powers of the single presidency. "
The 3 president, presidency was designed as the principal protection against tyranny o fhte Shiite majority.
I think this is very bad news. I suspect that Sistani's stated belief that clergyman should stay out of politics (made when Saddam Hussein was in power) had at least as much to do with Sistani's eagerness to stay out of his grave as with his true beliefs.
Someone is in a Pickle
I could not make this up.
Joint Statement
Of Senate Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch, (R-Utah)
And Ranking Member Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.)
On the Release of the Pickle Report
“Due to an administrative error, the unredacted version of the Senate Sergeant At Arms Report was mistakenly released to the media Thursday afternoon.
link
The report, of course, concerns the reading of Democrat's private computer files by Republican hackers. Thus it concerns improper access to sensitive information.
My guess is that some sly staffer is trying to convince reporters that the whole problem is just that people at the Senate Judiciary Committee are clueless about security privacy and secrecy.
I could not make this up.
Joint Statement
Of Senate Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch, (R-Utah)
And Ranking Member Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.)
On the Release of the Pickle Report
“Due to an administrative error, the unredacted version of the Senate Sergeant At Arms Report was mistakenly released to the media Thursday afternoon.
link
The report, of course, concerns the reading of Democrat's private computer files by Republican hackers. Thus it concerns improper access to sensitive information.
My guess is that some sly staffer is trying to convince reporters that the whole problem is just that people at the Senate Judiciary Committee are clueless about security privacy and secrecy.
More on the 2.4 trillion dollar sure thing.
Brad notes that John Quiggen says the S-word.
Actually Brad et al said the S word a while ago discussing open market operations in the stock market in
J. Bradford De Long, Andrei Shleifer, Lawrence H. Summers, and Robert J. Waldmann (1989) "The Size and incidence of the Losses From Noise Trading," Journal of Finance vol 44 pp 681-96 (July 1989).
Now one problem with the SSTF making a killing investing in stock is that massive purchases would drive up prices eliminating the puzzling premium, that is, driving the stock premium down to a reasonable level for a representative agent or a deep pockets long lived agent like the SSTF. In particular jumps in stock prices when the plan is unsecretly discussed, proposed and passed by congress would give windfall capital gains to investors. Uncertainty about the plans prospects would add risk.
I think there should be a simple way to deal with this. bundle the plan to buy a lot of stock with a plan to penalize stock relative to bonds. This way the combined policy would have (roughly) no effect on stock prices.
So we would need a way to penalize stock relative to bonds. How about double taxation of dividends ?
Works for me.
Ah from Feldstein to creeping socialism aided by reintroducing double taxation of dividends in less than 10 posts.
Not to mention from "the Lindsey Feldstein,Samwick plan to "Clinton's proposed diversification of the social security fund".
Brad notes that John Quiggen says the S-word.
Actually Brad et al said the S word a while ago discussing open market operations in the stock market in
J. Bradford De Long, Andrei Shleifer, Lawrence H. Summers, and Robert J. Waldmann (1989) "The Size and incidence of the Losses From Noise Trading," Journal of Finance vol 44 pp 681-96 (July 1989).
Now one problem with the SSTF making a killing investing in stock is that massive purchases would drive up prices eliminating the puzzling premium, that is, driving the stock premium down to a reasonable level for a representative agent or a deep pockets long lived agent like the SSTF. In particular jumps in stock prices when the plan is unsecretly discussed, proposed and passed by congress would give windfall capital gains to investors. Uncertainty about the plans prospects would add risk.
I think there should be a simple way to deal with this. bundle the plan to buy a lot of stock with a plan to penalize stock relative to bonds. This way the combined policy would have (roughly) no effect on stock prices.
So we would need a way to penalize stock relative to bonds. How about double taxation of dividends ?
Works for me.
Ah from Feldstein to creeping socialism aided by reintroducing double taxation of dividends in less than 10 posts.
Not to mention from "the Lindsey Feldstein,Samwick plan to "Clinton's proposed diversification of the social security fund".
Thursday, March 04, 2004
I agree with Mark Schmitt the Decembris and Brad Delong that David Brooks needs to spend more time with his family. Brooks wrote
" [Senator John] Edwards deserves some praise because he is the only major candidate who talks consistently about the poor. The problem is that he talks about poverty in an obsolete way, which suggests he has learned nothing from the past 40 years.
Edwards talks about poverty in economic terms. He vows to bring jobs back to poor areas and restrict trade to protect industries. He suggests that if we could take money from the rich and special interests, there'd be more for the underprivileged.
This kind of talk is descended from Marxist theory, which holds that we live in the thrall of economic conditions. What the poor primarily need is more money, the theory goes."
which should be enought to disqualify him from writing op eds. This post is a bloated comment to Brad's post and begins with a reply to a commenter who wrote.
"Here's another definition of poverty: Even given the means of providing material needs or comfort, the poverty-striken would still find ways of squandering their newfound means thereby reverting to their "ground" state of having no means."
Posted by Lawrence at March 4, 2004 07:20 AM
Lawrence: You write about what would happen to the "poverty striken" sic. Do you mean each and every one of them ? If not your argument does not follow. If so, you are crazy. Some people, for example, Andrei Shleifer, have been poor and dependent on public and private assistance for reasons unrelated to fecklessness (believe me you have probably never met such an unfeckless person).
Brooks argument that the it is wrong to think that "take money from the rich ... and there would be more for the underprivileged" is a very very extreme statement. All estimates of dead weight losses from taxes and transfers imply that the underpriveleged get more if you tax the rich more and transfer. This shows that Brooks is not just extreme but also inumerate as he seems not to realize that there are numbers less than one and more than zero.
As noted by other commenters, Brooks characterization of Edwards' proposals (in the quoted passage) is so brief that it is not even a travesty.
His idea of what we learned in the past 40 years describes a shift in ideologoical fashion not the result of examination of evidence. What convinces Brooks that undesirable side effects of the earned income credit outweigh its desirable direct effects. All evidence suggests that the side effects are excellent almost better than the direct effects ? Or does he think that the EIC is not a transfer ?
Finally Brooks' idea that "Marxist theory" supports welfare shows ignorance or contempt for the facts. Marx definitely argued that nothing except for nationalization of the means of production would do any good for workers let alone the lumpens.
So Brooks should not work for the NYT, but it is reasonable for them to try to be balanced. There must be some right of center commentator who is not ignorant and dishonest. Brad proposes Brink Lindsey. I think Josh Chafetz and David Adsnik ares OK (they might consider themselves to be left of center). Any others ? It is hard to be a serious right of center commentator while to be right of center you almost have to defend the Bush administration. Still it should be possible.
" [Senator John] Edwards deserves some praise because he is the only major candidate who talks consistently about the poor. The problem is that he talks about poverty in an obsolete way, which suggests he has learned nothing from the past 40 years.
Edwards talks about poverty in economic terms. He vows to bring jobs back to poor areas and restrict trade to protect industries. He suggests that if we could take money from the rich and special interests, there'd be more for the underprivileged.
This kind of talk is descended from Marxist theory, which holds that we live in the thrall of economic conditions. What the poor primarily need is more money, the theory goes."
which should be enought to disqualify him from writing op eds. This post is a bloated comment to Brad's post and begins with a reply to a commenter who wrote.
"Here's another definition of poverty: Even given the means of providing material needs or comfort, the poverty-striken would still find ways of squandering their newfound means thereby reverting to their "ground" state of having no means."
Posted by Lawrence at March 4, 2004 07:20 AM
Lawrence: You write about what would happen to the "poverty striken" sic. Do you mean each and every one of them ? If not your argument does not follow. If so, you are crazy. Some people, for example, Andrei Shleifer, have been poor and dependent on public and private assistance for reasons unrelated to fecklessness (believe me you have probably never met such an unfeckless person).
Brooks argument that the it is wrong to think that "take money from the rich ... and there would be more for the underprivileged" is a very very extreme statement. All estimates of dead weight losses from taxes and transfers imply that the underpriveleged get more if you tax the rich more and transfer. This shows that Brooks is not just extreme but also inumerate as he seems not to realize that there are numbers less than one and more than zero.
As noted by other commenters, Brooks characterization of Edwards' proposals (in the quoted passage) is so brief that it is not even a travesty.
His idea of what we learned in the past 40 years describes a shift in ideologoical fashion not the result of examination of evidence. What convinces Brooks that undesirable side effects of the earned income credit outweigh its desirable direct effects. All evidence suggests that the side effects are excellent almost better than the direct effects ? Or does he think that the EIC is not a transfer ?
Finally Brooks' idea that "Marxist theory" supports welfare shows ignorance or contempt for the facts. Marx definitely argued that nothing except for nationalization of the means of production would do any good for workers let alone the lumpens.
So Brooks should not work for the NYT, but it is reasonable for them to try to be balanced. There must be some right of center commentator who is not ignorant and dishonest. Brad proposes Brink Lindsey. I think Josh Chafetz and David Adsnik ares OK (they might consider themselves to be left of center). Any others ? It is hard to be a serious right of center commentator while to be right of center you almost have to defend the Bush administration. Still it should be possible.
Wednesday, March 03, 2004
The post just below got a link from Brad
and so was visited by over 100 people (a lot for this blog). In case any come back for more, I will explain a little.
First I agree with Brad that the idea that the treasury can make a killing playing the stock market is separate from the issue of saving social security. Social security shortfalls have a present value in the trillions, so making a killing would help the social security administration, but one could as well
present the multi trillion dollar almost sure thing as a plan to fund socialized medicine or the expansion of the US empire or whatever.
The question is can the treasury make a lot of money without hurting private agents by selling a few more hundreds of billions of bonds and buying stock ?
Before getting (again) to the problems, I want to explain why this might be a good idea, or, more exactly, would have been a good idea if done in 1945. First there is the fact that in the postwar period, at least until the exuberant 90s, stock was a great buy for a huge deeper than deep pockets investor like the US treasury. The average return on stock was much higher than the average return on treasury bills. This is (or was) presumably a risk premium. Oddly if one looked only at aggregate data on market returns and consumption, it is (was) almost impossible to explain this risk premium (as pointed out by Mehra and Prescott). They worked a while ago when the Prescott et al approach to macroeconomics was to do microeconomics with a representative consumer.
The idea of a representative consumer is to assume that we are all equal so each has wealth income and consumption etc equal to average wealth income consumption etc.. Then assume we are rational and fiugre out what would happen. Such models are also used to guide policy by people who don't care at all about income distribution (including Prescott).
In a rational representative consumer model, assets should earn a risk premium if their return is positively correlated with average consumption. The idea is that a high average return isn't so great if it is especially high when we consume a lot and are not hungry and low when we consume little and are hungry. Oh the market return is the return on an index fund. It should be the return on an index fund of all listed stocks.
Oddly the market return is almost perfectly uncorrelated with consumption ?!? This is very odd and implies that, unless the representative consumer is incredibly risk averse, stocks were (are) under-priced. That the average person would be better off buying more stock. This is also true for someone with a long time horizon. The return on stock over *all* long periods was better than the return on treasury bonds.
The reader (if any) will have noticed many parentheses. The reason is that, while it seems clear that the market was under-priced from 1945 to say 1980 at least, it is not at all clear that it is still under-priced. In fact, part of the 90s bull market might have been a correction of this mistake.
OK so why is (was) the stock market undervalued ?
1) One possible reason is that people systematically underestimate(d) the returns on stock, that is, that they are (were) systematically irrationally pessimistic.
2) Another possibility is that people don't (didn't) know to invest. The risk on a portfolio of only one or a few stocks is much greater than the risk on a diversified market portfolio. Indeed with time people began investing in index funds and the aggregate price earnings ratio rose.
3) the representative stock owner is different from the representative consumer. In the period studied by Mehra and Prescott almost all of the stock market risk was born by very few people. about 50% of individually owned shares were owned by 1% of people. More importantly almost all pensions were defined benefit so the worker didn't need to care how the pension fund managers did. The correlation of food consumption with stock returns was higher for people who actually owned stock as shown by Campbell and Mankiw (yes the head of the CEA).
d) There might have been a "peso problem" a low risk of a catastrophic collapse of stock prices. This scared rational people but, in the event, it didn't happen. this means that the average return over the period would be a very bad estimate of the expected (ex ante average) return.
Imagine that we are back in say 1955 (predictions are hard especially about the future). For a utilitarian, it would have been a good idea for the treasury to sell more bonds and buy stock. This is true for any of the theories of the stock premium listed above.
1) if people are irrational they are helped by removing (part) of their consumer sovereignty. If people would serve their own interests by buying stock, forcing them to hold stock as citizens is in their interest. One key question is whether people would eliminate the public program by buying less stock personally. I think this is silly. I think it is clear that people don't keep track of what the government is doing on their behalf. Also brokerage fees would keep many people at 0 personal stock holding.
2) the plan would force people (as citizens) to hold a diversified portfolio.
3) the plan would make all people (as citizens) shareholders spreading the risk. The risk was strangely concentrated. Again the strange concentration of share ownership could have been due to brokerage fees etc.
4) A catastrophic lasting collapse of share prices (a in 1929) would happen exactly when the govt should run a huge deficit. If there was such a risk, the plan would serve as an automatic stabilizer.
I really think that the government could have changed the path of consumption in a way which increased expected utility of almost everyone by selling more bonds and buying stock. Thus I think it could have spent more on say health care and left the path of private consumption one that gave higher utility too.
The problems are.
a) First it is easy to predict the past. Maybe the great opportunity has passed now that price earnings ratios have increased. Maybe the stock premium is now what it would be if there were a rational representative agent.
b) if the treasury is required to buy all stocks proportional to their market capitalization there is a chance for fraud (see the 2 cows joke below)
c) if some bureaucrat is allowed to pick stocks there is a huge risk (certainty?) of corruption.
d) if individuals are allowed to pick stocks (as in the Bush admin proposal) and to chose to not pick stocks at all the whole thing doesn't work at all.
I think a is the key thing. I have to admit that, even though I just argued that stocks are a great buy, I personally don't own any and have a defined benefit pension.
and so was visited by over 100 people (a lot for this blog). In case any come back for more, I will explain a little.
First I agree with Brad that the idea that the treasury can make a killing playing the stock market is separate from the issue of saving social security. Social security shortfalls have a present value in the trillions, so making a killing would help the social security administration, but one could as well
present the multi trillion dollar almost sure thing as a plan to fund socialized medicine or the expansion of the US empire or whatever.
The question is can the treasury make a lot of money without hurting private agents by selling a few more hundreds of billions of bonds and buying stock ?
Before getting (again) to the problems, I want to explain why this might be a good idea, or, more exactly, would have been a good idea if done in 1945. First there is the fact that in the postwar period, at least until the exuberant 90s, stock was a great buy for a huge deeper than deep pockets investor like the US treasury. The average return on stock was much higher than the average return on treasury bills. This is (or was) presumably a risk premium. Oddly if one looked only at aggregate data on market returns and consumption, it is (was) almost impossible to explain this risk premium (as pointed out by Mehra and Prescott). They worked a while ago when the Prescott et al approach to macroeconomics was to do microeconomics with a representative consumer.
The idea of a representative consumer is to assume that we are all equal so each has wealth income and consumption etc equal to average wealth income consumption etc.. Then assume we are rational and fiugre out what would happen. Such models are also used to guide policy by people who don't care at all about income distribution (including Prescott).
In a rational representative consumer model, assets should earn a risk premium if their return is positively correlated with average consumption. The idea is that a high average return isn't so great if it is especially high when we consume a lot and are not hungry and low when we consume little and are hungry. Oh the market return is the return on an index fund. It should be the return on an index fund of all listed stocks.
Oddly the market return is almost perfectly uncorrelated with consumption ?!? This is very odd and implies that, unless the representative consumer is incredibly risk averse, stocks were (are) under-priced. That the average person would be better off buying more stock. This is also true for someone with a long time horizon. The return on stock over *all* long periods was better than the return on treasury bonds.
The reader (if any) will have noticed many parentheses. The reason is that, while it seems clear that the market was under-priced from 1945 to say 1980 at least, it is not at all clear that it is still under-priced. In fact, part of the 90s bull market might have been a correction of this mistake.
OK so why is (was) the stock market undervalued ?
1) One possible reason is that people systematically underestimate(d) the returns on stock, that is, that they are (were) systematically irrationally pessimistic.
2) Another possibility is that people don't (didn't) know to invest. The risk on a portfolio of only one or a few stocks is much greater than the risk on a diversified market portfolio. Indeed with time people began investing in index funds and the aggregate price earnings ratio rose.
3) the representative stock owner is different from the representative consumer. In the period studied by Mehra and Prescott almost all of the stock market risk was born by very few people. about 50% of individually owned shares were owned by 1% of people. More importantly almost all pensions were defined benefit so the worker didn't need to care how the pension fund managers did. The correlation of food consumption with stock returns was higher for people who actually owned stock as shown by Campbell and Mankiw (yes the head of the CEA).
d) There might have been a "peso problem" a low risk of a catastrophic collapse of stock prices. This scared rational people but, in the event, it didn't happen. this means that the average return over the period would be a very bad estimate of the expected (ex ante average) return.
Imagine that we are back in say 1955 (predictions are hard especially about the future). For a utilitarian, it would have been a good idea for the treasury to sell more bonds and buy stock. This is true for any of the theories of the stock premium listed above.
1) if people are irrational they are helped by removing (part) of their consumer sovereignty. If people would serve their own interests by buying stock, forcing them to hold stock as citizens is in their interest. One key question is whether people would eliminate the public program by buying less stock personally. I think this is silly. I think it is clear that people don't keep track of what the government is doing on their behalf. Also brokerage fees would keep many people at 0 personal stock holding.
2) the plan would force people (as citizens) to hold a diversified portfolio.
3) the plan would make all people (as citizens) shareholders spreading the risk. The risk was strangely concentrated. Again the strange concentration of share ownership could have been due to brokerage fees etc.
4) A catastrophic lasting collapse of share prices (a in 1929) would happen exactly when the govt should run a huge deficit. If there was such a risk, the plan would serve as an automatic stabilizer.
I really think that the government could have changed the path of consumption in a way which increased expected utility of almost everyone by selling more bonds and buying stock. Thus I think it could have spent more on say health care and left the path of private consumption one that gave higher utility too.
The problems are.
a) First it is easy to predict the past. Maybe the great opportunity has passed now that price earnings ratios have increased. Maybe the stock premium is now what it would be if there were a rational representative agent.
b) if the treasury is required to buy all stocks proportional to their market capitalization there is a chance for fraud (see the 2 cows joke below)
c) if some bureaucrat is allowed to pick stocks there is a huge risk (certainty?) of corruption.
d) if individuals are allowed to pick stocks (as in the Bush admin proposal) and to chose to not pick stocks at all the whole thing doesn't work at all.
I think a is the key thing. I have to admit that, even though I just argued that stocks are a great buy, I personally don't own any and have a defined benefit pension.
Sunday, February 29, 2004
Now for something completely different. Do I (partly) agree with Martin Feldstein, Larry Lindsey and George W Bush ?
It seems that Bush was not dishonest when he suggested that private social security accounts could be part of a plan to save social security. He really believed something like that because Larry Lindsey told him and Lindsey got the idea form his old prof. Martin Feldstein (and a co-author). The idea was so crazy that it went no where in the Bush administration (and that is saying something). However, I am not sure I am totally convinced it is crazy.
Brad DeLong notes correctly that it doesn't really have anything to do with social security. The idea is that there is a multi trillion dollar sure thing for the US treasury -- issue treasury bonds and buy corporate bonds and stock. Some of the huge profits from this deal were to be used to save social security and others to give people who wanted private accounts to get higher returns.
One crude way to view this is that Bush and Lindsey bought into the bubble just as it was about to burst. The pressure for private accounts came from the idea that stock was a great buy, which, as usual became very strong at the peak of the bubble. The idea vanished as voters suddenly found stock scary again when the bubble burst.
However, the idea that stocks are, on average, underpriced has considerable support. The equity premium is a puzzle. The evidence is that, since WWII, Stocks have far out perform treasury bonds over every long period. Clearly most of the evidence is from some time ago. I think it is possible that investors just made a mistake and have since corrected it (so no more multi trillion dollar sure things). The mistake would not be simply hating stocks but rather failing to diversify and then correctly perceiving undiversified stock portfollios as highly risky.
I am perfectly willing to believe that Stock is still underpriced. I am also willing to believe that quality premia on bonds are too high. Now if I think people are making a mistake do I think the government should correct it by selling (safe) bonds and buying stock ? Sounds good to me.
One might argue that rational investors would shift their private portfollios from stock to treasury bonds to cancel the maneuver. I believe that rational investors are too few to matter.
So what would be the problem ? Well would someone at treasury decide which stocks to buy ? I don't trust any one team of people to be competent to do that and expect huge corruption. I think just about everyone agrees that it would be a bad idea. Actually I'm not sure about "just about everyone". For all I know all living human beings think that would be a bad idea.
OK so the plan has to be that the treasury buys say x% of all stock and corporate bonds. Here I see another problem. It is very nice to deal with someone who has to buy x% of your stuff no matter how much and how bad it is.
Let me put it this way. There are two cows. One belongs to Mr A and one to Ms B. A and B, who are very very rich,incorporate and issue shares in an IPO rating each cow as worth a billion dollars. They buy each other's shares. Treasury has to give each of them 100 million dollars for 10% of a cow.
Doesn't sound so good for the honest citizen. Still scams like this exist already, consider the case of Harkin energy or more recently Enron. There are semi sometimes enforceable rules about arms length transactions.
I personally think the treasury should issue even more t-bills and buy say 1% of stock and corporate bonds in the USA.
It seems that Bush was not dishonest when he suggested that private social security accounts could be part of a plan to save social security. He really believed something like that because Larry Lindsey told him and Lindsey got the idea form his old prof. Martin Feldstein (and a co-author). The idea was so crazy that it went no where in the Bush administration (and that is saying something). However, I am not sure I am totally convinced it is crazy.
Brad DeLong notes correctly that it doesn't really have anything to do with social security. The idea is that there is a multi trillion dollar sure thing for the US treasury -- issue treasury bonds and buy corporate bonds and stock. Some of the huge profits from this deal were to be used to save social security and others to give people who wanted private accounts to get higher returns.
One crude way to view this is that Bush and Lindsey bought into the bubble just as it was about to burst. The pressure for private accounts came from the idea that stock was a great buy, which, as usual became very strong at the peak of the bubble. The idea vanished as voters suddenly found stock scary again when the bubble burst.
However, the idea that stocks are, on average, underpriced has considerable support. The equity premium is a puzzle. The evidence is that, since WWII, Stocks have far out perform treasury bonds over every long period. Clearly most of the evidence is from some time ago. I think it is possible that investors just made a mistake and have since corrected it (so no more multi trillion dollar sure things). The mistake would not be simply hating stocks but rather failing to diversify and then correctly perceiving undiversified stock portfollios as highly risky.
I am perfectly willing to believe that Stock is still underpriced. I am also willing to believe that quality premia on bonds are too high. Now if I think people are making a mistake do I think the government should correct it by selling (safe) bonds and buying stock ? Sounds good to me.
One might argue that rational investors would shift their private portfollios from stock to treasury bonds to cancel the maneuver. I believe that rational investors are too few to matter.
So what would be the problem ? Well would someone at treasury decide which stocks to buy ? I don't trust any one team of people to be competent to do that and expect huge corruption. I think just about everyone agrees that it would be a bad idea. Actually I'm not sure about "just about everyone". For all I know all living human beings think that would be a bad idea.
OK so the plan has to be that the treasury buys say x% of all stock and corporate bonds. Here I see another problem. It is very nice to deal with someone who has to buy x% of your stuff no matter how much and how bad it is.
Let me put it this way. There are two cows. One belongs to Mr A and one to Ms B. A and B, who are very very rich,incorporate and issue shares in an IPO rating each cow as worth a billion dollars. They buy each other's shares. Treasury has to give each of them 100 million dollars for 10% of a cow.
Doesn't sound so good for the honest citizen. Still scams like this exist already, consider the case of Harkin energy or more recently Enron. There are semi sometimes enforceable rules about arms length transactions.
I personally think the treasury should issue even more t-bills and buy say 1% of stock and corporate bonds in the USA.
Saturday, February 28, 2004
Outdated update on FMA (Musgrave amendment)
Carl Levin hasn't posted a view recently. However, if he felt obliged to be consistent (hah) he would be against the FMA given his rejection of a proposed pro gay marriage amendment
July 21, 2003
Dear Ms. Blough,
Thank you for contacting me about the proposed Constitutional amendment relating to marriage. I appreciate hearing your views on the subject.
This issue was addressed through the Defense of Marriage Act (P.L.104-199), which was signed into law by President Clinton on September 21, 1996. I voted for this law because I support the continuation of the legal definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
In the history of our country, only 27 Constitutional amendments have been ratified, the first 10 of which were ratified as the Bill of Rights in 1791. Since then, despite the introduction of more than 11,000 Constitutional amendments in Congress and over 200 years of social, political and economic progress, the constitution has been amended only 17 additional times. James Madison, one of architects of the Constitution, wrote that constitutional amendments should be reserved for "great and extraordinary occasions." It does not require a constitutional amendment to afford legal protection to a civil union between persons of the same sex, an action which I favor.
Thanks again for writing.
Sincerely
Carl Levin
From
http://bunker.defcode.com/index.php?p=17&c=1
Carl Levin hasn't posted a view recently. However, if he felt obliged to be consistent (hah) he would be against the FMA given his rejection of a proposed pro gay marriage amendment
July 21, 2003
Dear Ms. Blough,
Thank you for contacting me about the proposed Constitutional amendment relating to marriage. I appreciate hearing your views on the subject.
This issue was addressed through the Defense of Marriage Act (P.L.104-199), which was signed into law by President Clinton on September 21, 1996. I voted for this law because I support the continuation of the legal definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
In the history of our country, only 27 Constitutional amendments have been ratified, the first 10 of which were ratified as the Bill of Rights in 1791. Since then, despite the introduction of more than 11,000 Constitutional amendments in Congress and over 200 years of social, political and economic progress, the constitution has been amended only 17 additional times. James Madison, one of architects of the Constitution, wrote that constitutional amendments should be reserved for "great and extraordinary occasions." It does not require a constitutional amendment to afford legal protection to a civil union between persons of the same sex, an action which I favor.
Thanks again for writing.
Sincerely
Carl Levin
From
http://bunker.defcode.com/index.php?p=17&c=1
Friday, February 27, 2004
Update on count on DOA Musgrave Amendment
Mikulski goes from cop out to Against
Maryland Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D), facing a re-election battle this year, said in a written statement: "A constitutional amendment is not about helping families. . . . It is an election-year ploy to divide and conquer. With our country at war in Iraq, we do not need a cultural war here at home."
Warner (R-VA) seems to be more or less maybe against
Warner, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, was cool toward Bush's proposal in a written statement: "Congress must proceed with great caution . . . any time it considers amending the Constitution." Virginia's senior senator has not stated an opinion on civil unions, his spokesman said.
and amazingly
George Allen Jr (R-VA) seems to be wavering
Allen is heading the GOP's Senate campaign effort this year, with Republicans running in several swing states in which the amendment may be unpopular.
Allen declined this week to be interviewed on the topic. But in a written statement about the president's declaration that the Massachusetts ruling requires immediate action, the senator said he was not convinced that an amendment is timely.
"I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. We must treat everyone during this important debate with dignity and respect while continuing to hold to our principles," Allen said. He said he would support an amendment only "if necessary, to protect the important institution of marriage."
listed as undecided I guess.
all from
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10508-2004Feb26.html
Mikulski goes from cop out to Against
Maryland Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D), facing a re-election battle this year, said in a written statement: "A constitutional amendment is not about helping families. . . . It is an election-year ploy to divide and conquer. With our country at war in Iraq, we do not need a cultural war here at home."
Warner (R-VA) seems to be more or less maybe against
Warner, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, was cool toward Bush's proposal in a written statement: "Congress must proceed with great caution . . . any time it considers amending the Constitution." Virginia's senior senator has not stated an opinion on civil unions, his spokesman said.
and amazingly
George Allen Jr (R-VA) seems to be wavering
Allen is heading the GOP's Senate campaign effort this year, with Republicans running in several swing states in which the amendment may be unpopular.
Allen declined this week to be interviewed on the topic. But in a written statement about the president's declaration that the Massachusetts ruling requires immediate action, the senator said he was not convinced that an amendment is timely.
"I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. We must treat everyone during this important debate with dignity and respect while continuing to hold to our principles," Allen said. He said he would support an amendment only "if necessary, to protect the important institution of marriage."
listed as undecided I guess.
all from
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10508-2004Feb26.html
My addition to the count on the DOA Musgrave amendment
The amendment appears to be dead. Josh Chafetz has counted 41 senators against (34 needed to block)
http://www.oxblog.blogspot.com/2004_02_22_oxblog_archive.html#107772059078594254
I add
Sarbanes against (up to 42)
Her counterpart, Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes (D-Md.), who also scored a 100 percent pro-gay voting record, released a statement to the Blade that he is opposed to proposed Constitutional amendments when a statutory approach would adequately serve the interests being advanced.?
From
http://www.washblade.com/2003/11-21/news/localnews/mostlymum.cfm
Mikulski cop out (up to 7)
Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.), who has a 100 percent pro-gay record in the 107th session of Congress, has declined to say where she stands.
Also from
http://www.washblade.com/2003/11-21/news/localnews/mostlymum.cfm
Byrd seems to be against (although the quote might be distorted by removal of context)
But state lawmakers aren't completely ready to embrace altering the Constitution.
The Defense of Marriage Act, approved by Congress in 1996, "addressed this issue at the federal level," Tom Gavin, a spokesman for Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., said.
from
http://www.dailymail.com/news/News/2004022552/display_story.php3?sid=2004022552&format=prn
Also there is at least a hint from a dead google link that Inouye is against
TheHawaiiChannel - KITV 4 News - Hawaii Congressional Delegation ... - [ Traduci questa pagina ]
... Inouye was particularly critical of Bush's stance on marriage ... the Union address that
he'd support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage if the ...
So up to 42 maybe 44.
Clearly Chafetz' list is very cautious. Chafetz does not count Akaka and Inouye as against. They voted against the much milder defence of marriage act which, among other things, didn't mess with the constitution.
Counting Akaka gets to 45. Looks like, if it ever came to a vote (unlikely) the amendment might not get a simple majority.
The amendment appears to be dead. Josh Chafetz has counted 41 senators against (34 needed to block)
http://www.oxblog.blogspot.com/2004_02_22_oxblog_archive.html#107772059078594254
I add
Sarbanes against (up to 42)
Her counterpart, Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes (D-Md.), who also scored a 100 percent pro-gay voting record, released a statement to the Blade that he is opposed to proposed Constitutional amendments when a statutory approach would adequately serve the interests being advanced.?
From
http://www.washblade.com/2003/11-21/news/localnews/mostlymum.cfm
Mikulski cop out (up to 7)
Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.), who has a 100 percent pro-gay record in the 107th session of Congress, has declined to say where she stands.
Also from
http://www.washblade.com/2003/11-21/news/localnews/mostlymum.cfm
Byrd seems to be against (although the quote might be distorted by removal of context)
But state lawmakers aren't completely ready to embrace altering the Constitution.
The Defense of Marriage Act, approved by Congress in 1996, "addressed this issue at the federal level," Tom Gavin, a spokesman for Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., said.
from
http://www.dailymail.com/news/News/2004022552/display_story.php3?sid=2004022552&format=prn
Also there is at least a hint from a dead google link that Inouye is against
TheHawaiiChannel - KITV 4 News - Hawaii Congressional Delegation ... - [ Traduci questa pagina ]
... Inouye was particularly critical of Bush's stance on marriage ... the Union address that
he'd support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage if the ...
So up to 42 maybe 44.
Clearly Chafetz' list is very cautious. Chafetz does not count Akaka and Inouye as against. They voted against the much milder defence of marriage act which, among other things, didn't mess with the constitution.
Counting Akaka gets to 45. Looks like, if it ever came to a vote (unlikely) the amendment might not get a simple majority.
The Amateur Lawyer
I am still thinking about the proposed amendment
"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."
Now I wonder if the second sentence implies state constitutions can not be construed as implying that All of the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon unmarried couples. If so, the second sentence would add little to the first.
The Massachusetts supreme judicial court might just say that all, but one, of the incidents had to be conferred on request to same gender couples who wished to form a civil union. Say all except the requirement to file tax returns jointly or as married filing separately. That would discriminate against opposite gender couples, but the court could say that opposite gendered couples too must be allowed to enter into civil unions and that currently married couples must be allowed a taxpayer funded no fault divorce.
I suppose the second sentence would mean that no law can require that any of the legal incidents of marriage be extended to unmarried couples or groups. Now that would add quite a bit to the first sentence. Many laws refer to "next of kin" which means spouse if there is one and otherwise someone else. Laws referring to next of kin extend some of the legal incidents of marriage to groups other than a married couple (right to make health related decisions for an unconscious patient, inheritance in the absence of a will etc etc). Would they all be unconstitutional ? Does that mean (in the vanishingly unlikely case that the amendment is passed and ratified) that whenever a single person dies without a will, the money goes to the government. Let's welcome the inheritance tax back, but this time it would be only for the non rich not only for the very rich.
Another legal incident of marriage is the right to refuse to reveal conversations letters etc. Such a right is also applied to the unmarried couple of a defendant and his lawyer. Would the amendment make attorney client confidentiality unconstitutional ?
I don't know and I don't want to find out.
One thing is clear; the word "construed" adds nothing and removes nothing. It might give some people the impression that the second sentence is aimed at judicial activism and not at legislation as such, but that is silly. Even if you know judicial activism when you see it, you can't define it and certainly not with the single word construed.
I am still thinking about the proposed amendment
"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."
Now I wonder if the second sentence implies state constitutions can not be construed as implying that All of the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon unmarried couples. If so, the second sentence would add little to the first.
The Massachusetts supreme judicial court might just say that all, but one, of the incidents had to be conferred on request to same gender couples who wished to form a civil union. Say all except the requirement to file tax returns jointly or as married filing separately. That would discriminate against opposite gender couples, but the court could say that opposite gendered couples too must be allowed to enter into civil unions and that currently married couples must be allowed a taxpayer funded no fault divorce.
I suppose the second sentence would mean that no law can require that any of the legal incidents of marriage be extended to unmarried couples or groups. Now that would add quite a bit to the first sentence. Many laws refer to "next of kin" which means spouse if there is one and otherwise someone else. Laws referring to next of kin extend some of the legal incidents of marriage to groups other than a married couple (right to make health related decisions for an unconscious patient, inheritance in the absence of a will etc etc). Would they all be unconstitutional ? Does that mean (in the vanishingly unlikely case that the amendment is passed and ratified) that whenever a single person dies without a will, the money goes to the government. Let's welcome the inheritance tax back, but this time it would be only for the non rich not only for the very rich.
Another legal incident of marriage is the right to refuse to reveal conversations letters etc. Such a right is also applied to the unmarried couple of a defendant and his lawyer. Would the amendment make attorney client confidentiality unconstitutional ?
I don't know and I don't want to find out.
One thing is clear; the word "construed" adds nothing and removes nothing. It might give some people the impression that the second sentence is aimed at judicial activism and not at legislation as such, but that is silly. Even if you know judicial activism when you see it, you can't define it and certainly not with the single word construed.
Wednesday, February 25, 2004
Very good point from atrios . Now it is absurd for me to link to Atrios.
Recall the Musgrave proposal
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.
Atrios argues that
"...the truth is, of course, that the amendment actually outlaws all new marriages."
Indeed, there is no exception in the amendment that states "unless this unmarried couple are a man and a women who are currently not married to anyone else and are engaged to be married". I'm not sure it would be unconstitutional to issue marriage licences, but if some official decided not to recognise a marriage he would not be violating any constitutional law.
Let's say San Francisco (for example) decides to treat same gender and different gender couples, who were not married when the amendment was ratified and claim to be married, in exactly the same way. Currently that would be a violation of California law, which establishes rights for married couples and conditions for legal marriage. Those laws would clearly be unconstitutional. "Unmarried couples" means "unmarried couples" and allows no exception for a man and a women who are currently single and agree to marry.
OK that would be extreme for San Francisco or even Provincetown ? How about some weirdo local (or state) government 100 years from now ?
Recall the Musgrave proposal
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.
Atrios argues that
"...the truth is, of course, that the amendment actually outlaws all new marriages."
Indeed, there is no exception in the amendment that states "unless this unmarried couple are a man and a women who are currently not married to anyone else and are engaged to be married". I'm not sure it would be unconstitutional to issue marriage licences, but if some official decided not to recognise a marriage he would not be violating any constitutional law.
Let's say San Francisco (for example) decides to treat same gender and different gender couples, who were not married when the amendment was ratified and claim to be married, in exactly the same way. Currently that would be a violation of California law, which establishes rights for married couples and conditions for legal marriage. Those laws would clearly be unconstitutional. "Unmarried couples" means "unmarried couples" and allows no exception for a man and a women who are currently single and agree to marry.
OK that would be extreme for San Francisco or even Provincetown ? How about some weirdo local (or state) government 100 years from now ?
Very interesting results from ABC News/Washington Post Poll Feb 18-22 via http://www.pollingreport.com.
"Would you support amending the U.S. Constitution to make it illegal for homosexual couples to get married anywhere in the U.S., or should each state make its own laws on homosexual marriage?" Options rotated
Amend Constitution State Laws No Opinion
ALL 46 45 9
Republicans 58 36 6
Democrats 44 48 8
Independents 35 56 9
unusually independents are to the left of democrats on this one.
Now the difference could be just plain sampling error. My back of the envelope calculation says the standard error due to sampling alone of the difference dem-independent is about 4%, that is about equal to half the difference (actually to be honest top of my head I didn't even use an envelope).
However, if this is true (and it could be given age distributions of independents and attitudes) Bush's endorsement of an amendment would be a political mistake. The election is decided by independents and if they are against the amendment his unscrupulous strategy is also dumb.
Also, I guess, support for an amendment will decline when people begin discussing the text as in "legal incidents thereof" and realise that amending the constitution is very dangerous.
(tech note standard error due to sampling assuming all really about 50 50 yes so the variance of answer yes for each respondent is 0.25 (really less as some say don't know), Dem Rep indep about 1/3 1/3 1/3 so dem and indep samples probably around 300 to 350 (guess 300) so var number dems says yes is about 75. The var of fraction of dems say yes around 1/1200. Var of dif dem-indep = sum of variances = 1/600. Standard error of dif a little over 1/25 = 4%. )
"Would you support amending the U.S. Constitution to make it illegal for homosexual couples to get married anywhere in the U.S., or should each state make its own laws on homosexual marriage?" Options rotated
Amend Constitution State Laws No Opinion
ALL 46 45 9
Republicans 58 36 6
Democrats 44 48 8
Independents 35 56 9
unusually independents are to the left of democrats on this one.
Now the difference could be just plain sampling error. My back of the envelope calculation says the standard error due to sampling alone of the difference dem-independent is about 4%, that is about equal to half the difference (actually to be honest top of my head I didn't even use an envelope).
However, if this is true (and it could be given age distributions of independents and attitudes) Bush's endorsement of an amendment would be a political mistake. The election is decided by independents and if they are against the amendment his unscrupulous strategy is also dumb.
Also, I guess, support for an amendment will decline when people begin discussing the text as in "legal incidents thereof" and realise that amending the constitution is very dangerous.
(tech note standard error due to sampling assuming all really about 50 50 yes so the variance of answer yes for each respondent is 0.25 (really less as some say don't know), Dem Rep indep about 1/3 1/3 1/3 so dem and indep samples probably around 300 to 350 (guess 300) so var number dems says yes is about 75. The var of fraction of dems say yes around 1/1200. Var of dif dem-indep = sum of variances = 1/600. Standard error of dif a little over 1/25 = 4%. )
Monday, February 23, 2004
Household survey vs payroll survey
As everyone knows under Bush employment has shrunk shockingly according to the payroll survey and grown (slowly) according to the household survey. I just learned from Brad Delong that there was an even larger shift in the difference between the two measures during the late 1990s. The difference went from 5% of working age population to 3 % and has since widened back to 4%. What is going on ?
Since the household survey counts the self employed, a natural guess is that changes in the gap are due to changes in the number of self employed. In the household survey people are asked if they are self employed. Subtracting such people from household survey employment explains a small part of each of the changes in the gap (less than a third of it).
In comments to Brad I thought about the underground economy
Then I had a crazy idea. The idea is that the widening really is due to increase in the number of self employed but they don't report themselves as self employed. In the household survey, one member of the household answers for all leading to fairly high error rates. In particular, I thought about outsourcing services but not to Bangalore to self employed contractors. What if employees are being replaced by cheaper contractors (or laid off and turned into contractors). Would such people who ahve only the disadvantages of self employment call themselves self employed ? Would their spouses consider them self employed ? Hmmmm.
Then there is a reasonable argument made in another comment by Barry Ritholtz
who cites a study by the Fed. The point is that th e payroll survey counts jobs not workers so, if someone has two jobs, they are counted twice. This means that the change in the gap could be do to changes in the number of moonlighters. This certainly fits the cyclical pattern.
Finally, of course, there is the Fed's current view that population growth has been over estimated. This would mean that the payroll survey gives an accurate estimate of the decline of employment and the household survey gives an accurate estimate of the decline in the ratio of employment to the working age population.
As everyone knows under Bush employment has shrunk shockingly according to the payroll survey and grown (slowly) according to the household survey. I just learned from Brad Delong that there was an even larger shift in the difference between the two measures during the late 1990s. The difference went from 5% of working age population to 3 % and has since widened back to 4%. What is going on ?
Since the household survey counts the self employed, a natural guess is that changes in the gap are due to changes in the number of self employed. In the household survey people are asked if they are self employed. Subtracting such people from household survey employment explains a small part of each of the changes in the gap (less than a third of it).
In comments to Brad I thought about the underground economy
Then I had a crazy idea. The idea is that the widening really is due to increase in the number of self employed but they don't report themselves as self employed. In the household survey, one member of the household answers for all leading to fairly high error rates. In particular, I thought about outsourcing services but not to Bangalore to self employed contractors. What if employees are being replaced by cheaper contractors (or laid off and turned into contractors). Would such people who ahve only the disadvantages of self employment call themselves self employed ? Would their spouses consider them self employed ? Hmmmm.
Then there is a reasonable argument made in another comment by Barry Ritholtz
who cites a study by the Fed. The point is that th e payroll survey counts jobs not workers so, if someone has two jobs, they are counted twice. This means that the change in the gap could be do to changes in the number of moonlighters. This certainly fits the cyclical pattern.
Finally, of course, there is the Fed's current view that population growth has been over estimated. This would mean that the payroll survey gives an accurate estimate of the decline of employment and the household survey gives an accurate estimate of the decline in the ratio of employment to the working age population.
Veepstakes
I just suggested to my dad that, if Kerry is the Democratic nominee he should and might choose Max Cleland as his running mate. Cleland is centrist (maybe conservative) from the South. In a debate with Cheney he won't have to mention that he, unlike Cheney, served in Vietnam. The VP candidate has to do the dirty work of attacking the opposing presidential candidate and Cleland is mad as hell. I don't think that Kerry can over do the reluctant warriors vs chickenhawks theme. Finally veterans have reason to be angry at the Bush administration and Cleland will appeal to them.
Against ? I don't know. Cleland could over do the attacks as Dole did in 1976 & there are other attractive candidates.
Now on the other side, will Bush dump Cheney. I think this would clearly be a good move politically. Cheney has all of Bush's faults (but uncuriousity/dumbness) in spades. Since he has had heart attacks the claim that he is bowing out for health reasons is credible.
I doubt that Bush will dump Cheney. First Bush never seems to fire anyone for making mistakes (only for pointing out correctly that he is making mistakes). Second Cheney clearly has immense influence over Bush. Bush famously does not read newspapers and might have to be told how much of a liability Cheney is and who would dare take on Cheney ? I'm not sure Rove could be confident that Cheney not he would be dumped and no one else is close. I think that Bush would have to figure it out for himself and I doubt that it is likely.
So assuming Bush dumps Cheney who does he choose to replace him ? I know this sounds odd but one possibility is Colin Powell (now you know I'm crazy). I have long thought that, when Republicans get good and desperate, they will try the African American VP gambit, and there is a reasonable chance that they might feel desperate. I always imagined that the candidate would be Powell. Now one reason this sounds crazy is that he has been consistently ignored as Secretary of State and is rated unlikely to be with a possible Bush II in any capacity. Now recall Bush nominated him for State when he was still fighting Gore on the recount. I don't think he ever considered Powell for other than political reasons and I don't see the relevance of what he would do once re-elected for what he would do to get re-elected.
Another two reasons that it sounds crazy is that Powell has (twice?) refused the spot, and I would guess that he dislikes Bush. However, Powell no longer has an attractive alternative to the vice presidency now that he has sacrificed his credibility to be a good soldier.
I think it is possible.
On the African American gambit another possibility is Rice. She clearly gets along with Bush. Also nominating a Black women would totally confuse everyone. I expect that she will be severely hurt by the 9/11 commission. Basically, I think she lost her chance at the vice presidency and put her current position in danger when she said no one imagined that terrorists would use an airliner as a missile after 9/11 and a month and a half after the briefing on exactly that point.
Still given how Bush operates Rice probably has a better chance than Powell and neither is anywhere nearly as likely as Cheney.
I just suggested to my dad that, if Kerry is the Democratic nominee he should and might choose Max Cleland as his running mate. Cleland is centrist (maybe conservative) from the South. In a debate with Cheney he won't have to mention that he, unlike Cheney, served in Vietnam. The VP candidate has to do the dirty work of attacking the opposing presidential candidate and Cleland is mad as hell. I don't think that Kerry can over do the reluctant warriors vs chickenhawks theme. Finally veterans have reason to be angry at the Bush administration and Cleland will appeal to them.
Against ? I don't know. Cleland could over do the attacks as Dole did in 1976 & there are other attractive candidates.
Now on the other side, will Bush dump Cheney. I think this would clearly be a good move politically. Cheney has all of Bush's faults (but uncuriousity/dumbness) in spades. Since he has had heart attacks the claim that he is bowing out for health reasons is credible.
I doubt that Bush will dump Cheney. First Bush never seems to fire anyone for making mistakes (only for pointing out correctly that he is making mistakes). Second Cheney clearly has immense influence over Bush. Bush famously does not read newspapers and might have to be told how much of a liability Cheney is and who would dare take on Cheney ? I'm not sure Rove could be confident that Cheney not he would be dumped and no one else is close. I think that Bush would have to figure it out for himself and I doubt that it is likely.
So assuming Bush dumps Cheney who does he choose to replace him ? I know this sounds odd but one possibility is Colin Powell (now you know I'm crazy). I have long thought that, when Republicans get good and desperate, they will try the African American VP gambit, and there is a reasonable chance that they might feel desperate. I always imagined that the candidate would be Powell. Now one reason this sounds crazy is that he has been consistently ignored as Secretary of State and is rated unlikely to be with a possible Bush II in any capacity. Now recall Bush nominated him for State when he was still fighting Gore on the recount. I don't think he ever considered Powell for other than political reasons and I don't see the relevance of what he would do once re-elected for what he would do to get re-elected.
Another two reasons that it sounds crazy is that Powell has (twice?) refused the spot, and I would guess that he dislikes Bush. However, Powell no longer has an attractive alternative to the vice presidency now that he has sacrificed his credibility to be a good soldier.
I think it is possible.
On the African American gambit another possibility is Rice. She clearly gets along with Bush. Also nominating a Black women would totally confuse everyone. I expect that she will be severely hurt by the 9/11 commission. Basically, I think she lost her chance at the vice presidency and put her current position in danger when she said no one imagined that terrorists would use an airliner as a missile after 9/11 and a month and a half after the briefing on exactly that point.
Still given how Bush operates Rice probably has a better chance than Powell and neither is anywhere nearly as likely as Cheney.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)