This is the twice-weekly hidden open thread. Post about anything you want, ask random questions, whatever. You can also talk at the SSC subreddit or the SSC Discord server.
This is the twice-weekly hidden open thread. Post about anything you want, ask random questions, whatever. You can also talk at the SSC subreddit or the SSC Discord server.
We’re back to having the thing where the comments threads kind of wobble up and down when you read them and can’t seem to resolve in a consistent way. This happened before and somehow it got fixed; does anyone remember how?
One of the causes, which never got resolved, came from the “X minutes left to edit this comment” ticker, which will, depending on the ever-changing value of X, shift the size of the text enough to expand the box. You’re probably seeing it more because you commented more recently.
I’m pretty sure it was fine for about a year and got much worse a few days ago (when I updated some plugins). I’m also seeing it in threads I haven’t commented in yet.
If you could place a single sentence indelibly in every English speaker’s mind, so that they will all have that sentence memorized forevermore, what sentence would you choose?
We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, begotten from the Father before all ages, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made; of the same essence as the Father (through him all things were made) for us and for our salvation he came down from heaven; he became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary, and was made human, he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate; he suffered and was buried; the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, he ascended to heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father; he will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, his kingdom will never end, and we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life (he proceeds from the Father and the Son) and with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified; he spoke through the prophets, and we believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church, we affirm one baptism for the forgiveness of sins, we look forward to the resurrection of the dead, and to life in the world to come, amen!
The Church certainly does make an effort to get that one burned into the minds of people who come to Mass regularly, anyway.
Except when they decide to change the words for no good reason
You win the thread.
I think you need to impose some restrictions on this, otherwise I would just make the sentence longer and longer to cram in as much useful information as possible
I don’t mind the Creed upthread; let’s restrict to a sentence present in a currently published book.
I think the version of the creed found in currently published books has full stops in place of at least some of Jaskologist’s semicolons, so technically that’s not *one* sentence.
Indeed, while the creed is already heavily composed of run-on sentences, I did have to cheat a bit with semicolons and parentheses by the end.
OTOH, it’s just the English translation anyway. I believe that 4th century Latin and Greek did not actually include punctuation, so my rendering is not unfaithful to the original language.
What a great hack! All of human knowledge, with commas in place of the dots.
Trust Cassander, Cassander is your friend; he’s much wiser, cleverer, and handomser than the others.
“Those who slave raid, are often slaves made.”
I wouldn’t take the option. I prefer not to mess with people’s minds without their permission. 🙂
Whichever is the longest sentence in one of the winners of the Bad Sex in Fiction award, so that at all times people are aware of just how bad the language can get.
And, hopefully, that all aspiring writers learn what not to do. In practice, I expect everyone’s kinks to shift to accommodate this state of affairs, which is delightful in an entirely different way.
T U R G I D S H A F T
Chapter 18 of Ulysses.
I’d choose: “think it possible that you may be mistaken”
(Yes, it comes from Oliver Cromwell, yes, it has a Christian preamble which is not to my taste,
but, nonetheless, it is what I would choose)
Okay last non-hidden open thread had:
So let’s have a free’er conversation here.
Though the “Lawful Neutral” in me approves, the San Francisco house story isn’t as heartwarming, but the pub re-build order fills me with appreciation, that’s proper governing, I love it!
Sadly, I’m doubtful that it will actually get built close to the original, but I truly admire the spirit!
Long live the Carlton Tavern!
Were I King of California, such pubs would be required in every square mile with a 1,000 people in it, and an additional one per every extra 500 people (maybe with exceptions for mostly Seventh Day Adventist, Mormon, and Muslim communities).
There are simply way too few places between my job and my house that serve a good pint indoors (and a corned beef sandwich) and that a local government willoverrule the wishes of the title owner to keep a pub in place seems entirely good to me (though admittedly, without very good soundproofing, if a new pub was placed next to my house I would probably be annoyed, ideal is a quarter mile away).
What’s your thoughts on this?
It seems kind of insane to require the developer to actually rebuild the building. If the city wants to have the developer pay the cost of rebuilding wouldn’t it be easier to fine them the cost of the rebuilding and either buy the lot or take it by eminent domain?
If I was the developer I’d just abandon the lot. You can’t build on it, you can’t sell it, and while I don’t know exactly what a “brick by brick” duplication of a historic building costs it’s almost certainly less than whatever they’d fine you for non-compliance. If the city is determined to ruin the company over it, sell your shares and remember not to do any more business in such a nutty locality.
As a general rule I prefer older buildings to newer ones, because modern architecture is a crime against man and nature. It’s a tragedy to tear down a beautiful building and replace it with a concrete monster. But if the planning commissions cared about that, they already have plenty of tools at their disposal to let developers build new buildings while making sure that they aren’t eyesores.
I agree that both the solution is stupid and that modern architecture is a crime. A fine and/or eminent domain would be the sane solution. The current plan seems more likely to wind up with a vacant lot.
From the story as I understand it, the developer technically can sell the lot but since that passes along the duty to rebuild the replica, the value of the lot is pretty much nil.
I think that’s part of the point.
It’s probably not legal to rebuild a building exactly as it was, if it’s even possible. I don’t know about the structure in question, but many older buildings would have relied on materials, products, and techniques that are no longer available.
Then there are the larger issues of updated building codes, under which most older buildings wouldn’t be permitted except for grandfather clauses.
You can imagine some kind of horrible Kafkaeque situation where one part of the city government says you must do X or be out of compliance with the historical building rules, and another part says you must not do X or you’ll be out of compliance with building/fire/ADA codes.
That’s why if you want to do this kind of thing, you don’t unlawfully demolish the building yourself. You hire the mob to burn it to the ground, the day after your insurance policy lapses.
The Catch-22 is probably exactly what they want; they want to be punitive using a tool that isn’t really intended to be so.
Who’s “they?” The people pushing the building code requirements don’t, for the most part, have the ability to change the historical requirements and vice versa.
You’re correct that there’s a Catch-22, but it’s probably not due to any sort of intent, just the fact that the 1250th tentacle doesn’t know or care what the 8731st tentacle is doing.
The Planning Commission is “they”. They known perfectly well the house can’t legally be rebuilt as it was (because of building codes if nothing else), but they have the power to order that, making the property worthless (meaning it will be ultimately abandoned to the city, who will then sell it to someone politically connected without the requirement to rebuild as it was). It’s a way to punish the builder for having the temerity to knock down a building without getting permisison.
Ah, I see. I thought you were referring to this type of conflict in general; there’s a lot of people that attribute conspiracy to conflicting requirements and I misread your comment in that way.
I agree, this instance is the Planning Commission banging their spoon on their high chair.
@The Nybbler: I dunno, Hanlon’s razor seems applicable here.
Don’t know about SF, but all the historic district ordinances I have seen only apply to the exterior of the building (facade) and do allow modern substitutions for materials as long as the appearance is in substantial conformance with the historical materials (e.g. vinyl siding is not allowed, but fiber cement siding would be if it had the correct historical profile). Perhaps the SF one is more rigorous and also applies to interior renovations.
We used to own a fairly old house in Chicago in a “historic landmark area.” Part of the fence was falling down. In order to replace it with a precisely similar fence, my wife had to spend a full day and a half going from office to office downtown, with a baby in her arms, getting permissions.
Our current house in San Jose is over a hundred years old–much more historic than a house of similar age in Chicago. Suppose serious problems arise with the ancient plumbing system and the city decides it must be replaced with an identical one. Being reasonable people and realizing that I’m not a plumber, they get in touch with their friends in Oakland and you get an order to do the job. No reason to pay you–SF didn’t, I gather, offer to pay the cost of rebuilding the pub to their specifications.
I am glad you are not king of California.
Given today’s Building codes (as has been mentioned up-thread) and OSHA rules, plus that certain materials are just plain no longer made, exact re-creation of a hundred year-old building would be extremely difficult in California, I personally know that some repairs for the City of San Francisco involve exposure to lead and/or asbestos that isn’t technically allowed and has been usually assigned to the oldest guy on the crew who isn’t expecting any visits from grand kids soon (we know what it does lead poisoning is also called “plumbism”),
It’s hard to find nowadays but “lead wool” which you tap in is used, once the stock is gone I really don’t know what we’ll use, when I had to do similar repairs under my house (for which I keep a double-bagged supply of lead wool and caulking irons in the crawlspace under the house) we kept our son away.
I think for historic house museums often salvaged materials from old buildings of near vintage is usually used, or they just Hollywood it.
In 2008 the first “community initiated” historic preservation district of 75 seperate homes was created for San Diego’s Mission Hills neighborhood after an admired house was torn down the majority of the neighborhood petitioned the change themselves (in return for the restrictions they asked for there’s a discount on property taxes).
My sense here is that someone acted in open contempt of the law—thinking they’d just have to pay some fine and come out ahead. While these kind of “clever” punishments are probably better than nothing, in such circumstances I’d prefer criminal sanctions against a person rather than any kind of civil judgment against an artificial entity.
The weird thing is that a “California remodel” was already common enough when I worked construction 20 years ago that I am 90% sure I heard it used as a term then–and this was a classic California remodel.
(If the foundation and one wall are still standing, it’s an extant house and so keeps it’s footprint and size allowances; a “California remodel” is knocking down everything but one exterior wall and rebuilding.)
I spent a couple summers working in SF housing construction. I was told at the time (this is almost 20 years ago) that for it to count as a re-model, you had to keep at least half of the original floors. So people would get approval for a remodel half one year, then spontaneously decide to remodel the other half the next year.
Those are to avoid property tax reassessment.
In terms of the Carlton, the actual order was that it be rebuilt according to a 100+-page folder of photos, plans etc. of the pub shortly before it was demolished, which the court was able to put together. So not exactly a brick-by-brick replica, more something that looks as similar to the old pub as possible.
It was also only built in the 1920s, so it’s not like you need thatchers, wattle and daub, beams from trees that don’t grow that big any more or anything. What was considered of historic interest was the interior layout and decoration and the tiled exterior, all of which can presumably be recreated.
In terms of pubs in general, they are often considered to be in danger (according to CAMRA, 18 are closing per week, although there are 50,000 left in the country). Various reasons for this have been put forward- including the smoking ban, tightened drink-driving laws, taxes on beer, and pubs being worth more to the landowner if they are converted into housing. Recently, it became possible for pubs to be listed as Assets of Community Value, making it more difficult to change their use and giving the local community an option to buy them if they go up for sale.
Here’s an example on the other side of the coin, where someone demolished a house without permission – it was one half of a semi-detached house, somebody was living in the other half, and the local authorities had no idea (and seem to have not had much luck in getting the person to comply).
I think most people would agree that this was unreasonable behaviour, given that he never informed his neighbour “by the way, I’m going to be knocking down the shared parts of our houses”. But this happens all too often – see his excuse at the end of the story “oh when we started knocking down the part we had permission to demolish, this caused structural problems so we had to demolish the entire thing”.
While in the San Francisco case it may seem unreasonable, or even spiteful, to require the developer to rebuild the building as it was, too often both property developers and individual owners tend to pull this kind of thing – they fully intend to demolish the entire property but they either get permission to do some alterations and then it’s “well when we started, suddenly out of nowhere unexpected problems meant we had to demolish it all for safety reasons” or “oh somehow mysteriously for no reason we know about the building burned down in the middle of the night, well guess that means it’s no longer a historic listed building that has to be maintained as is, might as well clear the ruins and build that huge new house/apartment block that I just happen to have the plans for right here in my pocket” (the more benign version of that is the roof gets stripped and over the years weather damage and neglect means that the building in the middle of the tussle between the owner/developer and the planning authorities falls down or is in such a state of ruin there is nothing to do but demolish it completely).
I imagine the SF planning authorities have seen one too many cases of “this burned down for no reason” and they’re making an example of this guy to discourage any future developers from getting ideas.
So does anyone know what’s up with the FIRST STEP act?
Some aspects look pretty benign. Corrections officers probably need somewhere to store their guns, de-escalation training might be useful, and it’s probably a good idea to be careful when restraining pregnant women. But the more worrisome aspects are the changes to mandatory minimum sentences and parole.
I won’t pretend to have a deep knowledge of how federal sentencing works, but “reforms” to the criminal justice system have a horrible track record here in the US. Making things easier for criminals has reliably made them that much harder for law-abiding people in the past and I’m very skeptical that this will be the exception. Even if they could only get a dealer on a “non-violent” drug charge that doesn’t mean that he’s not going to be dangerous once he’s let out of federal prison.
So what am I missing here? Is this thing written sensibly enough to prevent criminals from getting back out into society or is this another betrayal by Trump and the GOP?
Putting “non-violent” in scare quotes is the opposite of good faith, and it’s a huge part of the problem that this law is trying to solve.
First, because if what we can actually convict someone of is e.g. simple drug possession, then due process of law, common decency, and the conceit that we are anything better than the average totalitarian police state, all require that we then punish them for just simple drug possession. Fifty years of putting non-violent in scare quotes and threatening legislators with political annihilation if they don’t play along, have made it legal to lock people up for decades for non-violent crimes, but that’s only legal, not wise or fair or proper.
Second, because most “non-violent” criminals, ACTUALLY ARE non-violent. But if you treat them all as if they were dangerous predators with an insatiable addiction to ultraviolence, and then just lock them up with the minority who really are, then yeah, the survivors are going to be rather dangerous by the time you let them out.
So don’t do that. Either don’t ever let anyone out of federal prison, or recognize from day one that you are going to be letting them out of prison and start figuring out how to make sure you aren’t breeding monsters. And if you truly can’t think of anything else along those lines, then all else being equal, less time in the monster breeding ground is better.
OK, to be clear, the “don’t ever let anyone out of federal prison” alternative was rhetorical, not a policy proposal.
Most crimes are not punishable by life imprisonment, or by death. That shoudn’t change, and that won’t change on my watch. Seriously, that sort of thing is a recipe for the kind of dystopia they make YA novels out of, and in those novels, you’re the villain. Most criminals are getting back into society. This law is an attempt to deal with that reality.
If we’re being charitable, maybe we can extend that to considering why voters have been so adamant about this for the last fifty years. The last fifty years contained the all-time-high in America’s violent crime rate and the decline which followed hasn’t brought us to down even to the violent crime rate of 1968.
I’m open to persuasion on this, it’s possible that the people the government classifies as non-violent drug offenders aren’t actually violent. But I’m not going to be convinced by scolding or emotional appeals.
Voters are adamant that they want heavier and better punishment, but it’s far from clear that the approach that has been taken has worked. “Voters want X” is a reason for politicians to do something but it’s not an especially good reason to do something on the level of “solve the problem” instead of “stay in office”; if I’m understanding John that’s part of what he’s saying.
Counting “violent crime” vs the other indicator, homicides, paints a different picture. One side will say “but medical care has turned homicides into attempted murder/serious assaults” and the other side will say “but there were a lot more undetected sexual assaults back then” and then the issue will become how different demographics in different times and places report or don’t report this or that crime to the police.
I suspect that voters want lower crime, and also that the criminal justice system is messy and noisy enough that there are always miscarriages of justice in both directions (harmless people sent to prison for a couple decades, cold-blooded murderers getting a short sentence). But mainly, if there’s a lot of crime and people are scared of it, they’re going to demand that something be done. Much of what probably *shouid* be done is really hard to manage–maybe we should have some kind of fundamental redesign of our criminal justice system or some massive social program to fix the things that lead people to become career criminals (if we knew how to do either of those things successfully). But what’s easy to do, and easy to show the voters you’ve done, is voting for the “Lock the Bastards Up Forever Act of 2019”.
Note that in the specific case of drugs the correlation between being an offender and being violent probably is affected by criminalization. In 1925 people who sold and shipped alcohol in the US were probably significantly more likely to be violent than the average American. Today, not so much.
Yes, prison sentences seem highly-optimized for breeding violent criminals, yes. This seems like the thing that would be intensively studied, though, so is there evidence for men/people in general leaving the penitentiary as penitents rather than hardened criminals?
If we want to assess the likely consequences of, say, releasing a lot of people currently in prison for nonviolent drug dealing, we need to estimate what fraction of them are actually violent criminals. Like, if we release this batch of people early, are we likely to see a substantial rise in violent crime as a result?
This is kind-of the big question w.r.t. the whole lock-em-up strategy to crime control: are we making the streets substantially safer by giving people these longer sentences? And what’s the tradeoff? Are we messing those people up so badly that they can’t re-enter society as non-criminals? Are we imposing huge suffering on those people for very small social gains? Are we wrecking important bits of society to get those lower crime rates?
I think the usual reporting on these issues tends to find striking anecdotes–here’s this poor guy who’s got a life sentence for three pretty minor things that technically meet the three-strikes definitions; here’s this horrible murderer who got out of prison after three years because he cut a deal with the prosecutor.
My impression is that nobody really fully understands what caused the crime spikes/falls over time. Lead exposure seems to be part of the story; so does crack. Longer sentences may be part of the story, too, but I think Canadian cities had similar patterns of rising/falling crime rates without the extra-long sentences, so maybe it wasn’t all that big a deal.
To give an idea of the difficulty of resolving these questions, see this survey of the evidence on whether California’s recent criminal justice reforms caused crime to increase or not:
A few thoughts (thanks for the link!):
1) I would probably expect an increase in crime immediately following enactment of these types of policies. The people benefiting from it now are benefiting from it too late. I would expect the positive effects to be more long term. Additionally, one of the Sheriffs quoted in the article suggests “kids are growing up making worse decisions” as a result of these reforms…but the reforms haven’t been in effect long enough for that the be part of the problem.
2) Have other states experienced spikes in certain years (not necessarily these years) and then regressed back towards the national average? The problem with comparing state-level data to national averages is that the national averages are going to be smoother than a given state. I would expect to see “unexplained” spikes at various points, and would similarly expect people to use those spikes to support their narrative. That doesn’t mean the spikes are significant (IF they turn out to be an abberation, which we don’t have enough data to determine yet).
3) This is a really had problem because it is difficult to model and probably requires short term growing pains for longer term benefits (which means long term thinking, which is not a strong suit of elected, term-based political positions).
Mandatory minimums take away discretion from judges and prosecutors. The legislature is the worst branch to deal with criminal justice. They only have very brute tools to use.
The people want to fight crime, and the legislature is the group that most responds to the people, but that is just some form of looking for your keys under the lamppost.
Let’s play Fuck, Marry, Kill:
Stalin, Hitler, Mao
Charles Dickens, Mark Twain, Walter Scott
G.H.W. Bush, G.W. Bush, J.E. “Jeb” Bush
Elizabeth I, Elizabeth II, Elizabeth Warren
Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great, Napoleon Bonaparte
Michael Jordan, Shaquille O’Neal, Wilt Chamberlain
Ellen Ripley, Sarah Connor, Imperator Furiosa
Feel free to suggest additional trios.
Fuck Lena Headey’s Sarah Connor. Marry Linda Hamilton’s Sarah Connor. And kill Emilia Clarke’s Sarah Connor, I guess, though it’s really the script I want to kill.
… this is breaking my brain. Even Mao Zedong was a serial adulterer, but I’d have to say Marry him because he had an otherwise-stable relationship with his wife, respecting and collaborating with her as an (evil) person, whereas Stalin and Hitler’s wives ended up committing suicide. Kill Hitler because it could really help Germany, while killing Stalin just makes the equally horrible Trotsky Lenin’s successor, which leaves a one-night stand with Uncle Joe. shudder
Hitler’s wife ended up committing suicide, but it was because of the situation they were in, not because Hitler treated her in a mean way, so it shouldn’t count. Yes, Hitler ultimately created that situation, but I don’t think that’s in the spirit of the question.
Yeah, Hitler only created the situation where suicide was rational by invading Russia, not by being a mean domestic partner. But at least we can agree that, as a family man, Stalin was the #1 monster. That’s kinda why his only daughter defected to the USA!
I have a hard time saying anyone was “just as bad” as stalin. Trotsky was just as vile philosophically, sure, but he almost certainly would have been less able to put his vision into practice.
I mean, could do worse…
Yeah, I was gonna say…
Fuck Stalin (because he’s hot)
Marry Hitler (because it seems like he was probably the best husband of the three)
Kill Mao (because he’s what’s left over, and as a bonus, killing him might prevent the most death)
Ooh, good point. If Mao was not a better husband than Hitler, we can swap them.
I believe with >50% confidence that killing Hitler would have prevented the Holocaust/megacidal starving of Slavs*, but if we can kill Communist China, could save even more lives, and not get stuck in an abusive marriage.
*his policies were quite unique: Right-wing dictators tended to either seize power peacefully and not start wars (Salazar), brutally fight a civil war and then mind their country’s own business (Franco), or blunder around with unjustified wars conducted about as justly or unjustly as democracies do (Mussolini).
Do I need to point out that a colorized and anonymized Hitler reached 9.1 on Hot or Not? Apparently, CHA 18 + LE = Teh Sexy.
A lot of German women thought Hitler was sexy.
Marry Elizabeth the First of Scotland.
Also marry Elizabeth the Second of England and Wales (same person).
Convince her to abdicate and go on an extended honeymoon.
That’s as far as I’ve gotten with the list.
Kill Warren. I’m really, really not a fan of her.
Marry E2. Marrying E1 for her realm has a certain temptation (she had a lot more day-to-day authority than E2, as a true ruler rather than a combination mascot/referee, and E1’s consort would probably share more of that power than E2’s), but taking advantage of that would require living in the 16th century. Also, E1’s personality and attitudes towards marriage would have been shaped by her upbringing in a way that’s not terribly conducive to a happy marriage: her father had her mother executed, remarried four more times (including one more beheading), and she was probably sexually abused by her stepfather after her father died and her last stepmother remarried.
Bang E1. E2 in her prime was quite pretty, while we really don’t know about E1 (contemporary descriptions of her attractiveness were all over the map, and contemporary paintings weren’t done in a realistic enough style to judge), so if I were picking one of the three in isolation to sleep with, it’d be E2. But this is forced by the decision on the previous question. Also, influenced by me finding some fictional portrayals of E1 (particularly those of Cate Blanchett and Miranda Richardson) quite attractive.
Bang Furiosa. Marry Ripley. Kill Sarah Connor. For me, the physical attraction gradient runs Charlize Theron > Sigourney Weaver > Linda Hamilton, so advantage Furiosa. Furiosa’s also a little too intense for me to be happy marrying, and her background so wildly different from mine that we’d be unlikely to have much in common. Between Ripley and Connor, Ripley comes off as more intelligent and resourceful than Connor (at least in Alien and Aliens vs Terminator 1; I haven’t seen later movies in either series).
I follow your reasoning, but…
Killing Sarah Connor is a Bad Idea
I, for one, welcome…
…well, you know.
Trying to kill any of them is not for the faint of heart.
Between Ripley’s experience with nigh-unstoppable killing machines and Furiosa’s experience with post-apocalyptic wastelands, I think they’ve got a decent chance for filling in for Sarah Connor and her son in the struggle against Skynet.
GladOS, Ultron, The nice supercomputer from War Games that just wants to play a game
Bang GladOS, Kill Ultron, marry the War Games computer.
Not only is killing Sarah Connor nigh impossible, a one-night stand with her is required to sire the one who will save us from runaway AI. Banging her is the only Rational choice.
Sarah Connor starts Terminator 2 as the badass that Ripley only becomes at the end of Aliens, but more insane. She’s given herself a mission to assassinate the scientists and engineers involved in Skynet’s development, gets arrested and committed to an insane asylum, which she then escapes. Great character, great movie, but not a great wife imo.
Seconding all your choices.
Feel free to suggest additional trios.
Charles I, Charles II, Prince Charles
Captain Jack Sparrow, Captain Jack Harkness, Captain Jack Aubrey
Galadriel, Sethra Lavode, Mab
Athena, Aphrodite, Hera
Which Mab? Dresden Files Mab?
Anyway, marry Galadriel, she seems nice. Bang Mab, she’s super hot. I guess kill Sethra Lavode. She seems not really worthy of killing, but she’s undead, isn’t she? I’m not banging that, and she seems less likely to be tender to her spouse than Galadriel.
Athena, Aphrodite, Hera
WELL OBVIOUSLY BANG APHRODITE. That’s a dumb question, because man, you ain’t marrying her, she crazy. But she’s the goddess of love, I’m pretty sure you shouldn’t miss hitting that.
I think marry Hera? At least if you aren’t inclined to cheat on her? She gets a bad rap, but her husband was a serial adulterer. Athena was a virgin goddess, wasn’t she?
I mean, yeah, this is just correct. You bang the goddess of banging, marry the goddess of marriage (who was only a bitch to serial adulterer Zeus and his bastards) and try to kill the goddess whose domain includes war.
I dunno. Hera still might be pissed about you hooking up with Aphrodite even it if was just before the marriage. I think the answer least likely to result in your death is bang Aphrodite, kill Hera, and marry Athena.
I would be tempted to switch Athena and Aphrodite, but I’m concerned Athena might have a very Hera-ish response to being ditched for Aphrodite.
All hail Eris!
Well, given that you just got finished banging Aphrodite, and given Hera’s personality, I’m not sure she wouldn’t see that as just as bad.
Athena was a virgin, but if you’re banging Aphrodite, that’s probably fine, and she’s a wise wife.
Was a virgin. I had the same thought about Hera. Hera is a kill no matter what in this one.
Charles II was not really a faithful husband, but he did seem to love his wife and he was a good-hearted guy with a great sense of humour who loved partying, so I think (for those that way inclined) definitely fuck (particularly if you believe the Earl of Rochester as to the size of endowment in the trouser department). Charles I has already been killed so that disposes of that part of the question, which leaves marry Prince Charles (who looks increasingly unlikely ever to become Charles III).
Athena, Aphrodite, Hera
Look, we’ve done this already and it ended up with a seven-year war, destruction of a city, mass murder rape and pillage, and then more murder when the victors got home, let’s not try for Round Two!
Seven? Try ten, instead.
You’re correct, of course; what made me think it was in the seventh year of the siege things came to a head?
The events of the Iliad take place in year nine.
The Iliad does not end with the fall of Troy, and the Trojan war really was said to have lasted a decade.
That’s world-class understatement. 14 acknowledged illegitimate children is quite a record!
Now that’s an interesting one. I’d probably have to marry Aubrey, as he’s the least insane of the three. Would I be allowed to apply the other two to Jack Harkness? Not that I want to, but they aren’t mutually exclusive in his case.
(On the other hand, I don’t like Jack Sparrow very much, so let’s kill him.)
I’d call foul on this trio, because you can’t kill Jack Harkness.
You absolutely can kill Jack Harnkness. He’s just not going to stay dead.
Hm, fair enough.
Pretty sure he’s not going to stay married either.
The primary concern here, as in all dealings with the gods, is to avoid pissing off the wrong one and getting smited. I see a few major concerns:
1) If you off Aphrodite, Ares is coming after you. You have a good chance of surviving this with the aid of the clearly superior god of war (Illiad 5.965-997), but that means Kill Aphrodite necessitates Marry Athena.
2) We need to be very careful about progeny. As Poseidon tells us (Odyssey 11.282-285), we’re definitely going to get children out of our Fuck. (Presumably this only applies to God-human relations, or else Cupid would have way more siblings. And yes, it probably applies regardless of gender. Greek mythology, yo.) I don’t think that’s an immediate deal-breaker for any of our three, but it also means that there’s a strong chance of future children from the Marry choice as well. Given The Prophecy (Apollod, 1.3.6), Zeus might see Athena’s potential child as a serious succession risk, motivating him to kill us immediately before that marriage could be consummated. (Whether or not it would be is in doubt, but I’m not betting on Zeus taking the risk.) Fuck Athena is hopefully an option though, since at that point her pregnancy is a fait accompli. No way to avoid that danger entirely though, because…
3) Speaking of The Prophecy, we probably shouldn’t attempt Kill Athena. Defying fate that blatantly never ends well.
4) Hera might read a little too much into Fuck (Aeneid 4.142-145), and telling her that no, you’re not really married seems extraordinarily unhealthy. Hera is very practiced at revenge.
So Marry and Kill are out for Athena, leaving Fuck. That also eliminates Kill for Aphrodite, forcing Marry. That leaves Kill for Hera, which conveniently avoids the Fuck/Marry ambiguity. Final score: Marry Aphrodite, Fuck Athena, Kill Hera.
All told, there’s a fair amount of upside here. Your inevitable child by Athena got the best genes in the family, so good work there. You’re gonna have to pray that Zeus takes his wife’s death fairly well, which could be entirely in character. And while you’ll have to accept the fact that Aphrodite is going to be sleeping around, that doesn’t necessarily mean you have to be celibate yourself, or even that you won’t be personally spending a few nights with her of your own – only danger left in this route is a thoroughly embittered Hephaestus, but he’s rather less than good at revenge and if you can play the fellow-jilted-husband strategy well enough I could see him being a sorrowful drinking buddy.
I think Zeus is going to try to kill your regardless of whether you fuck, marry, or kill Hera, not to mention being the only being who has ever killed an immortal goddess puts on hell of a target on your back. My suggestion is that if war is coming, no matter what, strike first. Marry the goddess who is most likely to defeat Zeus, kill the second most powerful so she doesn’t become your enemy, and fuck the leftover. In other words, Fuck Aphrodite, marry Athena, and kill Hera.
As a bonus, you might cause the prophecy to occur in a rather greek tragic way. Turning the son that would overthrow him into a daughter only worked until feminism rose, and Athena becomes goddess of the heavens.
I can accept this headcanon.
I agree that war with Olympus is inevitable whatever you choose, but I don’t think it’s wise to assume that the goddess you marry will side with you in that war, or that her doing so would enable you to win it. There are only two possibilities: you are Kratos, currently suffering some kind of magically-induced amnesia/false memory, or you are shortly going to be curb-stomped by Zeus and friends. So if you’re playing to your outs, you start with the assumption that you are in fact Kratos, and kill Athena (first – you will presumably be killing all of them at some point) and do whatever you feel like as regards the other two – probably marry Hera and fuck Aphrodite. You don’t worry about the prophecy: prophecies – like most other things – tend not to survive contact with Kratos.
Fuck Elizabeth I, Marry Elizabeth II, kill EW. Elizabeth II has had a long and successful marriage; Elizabeth I never married, so that’s just going by track record.
Obviously kill Furiosa, because otherwise the killing’s going the other way around. Fuck Sarah Connor then disappear from the scene by faking your own death; that’ll make you John Connor’s father. That leaves marrying Ripley, which is going to be tough, and not just because you’ll have to share her affection with the Alien, but probably most survivable.
How about three dead grunge rock stars:
Kurt Cobain, Layne Staley, Chris Cornell
I’d fuck Kurt Cobain because he was shorter and generally smaller than me so the experience would be most like fucking a woman. And he had a pretty face, unlike Layne Staley who looked like a caricature of Liam Neeson.
I’d marry Chris Cornell, partly because I think I’d have the best conversations with him, we could write catchy songs together in weird time signatures, and I’m sure he probably managed his money the best out of all three so he’d be the best supporter. He seems to have been a pretty decent family-man anyway. I’d just have to closely monitor him when he was on his anti-anxiety pills.
That leaves Layne Staley to be killed. Which I could do humanely by letting him OD on his drug of choice and then rot in his apartment for two weeks.
Napoleon’s conquests were a lot less brutal than Genghis Khan’s or Alexander the Great’s were. Killing Genghis Khan likely just means that some other equally brutal warlord does as he would’ve done, but killing Alexander means that the most squabbly people of all time, the ancient Greeks, get squabbling a lot sooner. Plus, the man was awful to people close to him; therefor, I kill Alexander.
Napoleon’s track record is what internet newspeak might call serial monogamy. Genghis Khan, for all his other qualities, had a bunch of concubines but otherwise appears to treat actual spouses quite well. I marry Genghis Khan and hook up with the Frenchman.
Since I’m not interested in sex or marriage, that only leaves murder.
(1) Stalin, Hitler, Mao – can I have a “kill/kill/kill” on that?
(2) Um – Twain, I guess? There’s something smug and self-congratulatory about his “folk wisdom ways” that grinds my gears
(3) I honestly can’t summon up the outrage to kill any of the Bushes, and besides the progenitor is recently dead so that solves that one
(4) Elizabeth I definitely
(5) Oooh, I don’t want to kill any of them! Yes they were probably terrible war-mongers but (a) having recently finished watching an Indian quasi-historical TV drama featuring Alexander the Great, the eponymous hero (Porus) annoyed me so much that even when on-screen Al was being crazy and evil and murderous, I still cheered him on! And (b) the Irish have a certain grá for Bonaparte for historical reasons (mainly because ‘enemy of the Brits = we like them”) so that leaves(c) the Great Khaan Chinggis and not even him do I want to murder 🙂
(6) Recognise the names as basketball players, have no interest in or knowledge of the sport, and all my bloodthirst for sporting heads on pikes has been sated by United sacking Mourinho
(7) Ripley, Connor, Furiosa – depends on which version. The “flog a dead horse” Ripley and Connor from franchises that went on too long are ripe for the chop
Choice of three Doctors (out of thirteen!)
Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman
Captain Marvel (Carol Danvers), Captain Marvel (Shazam), Captain Marvel (football player Bryan Robson)
Mozart, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky
Snow White’s stepmother, Cinderella’s stepmother, Rapunzel’s godmother
Jackie Chan, Jet Li, Donnie Yen
Trying to marry the Shazam Captain Marvel would find you in jail on charges of child molestation sooner or later. He’s either a separate, adult person from Billy Batson or Batson with a grown man’s body and the Wisdom of Solomon, so by all principles underlying the law it should be fine, but you’ll still run afoul of the law.
Plus the fact that it’d be immoral to have marital relations in the time intervals between Captain Marvel saying “Shazam!” and saying it again as Batson. And even assuming you’re continent there’d be a weird power dynamic when your husband’s a child. — ow, there breaks my brain again.
We can have the hypothetical FMK take place a decade from now, when Billy is legal.
On a related note, Superwoman from DCAU’s “Justice League: Crisis on Two Earths” is most likely Mary Batson, who is William’s *little* sister.
And one can be reasonably be confident that she’s not a virgin…
While I know that fion, myself, and others expressed interest in talking about Corbyn on a culture-war permitted thread, I don’t think opening with a list of statements like these is a good way to promote productive discussion.
Why does the human adrenaline response seem…. overly strong relative to the dangers that we face? It is so strong that it has an actual deleterious effect on performance, the exact opposite of its intended effect. If I were in a street fight for my life, draining a 3 pointer to win the NBA championship, making a career-defining speech, doing a whiteboarding exercise at an interview in hopes of landing a job, or any of another million tasks that raise our adrenal response- my primary obstacle by far is the adrenaline itself. In moderation it sharpens the senses, dulls pain, and focuses the mind- but in every ‘fight or flight’ extreme emergency, the amount of adrenaline released by the human endocrine system seems…. counterproductive.
Like, take fighting off another human or wild animal in a life-or-death type situation. The extreme amount of fear most humans will feel is the actual hindrance to maximum performance, and thus saving one’s own life. The response we’ve evolved makes us more likely to panic and thus die, not less! We have endless metaphors & homilies for those who are cool under pressure, many of them from sports- ‘has ice water in his veins’, ‘to keep your head when all around you are losing theirs’, etc. Tom Brady, Michael Jordan, Joe Montana or David Ortiz are feted for their extreme calm in pressure situations. Shouldn’t the human adrenal response be more measured?
I guess the closest analogue to an overly strong human system are the number of auto-immune diseases out there, where our white blood cells (I think?) attack perfectly healthy joints or organs or tissues or what have you. Still seems much rarer than ‘OMG this person is trying to kill me so I just freeze in panic’, which is thankfully statistically rare but at the same time virtually everyone is at least susceptible to it.
I picked a violent struggle with another person or animal as sort of the quintessential example, because it seems like that’s exactly what evolution should have prepared us for. Wouldn’t a subpopulation of calmer humans who felt less of a huge adrenal response in life-or-death situations have an evolutionary advantage over us? I suppose it’s possible that modern humans are simply huge wusses, and that ancient/Stone Age peoples found fear less of a hindrance. Other than that, I can’t really understand why our adrenal response is so strong….. strong enough that many or most of us lose control when we need it most. Seems like the dumbest evolution we have
Because you would have taken more punches to the face and run away from more tigers at a young age in the EEA, so your adrenal response is badly calibrated. It’s designed to get you pumped up for life-and-death situations, but it doesn’t have any kind of ancestral memory to work with, so it only knows what a life-and-death situation is relative to the other situations you’ve been in. Which, compared to a San hunter-gatherer or even a Merovingian serf, are pretty weaksauce.
Autoimmune diseases are actually a great analogy here. Your parasite load in the EEA would have been much higher, so now your immune system, having evolved to assume that, tends to get bored and antsy and start shooting at pollen or cat dander or your own intestinal lining.
This is tightly related to something I was thinking about recently. I fence in the somewhat grey and certainly money free zone between professional and amateur and am quite good. About eight years into fencing I became consistent at competing at competing and I think that has a lot to do with having acclimated to massive quantities of adrenaline. When I am fencing in close hard bouts in tournaments that I care about my heartrate spikes, I hyperventilate, and my hands shake really noticeably. I also fence like magic when that happens. But for the better part of a decade when I went into that state my performance would veer about all over the place then invariably crater.
I think you are completely correct that most people don’t have enough experience being truly pumped to manage it well. Resulting it in being rather maladaptive for an environment where true physical emergencies are few and far between.
I’m not so sure that you are right that our adrenaline response is badly calibrated to life and death responses. Most of your examples are things that our ancestors wouldn’t deal with and when dealing with life or death struggles like fighting another person for example, it seems pretty well calibrated to me. Like you said, most people don’t just freeze in place. They will run as fast as they can for far longer than they normally would or they fight harder than they normally could. Sounds like a well functioning system to me.
The grocery store had chicken livers on sale. I picked some up, because 80 grams of protein for a dollar is awesome.
But I have no idea how to prepare cook or eat liver. I have no prior experience here, which is both good and bad, because a lot of people hate liver. I’ve never had paté either.
What’s a good beginner’s recipe? And is there a thing as eating too much liver in a day/week? I doubt anyone else in my family will touch this. I monitor my protein intake so I won’t go over there.
Make gravy with them. Dice finely, simmer with chicken stock, butter, and whatever herbs you feel like adding until they pretty much dissolve, then thicken with flour or corn starch. Pour over potatoes, roasts, biscuits, or anything else you think would go well with gravy.
Try this and see what you think
Also, make some liver pate as an appetizer, your family might actually like that (but tell them what it is first or they will never trust you again)
My wife has food texture issues so she’d never go for paté, but it is hard to go wrong with deep frying. I will try that.
Thanks for the gravy suggestion but liquified meat triggers my own food texture issues.
I like to fry them with onions and/or bacon. (But the problem is it’s easy to overcook them and/or dry them out that way, and that pretty much wrecks them.) If you want to try that, sear them on a high heat on both sides, lower the heat and then put on a lid. Maybe add a bit of liquid. And don’t cook them very long – you don’t want the insides looking like raw/rare meat, but once they cross into cooked, they are done.
And oh yeah – cook the bacon beforehand, and fry the liver in the bacon fat. And most likely cook the onions afterwards. All done at the same time in the same pan probably turns into overcooked liver. (Or maybe that’s just because I’m a lousy cook.)
Just fry them up in a bit of olive oil with salt, pepper, and oregano. Really get that Maillard reaction going, liver benefits immensely from it.
Ideally find some schmaltz, but if you can’t find that duck fat works. Fry the livers, add the fry oil, hard boiled eggs, fried onions, salt, pepper, and some brandy (the secret ingredient). Throw all that into a blender and you have yourself some chopped liver.
Haven’t ever used chicken livers, but for lamb or pork liver just fry it with onions. I see suggestions along that line from others here and second it. Goes very well with fried rashers/bacon and sausages, fried eggs, black and/or white pudding (if you have any of that locally). Some fried potatoes if you have any left-over boiled spuds, makes a full meal 🙂
Or fried on its own/with onions then make gravy and add that to the pan and simmer slightly to reduce a little, goes well with nice crusty bread to dip into the gravy. EDIT: Here’s a decent recipe (using lamb or calves’ liver) for liver and onions with gravy. Also, finishing off cooking the liver in the gravy helps with the problem of over-cooking/drying it out.
Wash the livers well before cooking, dry them, you can coat them in some seasoned flour if you like (helps with the frying). Chicken livers are probably small enough to not need this advice, but it’s a fine line between cooked enough not to be pink and bloody inside (a little bit pink is fine) and over-cooked (which makes it tough and leathery) so you may need to watch the frying time the first time you do it. Liver stores iron, so possibly not a meal to eat every day as you could run the risk of absorbing too much iron, but on the other hand if you need to make sure you’re getting enough iron in your diet, it’s a quick and tasty way of doing so!
Vitamin A poisoning is very much a thing. It’s why polar bear livers are dangerous, for example.
If you literally only bought 80 grams, that’s not going to hurt you at all. You could probably eat that much three or four times a week without trouble. Note, however, that you’re getting way more vitamin A than you need by that point.
Don’t overcook them: they get grainy and strong-flavored when overcooked like eggs do.
My favorite recipe is from Marcella Hazan, and was intended as a pasta sauce. Roughly and from memory:
Saute 1 part bacon until rendered but not crisp
Add 1 part onion and cook until translucent
Add a big pinch of sage
Add 2 – 3 parts liver, and cook just until not completely raw
Add 1 part sherry or Marsala or 1 part dry vermouth mixed with enough tomato paste to be red; cook just until livers are fully done–about 5 minutes
Salt and pepper to taste.
I stirfry chicken livers with onion, garlic, mushrooms, and parsley, and maybe some hard-boiled eggs.
Quick accounting non-effort-post
Most of us practice accrual based accounting, rather than the typical “money-in, money-out” kind of mentality most people think of when we say “accounting.” For instance, most people will think Apple collected $1 billion this year, and had to pay $500 million to its suppliers and employees this year, so it made $500 million (EBITDA, of course).
This is not what accountants want to capture. For instance, Apple may have collected $100 million on a contract it performed for the US government back in 2017, and it may have withheld payment on $100 million to some suppliers because it wanted more cash. When we report income, we want to know income related to THIS period’s business. We want to know “how much did Apple make as a result of activity THIS YEAR.”
In the case above, we would remove the $100 million Apple collected from 2017 business, and we would add in the $100 million of expenses that Apple did not pay timely, bringing us down to $900mm-$600mm=$300mm.
Right now, I’m on the cost side, so I’m mechanically more interested in the costs. And because it’s year-end, we have a LOT of that “not paying out suppliers” right now, but managers aren’t quite getting what I mean when I say “I’ll accrue it.” What this means is that whatever you don’t pay, I book as an expense. It still comes out of your budget for this year, even though you didn’t actually pay anything, and then next year it washes out.
Let’s take PTO as an example, since that came up last thread. When you “accrue” PTO, you think of it is building up a balance. However, to us accountants, we book your PTO as an expense in the month that you earn it. From our perspective, we’ve already paid you your PTO, even though we haven’t actually paid you a dime yet.
That money gets recorded as a liability on the balance sheet, and the company should hold cash against it. When you actually do take your PTO, no additional expense is incurred: we release the liability from the balance sheet and it covers your PTO balance.
Here’s what this looks like
PTO Expense $500 PTO Reserve $500 (You Earn your PTO)
PTO Expense $500 Cash $500 (You Take Your PTO)
PTO Reserve $500 PTO Expense $500 (I release the reserve to cover the money we paid you)
The important thing is that, when the expense is paid, it will be incurred again, so the manager might think they are losing money. However, we are releasing the reserve, so the effect will be a wash (in most cases). On the company books, this will look like a “negative expense” for the month in which I release the reserve, so everything should net to zero.
1. I can only accrue what I have knowledge of. We have thousands of accounts at my factory, and there’s no way I can track all of them, so we don’t even bother unless it is “material” (which means ‘is someone going to bug me when they see a swing in this expense account’). We also cannot accurately for bills that have not been incurred yet. Like, our payroll for today is not finalized: if I had to accrue for today’s payroll, I need to make a guess. We also cannot accrue for one-offs that we don’t know about, like if a truck got banged to hell and you need to pay for the damages.
2. Certain items might change in value over time. For instance, imagine you earned PTO in your first year at work, and I accrue for that expense. Then you take the PTO 10 years later, when you have twice the salary. We will be under-accrued (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) and the company will incur a loss, unless someone is actively updating this.
3. The accrual system depends on people actually knowing what the hell they are doing. For instance, if you don’t know your accounts are supposed to have reserves or your accounts are in the wrong balance state, the entire system breaks down pretty face. We had a massive problem with our PTO because we had it recorded as an asset instead of a liability. This meant that we incurred a multi-million dollar loss when we corrected our PTO account this year (after someone finally found the issue). The cooking equivalent might be if I tell you to add in a basic item (like egg whites), and then you pour in vinegar because you don’t know the difference between basic and acidic.
4. This really complicates month-end. I cannot just close the books, absorb costs, and report income, because the expense accounts are never correct, and accruals need to be performed. This typically involves making a lot of manual journal entries, which means you have to go to a lot of different people to gather enough information to make journal entries. You also need to pester said people to pay their invoices timely, so you can stop making journal entries, because journal entries (particularly one-offs) are liable to be questioned.
5. You need to hold ACTUAL CASH against your reserve. You have a liability, remember? That means you need to have an asset to hold against it. Depending on your working capital desires, you actually might need to hold MORE than $1 of cash or cash-equivalent against every $1 of liabilities. For instance, if you have $100mm assets, and $50mm liabilities, you have twice as many assets as you have liabilities. If I add $10mm to both sides, you no longer have twice as much. If your C-suite’s target is twice as much, you need to actually hold $20mm in cash vs. $10mm in liabilities. This is a problem because companies don’t like holding lots of cash.
I hope this was at least remotely clear. I’ve had to explain this a few times in the last few days, because we have so many people out and cannot approve invoices, and people do not want to lose 2019 budgets due to 2018 costs.
In other news, I am still reconciling our company store. I also order all the product for the company store. And verify the receipt of goods of the company store. And collect the money and ring up the sales for the company store. And reconcile the receipts against the payments for the company store. And reconcile the payments against the actual final bank receipt. And perform the journal entries to the company store account that could theoretically mask any missing money. And audit the journal entries to ensure the journal entries are accurate. And perform the Segregation of Duties internal audit designed to prevent fraud.
Thankfully, I am a quite ethical person, because otherwise this system would be verrryyyyyyyyyyy bad.
when you say cash, do you mean literal cash? not physical money, of course, but money in ordinary bank accounts not parked in any sort of equity.
Better question for corporate finance and Treasury, but no. Firms typically take a lot of money and plunge them into low-risk short-term investments to make a bit of interest on them, to the best of my knowledge.
There are requirements for actual cash as well, but companies usually have revolving lines of credit to help out there.
In the past several years, a lot of “cash” at large corporations has been reinvested in debt instruments by other corporations. That’s part of the reason why the thinking in the tax bill that encouraged “repatriation” was flawed (the investment potential of the off-shore money wasn’t trapped outside the US, it could be brought in through indirect means).
OF course that last line is highly ironic. I’m not sure how many non-accountants will get that. Do you work for a non-public company? It does sound your list of duties might totally kill an unqualified audit. It sounds like someone sometime set up procedures for SOD, and then didn’t do anything else.
Edit: Unless of course the company store is simply immaterial. I used to work at a public company, where our petty cash was a joke of an uncontrolled process. But it only held $150, so the auditors didn’t care.
Private, thank god. However, we still have internal audits and they have historically slapped our company store with some audit points because of the terrible process. The issue is that we were sold to another private company recently, so people think that the old audit findings are no longer applicable. Our Warehouse team threw a shitfit when I asked them for the documentation that verified they checked the temperature of trucks shipping our temperature-sensitive product.
“Why do we need to worry about that audit from 2 years ago?”
People are nuts.
We do have procedures for SOD and these are straight-up in violation, but right now no one cares. For 6 months we didn’t even DO our SOD, and the plant got an official reprimand. Not that I even knew about that function, since our management team just considered it irrelevant and neglected to mention it to anyone.
Why is it that every time I read about this kind of finance, it comes out making orbital mechanics look straightforward and simple?
We manipulate numbers according to laws in order to establish relationships between phenomena; accountants manipulate numbers according to conventions in order to make the arrangement of those numbers maximally functionally useful. If we’re playing Sudoku, they’re playing the crossword.
Also, there are no conservation laws in finance.
(At least, that’s the impression I, an engineer, have gotten from my accountant father)
Much of the complexity seems to be driven by buy-now-pay-later provisions, on the one hand, and the desire to have the buy-now- part in some sense considered current income for the firm, on the other. If everything was done on a payment-on-delivery basis — or even counted as income when the payment actually arrived — much of the complexity would disappear.
It’s not finance really, just accrual-based accounting. And when I think of this, I am reminded of a Tyler Cowen quote I am going to butcher: he says something like you will know you are good at something when it seems easy to you but everyone else thinks it’s complicated.
Accrual-based accounting seems so easy to me. It is even difficult for me to understand what other people don’t understand about it.
But there are so, so many things that so, so many people can do so easily, but I have accepted I will never understand. Like fixing a toilet or baking a cake or swinging a golf club or changing a tire. There are no amount of YouTube videos that will make me be able to do these things, but literally millions of people do these things every day and probably don’t understand what I am not understanding.
I think this is most of it. During the “rods from God” thing a couple weeks ago, I was initially very confused that the author of the linked piece was saying some really nonsensical things about response time and damage. Then I remembered that he probably wasn’t used to thinking in orbital mechanics terms, whereas that’s something that has always come naturally to me.
Looking back at my post, mostly because I communicated pretty poorly… 🙁
Also, it’s somewhat non-intuitive, so unless you are doing it pretty frequently, it’s not something that’s going to stick in your head. Although orbital mechanics are simple, right, you just shoot something really fast and it flies around Earth, but not too fast or else it escapes entirely!
(Orbital mechanics part was obviously a joke…)
This honestly isn’t even the hard part. The hard part of my job is calculating variances, tracking down losses, and figuring out where costs flow once they leave my immediate sight. Along with using our systems to figure out information we should easily have. Like, how much money we spent on packaging, by vendor. Yeah, I can tell you how much we spent on packaging, but I have to do some digging and fancy lookups to get it by vendor.
No, that’s not it. Your effortposts on accounting and the like have always been some of my favorites for taking something that is sterotypically really boring and making it comprehensible and interesting. I’m just sort of going “why do you people do this to yourselves, it’s not rocket science”.
Thanks for the positive feed-back! Your stuff is great, so any praise from you is high praise indeed.
As for “why do this to yourself,” excellent question indeed. It pays decently well, and it isn’t super-hard. Unfortunately, without a CPA or MBA, there is a hard cap on how far I can advance, but I’m not interested in going back to school right now.
“Why do you do this to yourself” is directed more at the complexity of finance and less at the people actually working in it. The bit where everything is a positive number, for instance, seemed completely baffling, at least until Eric explained it.
we have so many people out and cannot approve invoices, and people do not want to lose 2019 budgets due to 2018 costs.
I work in FP&A, i.e. accounting-adjacent, and this one of my biggest pet peeves of my job: the arbitrary significance of the move from 12/31 to 1/1 and the downstream impacts.
Any other time of the year, things pushing to next period aren’t a big deal. But at year end, all the sudden everything is important to get in, approvals and such are needed, but no one seems to be in the office. I wish our fiscal year end was January because no one takes the last 2 weeks of January off.
Honestly I would be 100% on board with this. January would be a great fiscal year end. The first company I was at had a fiscal year end near the end of Summer, which was a nightmare, as essentially the entire summer was a black-out period for vacations. You want to take a vacation this close to year-end?! Blasphemy!
Yeah… I just started working in the finance department of a company with year end in July… I was going to take a vacation in July but I’m thinking that’s going to be a no.
We do our fiscal year switchover in September for this reason, in part!
I feel your pain about year-end 🙂
We’re only a very small organisation, I ran the payroll yesterday for the two weeks up to the end of December (two payments at once because of all the bank holidays which would bugger up the EFT payments and have people complaining “but I checked my bank account and my pay never went in!” yeah that’s because of the THREE BANK HOLIDAYS between now and the first week of January which means THE BANKS AIN’T OPEN THAT’S WHY YOUR MONEY DIDN’T GO THROUGH IT’S NOT MY FAULT) and hooo boy. I’ve been nagging them for the past two months, including emails with the payslips, and there are still people who haven’t provided their tax details. And I know they won’t until they incur the emergency tax penalty, then come looking to know why half their pay is gone in tax.
BECAUSE YOU DIDN’T BOTHER TO UPDATE YOUR DETAILS WITH REVENUE AND NO, WE CAN’T DO THAT FOR YOU, WE’RE NOT PERMITTED TO DO IT, IT’S UP TO YOU TO TELL THE NICE TAX COLLECTOR YOU’RE WORKING FOR US AND THESE ARE YOUR CLAIMS FOR CREDITS.
Even better there’s an entirely new tax system being put in place by the Revenue Commissioners that is going live the first week of January and I know it will be an unmerciful pain in the backside to get it running correctly, never mind all the workshops they held about “it’s going to be fast and convenient and will work perfectly all the time, what do you mean you work from home out the country and your internet drops out all the time so what happens when you’re trying to upload to our new site?”
I am feeling slightly smug in that I got all the last invoices paid off for the year, so any bills that come in the post in the next week (when we’re shut) can just sit there for the New Year 🙂
Thank God we don’t do accruals in that way, we only have to worry about UM HEY YEAH ALL THE MONEY IS GOING OUT OF THE BANK ACCOUNT AND THE CHEQUES AND AUTOMATIC PAYMENTS ARE COMING DUE, CAN YOU PLEASE TRANSFER OVER SOME INCOME THANKS YEAH?
Happy Christmas and may everybody have their receipts, remember which company they ordered that delivery from, the delivery dockets match up with the invoices, and hand in their expenses sheets on time and filled out correctly!
For what it’s worth, I’m pretty sure it is standard practice for most companies to do this. If someone gets paid on the 1st and 15th, and the 15th is a Sunday, typically they would get that check on Friday. If someone would normally get paid on December 25th this year due to some weird pay schedule, I would expect to get that check/direct deposit tomorrow.
For what it’s worth, I’m pretty sure it is standard practice for most companies to do this.
My boss very nearly expected me to come in on St Stephen’s Day (26th December) to do a payroll run, to which my first reaction was WTF but I couched it more diplomatically by reminding them it would be a Bank Holiday so doing two payroll runs the week before we shut up shop would be the more sensible option 🙂
The main problem, as ADBG says, is that nobody tells you anything. It’s like they expect you to somehow know by instinct or mind-reading that they spent the money, or put in that order, or need that transfer. Without the pieces of paper in our hot little hands, we know nothing, we can do nothing. If you need to take a half day off on Thursday when the payroll is run on Wednesday, I need to know before I pay you so I can put that down as annual leave or TOIL or whatever rather than “paid for working the full week”.
Mostly it goes okay, it’s only the occasional “seeing the stub of a cheque made out to J. Smith for €5,000 with no idea who J. Smith is or what this is for, so what the hell do I enter this under” that is the tricky part 🙂
Thankfully, I am a quite ethical person, because otherwise this system would be verrryyyyyyyyyyy bad.
I’ve been in similar situations where I’ve thought “You know, I could be robbing this place blind and nobody would know, and even better they treat me like a dog so I have every incentive to rob them blind and all that’s holding me back is Catholic guilt thanks to going to school to the nuns for thirteen years” 🙂
It does amaze me how organisations put low-level/poorly-paid people in positions of trust like that, don’t do anything to make them feel trusted and valued, do make it very clear that as far as the organisation is concerned “you are only a peon” and then expect nothing to go wrong with having hundreds of thousands or even more, often in CASH MONEY, flowing through their hands with no oversight. People can be shitty but people are also a lot more honest and conscientious than given credit.
I worked for big healthcare company and I was debugging the client DB within a month of starting on the job. If I was a competitor’s plant they’d have been, if not out of business, then absolutely crippled for a year or two while they rewrote everything.
It feels like individual humans are mad trustworthy, whereas people at large are the internet.
Given it was healthcare related, if you were caught you very well might have been fined by the government, sued by the company, sued by the clients, and possibly put in jail.
Granted the company would still have been crippled, but this is probably part of the seemingly unreasonably high trust.
This actually was pretty interesting to me, and I think it helps me to understand one of the most aggravating things when dealing with my pay at work: we’re required to submit projections of the time we’re going to charge to projects at the end of the month 4-5 business days before the actual end of the month. I don’t know for sure (I just do it because I’m told–and because they’ll project us as using vacation time if we don’t), but this seems like it could explain why they ask for this information.
Why do reserves have to be in cash?
I’m an actuary, and have spent more time calculating reserves than doing anything else. But in my world, you need salable (“admitted”) assets to match your reserves, but they don’t have to be cash: accounts receivable would be perfectly acceptable
(I thought about commenting under Nabil’s post about federal sentencing, but this is different enough–more general–that I decided to make a new thread)
Repeat offenders are responsible for a lot of crime*, so keeping them off the streets has significant benefits in protecting the public (victimless crimes aside). However, laws like mandatory minimums and 3 strike rules are overly harsh to offenders who genuinely are turning their lives around. It seems to me that laws around sentencing should aim to balance these considerations. An idea I had would be to have anti-backsliding provisions (like the EPA does for environmental permits): future sentences can’t be more lenient than previous ones for the same category of offense. Does anyone have other ideas?
*The case that prompted this thought was the shooting at the Christmas market in Strasbourg, which was committed by someone with 27 previous convictions–who the police tried to arrest that morning on a separate matter. Less anecdotally, a study in Sweden found that 26% of violent offenders accounted for 63% of convictions for violent crimes.
Yeah that sounds reasonable, except I’m not sure how difficult it is to determine the same category of offense. What if the first crime was someone who burgled a house, took thousands of dollars of property, and wrecked thousands of dollars more in ransacking the house. In the second crime a decade later, he had a baby that needed milk and he had no money. So he went through a window of his neighbor’s house, when the neighbor was on vacation, to steal some milk? The 2nd one sounds like the same category of crime, but by someone who was mostly rehabilitated. I think this question requires empirical evidence of how things usually work, and how many subsequent crimes do have a lower punishment.
One additional thing to remember is that the whole system is incredibly noisy. Most crimes don’t get solved, and most minor crimes don’t even get reported. So when you see a guy who’s been arrested and charged for armed robbery twice, it’s likely (but not certain!) that he’s really committed a lot of other armed robberies for which he was never caught. As a matter of justice, we can’t and shouldn’t punish him for stuff we statistically think he likely has done. But if we want to assess the likely impact of a three-strikes law, then we’d better take that into account–probably the average guy with three armed robbery cases against him has carried out another dozen armed robberies but never ended up getting charged for them. (I think the armed robbery clearance rate in urban areas is around 25%.)
I served on a jury in California that returned a conviction in what seemed to be a routine open and shut DUI case (no accident). During the case some of us jurors were confused why this case even went to trial. The defendant’s family was distraught when the verdict was read. We were told by a reporter in the hallway after that it was his third strike. I felt a little sick even though I didn’t even know what the first 2 strikes were.
If they didn’t turn their lives around the last 2 times, what’s the chance that this is the time they will?
Going from “professional armed robber” to “can be tempted to shoplift when hungry”, is close enough to turning your life around for anyone not named Javert, and should perhaps be encouraged by means including some measure of mercy for any remaining imperfections.
Yeah, some three strikes rules only apply to serious, violent crimes I think.
My very imperfect understanding is that all this stuff is best understood in game theory/negotiation terms. Three strikes rules and mandatory minimum laws basically strengthen the hand of the prosecutors–they’re able to negotiate for longer sentences/higher fines/pleas to more serious stuff, because they’ve got the power to decide whether to charge the person with a crime with a mandatory minimum of 5 years or not.
Now, as best I can tell, having plea bargaining be the main way cases get resolved (something like 90%) is a terrible idea. And prosecutors can and absolutely do charge not-very-serious criminals with very serious charges to punish them for refusing a plea deal. This makes no sense in terms of justice, but it’s exactly what you should expect if you think in game-theory terms.
That was the original intention for almost all of them, but then it becomes a cheap “tough on crime” signal to add new crimes to the list, to say e.g. that because some petty thieves or low-level drug dealers sometimes hurt people, petty theft and/or low-level drug dealing is henceforth a “violent crime” for 3-strikes life-imprisonment circumstances, and link to a cherrypicked example involving a pretty white girl to drive home the point.
This is the type of thing that is supposed to be left to judges to decide; that’s a big part of the reason we have judges. But since legislatures have been increasingly taking that power out of their hands, we’re going to need periodic clean-up legislation like this to deal with the accumulated unintended consequences.
Interesting point about the game theory aspect.
Conrad Black, who’s been on the wrong side of the US legal system himself, had an article last week where he referred to it as a “prosecutocracy”.
Remember that propensity to commit crimes falls as people age, which is an effect that really will lead people to eventually turn their lives around.
I imagine that effect is diminished if the person spends long periods of time incarcerated (especially at a young age, say 18-30)?
The US Census is coming up in a couple of years. People in my state are push pushing the view that we’ve got to count every single person here, so the state gets as much credit for its population as possible. This is especially so since my state is at risk of losing a representative this year, since we haven’t grown quite as fast as the rest of the country.
But it seems to me that should only be convincing to me if I agree with political position of most of our reps. Every blue or red state has a sizable minority within its borders that is of the opposite color. It seems to me that this minority should want to minimize the population counted in the state, because a higher population in their own state results in bad results in Washington. So maybe these people should try to duck the Census so they aren’t counted?
It is true that a higher population also results in more gravy from the Feds when counting pork barrel votes and such, and so perhaps lowering these Federal benefits hurts everyone in the state. Speaking personally, I hate this pork barrel spending, so I don’t count it, but I suppose some do.
I do mostly disfavor the position of most of our reps in Washington, so it won’t bother me a bit if we do lose a rep. On the other hand, I think the data gathered by the Census is a very valuable tool for researchers. So I think the loss of accurate data if I skip the Census is more important than the political ramifications. But I do wonder if it is in the interest of others not to be counted.
What are the odds that a marginal representative for your state would be of the minority group?
And do you need it to be better than 50:50 to be in favor?
Ducking out of the census for that reason sounds like putting party loyalty ahead of democracy and the Constitution. I’d advise you to be counted even if you’re in my party.
I think a bit of gamesmanship is within the bounds of good conduct. If Mark at least arguably has two residences, he could choose which one he wants to be counted at for census purposes.
Do you oppose literally every representative from your state? What if the one you like is the one that gets cut? What if the redistricting lowers the chances of eventually getting someone that you do like?
If you think the data is important, then support everyone getting counted for that reason. The problem with trying to game this is that the end results seem too hard to predict to determine if the payoff is worth it.
No my state is Blue, but does have some Red reps. But it is more probable to lose a Blue one because there are more of them to lose.
Mostly I am pushing back against the folks who seem to think it’s in everyone’s interest in the state to count more people. I disagree with that.
That’s not how it works. If blues are in power, then blues get to redraw the map. We have no reason to believe they will redraw it in their own disfavor. There are no district lines that are obviously not gerrymandered.
I think playing fairly is important- generally I don’t want to win in cases where the result isn’t life-or-death if the way I win is through cheating. I would not lie to get a job, for instance, or spread rumors about a coworker to get a promotion over them. This sort of unethical behavior seems to be of the same category, and so I’d advise you not to do it, on moral/ethical grounds.
As I read the recent posts and comments on Trumpism and “Reversed Moderation,” I got thinking about a related phenomena I’ll call something like “excluded middle surrogate” or “motte-in-the-middle.” Basically, it’s a position you adopt, consciously or unconsciously, as stand-in for the moderate position you know won’t be heard because of “reversed moderation.”
“True position”: I don’t have any problem with immigrants so long as they adapt to US culture, and so long as they aren’t “scary” (“scary”=criminals, vagrants, non-industrious poor, and the kind of person who leaves a sofa on his lawn for a long time).
“Reversed moderation”: I think foreigners and brown people are scary.
“Motte-in-the-middle”: I’m just against illegal immigration (because I expect the current legal process, if strictly enforced will probably filter out most “scary” immigrants)
“True position”: maybe black Americans will never be as wealthy as white Americans and maybe that’s okay for the same reason it’s okay there won’t be as many Asian basketball stars.
“Reversed moderation”: I think white people are superior and black people should just know their place.
“Motte-in-the-middle”: I’m just saying welfare and the drug war have been devastating to the black family.
“True position”: I suspect this relatively inexperienced Ivy League community organizer guy with a weird name who grew up abroad doesn’t represent me or my values.
“Reversed moderation”: I think a black man shouldn’t be president.
“Motte-in-the-middle”: I’m just saying I’d like to see his birth certificate.
A key point about “motte-in-the-middle” is that it isn’t disingenuous in the sense that the person doesn’t really believe it, only in that it’s not their true rejection (because they wouldn’t be worried about hordes of Swedes overstaying their visas). I’m also not saying that the above positions are only ever substitutes for “real,” unspeakable positions (some people may genuinely be bothered by lawlessness per se more than the idea of a bunch of “scary” people who don’t speak English moving into their neighborhood, though I suspect that isn’t the majority of immigration opponents), only that they are examples of where such a dynamic may be at play.
One will notice that the above examples all map to “conservative” opinion, though I’m not ruling out the reverse sometimes happens; my impression is that the left currently has more “narrative veto power” and so may pressure conservatives into masking their “true” opinions more than the reverse (see “Shy Tory Syndrome”). I suspect “motte-in-the-middle” holders are frequently unconscious of what they’re doing because it’s a pretty natural psychological impulse to put a more socially acceptable face on a less socially acceptable opinion/feeling.
As people become familiar with “mottes-in-the-middle,” they start to suspect their status as “mottes” and then to reduce them to their respective “reversed moderations” a la ideological “bingo” (was going to link Jackdaws Love my Big Sphinx of Quartz here but seems it’s not available or has been set to private or something?), so now you really can’t say “I’m just against illegal immigration,” even if you really, truly are just bothered by lawlessness per se, because now people hear “I hate brown people.” And now all liberals have to say “I love all immigrants and I love the New York Times and all inequalities in outcome are caused by racism, I swear!” because anything less risks being mistaken for a “motte-in-the-middle,” which, in turn, collapses to a “reversed moderation.”
I can understand why this happens: the immigration proponents correctly suspect most of the people worried about illegal immigration wouldn’t be bothered if a bunch of middle-class Swedes moved into their neighborhood so suspect it’s not really just about illegality per se. Problem is, the fallacy of reversed moderation leads them to suspect the worst possible hidden motivations rather than something in-between that and their own position.
Hm…is the Black Friends defense a motte-in-the-middle?
Anyway, interesting point.
My understanding is that the Black Friends defense is virtue signalling to the wrong generation.
In the 70s or 80s if you were a white guy/gal with a black friend you were clearly not racist, so saying “I have a black friend” was an absolute defense against that accusation.
But as the term “racism” has marched on and Americans are overall less racist, black friends are pretty common even among people who the current definers of “racism” would like to call racist (e.g. Donald Trump).
Part of the problem is overlap/confusion between racism and prejudice. Even in the 70s or 80s, while having a black friend would mean you aren’t a card carrying racist, you might still be prejudiced against black people generally (but not your friend, who you have gotten to know, specifically).
I think that’s my exact point. “Racist” in the 70s and 80s was someone who actively hated people of a different race.
Nowadays it’s someone who doesn’t have the right specific brand of right-think on differences between races (and signal it). So people who are defending themselves against the charge of racism they are familiar with, not realizing that what people now mean is “you have bad social/political views”
That doesn’t make any sense to me. If your black friend was really your friend, he would know if you were prejudiced against other black people, and if that was a problem, he wouldn’t be friends with you.
As I wrote on my blog a while ago, (paraphrasing) “it would be pretty racist of you to think my black friends — who actually know me — aren’t as capable as you are at telling whether I’m a racist.”
Irrespectively of whether you’re a racist (and I don’t think you are, for what it’s worth), that’s not that much of a gotcha. I have at least one feminist friend who considers men (explicitly including me) to be pampered oppressors who don’t understand her suffering. I find that offensive, and in fact it’s an attitude that I rant against often and with much vitriol in other places – but since she doesn’t constantly rub my face in it, is always nice to me, and is just generally a good person, I find it hard to hold it against her. (and presumably she, for similar reasons, does not hold my pampered-oppressor-hood against me :p )
Friends can agree to disagree, is what I’m saying, even on topics that are close to their heart. Therefore, having friends from a group does not mean that you’re pristinely inoffensive to that group, only that you make up for it in other ways.
Time and time again I’ve seen white guys who tell the most vile “jokes” about blacks and freely complain about [n-words] make fast friends with the actual black men who get on the crew, and many times they are the most friendly to the new guy who’s black, and then they say the same “jokes” on the next job (so no change of heart).
I’ve no explanation for this phenomenon, just something that I’ve I observed.
Like I said, even if you are prejudiced against black people, if it’s really a problem for the black person you claim to be friends with then he wouldn’t be friends with you. If your black friend is able to look past it, then so should your accuser.
This is even stronger if instead of (or in addition to) a black friend you have a black wife. Friends can indeed often look past views you hold that would normally be quite offensive to them, but a spouse would really have to live with you having those views. It wouldn’t be something that can be easily brushed aside for the long term.
For this reason, I think someone having a black spouse is pretty much an argument-ender that that person cannot be racist against black people, at least not in any meaningful sense of the term “racist”.
I had a friend who had a very low opinion of Germans. He thought his wife was an exception. For all I know, she may have shared his opinion of (other) Germans.
There are a lot of married misogynists.
For a beautifully drawn portrayal of how this can play out, watch Hell or High Water, specifically the dynamic between Jeff Bridges’ and Gil Birmingham’s characters. I mean, watch it anyway – it’s one of the best films of recent years.
Chris Rock did a whole bit on that (that white people aren’t allowed to reference).
The basic idea is that the people you are interacting with actually hate “N*****s”, not black people. Being black is just a high-probability predictors of “n*****dom”.
Or – “racism in America is just classism in disguise”.
If my neighbor were an illegal Swede I’d call ICE. Is it that hard to understand that the True Rejection is “I can’t form a stable, high-trust society with people who demonstrate they believe the rules simply do not apply to them?”
You’ll notice nobody cares when, say, illegal Irishmen get deported. But the media likes to cover these things as if “haha, see racists, your evil policies hurt the white people you love so much too!” No. No one cares.
 We’re assuming for the sake of argument that the Irish are white.
I think there’s a third way to look at this Conrad. I can be against an illegal Swedish immigrant because I think he (or she!) is “scary” and part of my reasoning is their willingness to break the law. “Adapting to US culture” doesn’t have to mean “Speak English or get out!” bigotry, but it probably does mean a willingness to assimilate and get along with neighbors. Being white doesn’t make a career criminal appealing in any country.
I’m against illegal immigration generally, but in favor of fixing immigration rules even if that might mean an overall increase in immigration. When it comes down to it, the really fuzzy “I don’t want scary people coming in” is pretty accurate for me. I don’t consider brown skin and speaking Spanish to be “scary” though, which I recognize as the position many people will try to attribute to me even if I want more hard working Mexican immigrants in this country. That is, if I were to say “I don’t want scary people coming in.”
The correct amount of legal immigration is an entirely different debate, and that debate would depend on what things look like with illegal immigration “solved.”
As is whatever rules we make for legal immigration are pointless because when the Super Defectors say “yes, I know it’s illegal, and your people don’t want me to come, and the President of the United States has officially told me to scram, and it’s dangerous, and it’s not fair to the legal immigrants, and I’m going to be mucking up the works for legitimate asylum seekers by falsely claiming persecution, but I want some (illegal!) money so I’m going to drag a kid through the desert to illegally enter your country anyway because no rules of God, man, nation or common decency apply to me” the left says “oh look he’s brown and sad and has a kid you have to let him in anyway and we’re going to stymie all attempts to enforce the laws our duly elected officials passed.” What good are rules when we’ve already decided we’re not going to enforce them?
It’s not hard to understand; it’s just that opinions differ widely on which rules, when broken, actually predict that the rule-breaker will be significantly less trustworthy generally. Not coincidentally, this is correlated with opinions on the justice of the rules, and almost everyone has some rules which they believe to be both unjust and non-predictive of general untrustworthiness in their breakers. To give an extreme example: very few of us would say that, if you were a white Northerner in the 1850s, you’d be justified in fearing the untrustworthiness of a neighbor who is an escaped slave.
Does that apply to people who drink before they are 21? People who drive over the speed limit? My guess is that those two groups, combined, make up a sizable majority of the current population.
I saw a story recently, perhaps in Reason, about a state (New Jersey?) that passed a law requiring anyone who owned a magazine that held more than ten rounds to turn it in or destroy it. So far, according to the story, none had been turned in. Should anyone who retained such a magazine be exiled?
In my experience, people in practice distinguish between those laws that one is morally obliged to obey and those one is not, and think worse of people only for violating the first sort.
I find this idea highly persuasive. Being subconscious, I don’t think that it would be proper to attribute all of their “true position” to be separate from their “motte” position – how would we ever know for sure anyway? Most people seem to have multiple reasons for the positions that they hold, even if some are more convincing to them than others.
I find the first example to be accurate of my feelings, including the motte that I might say when meaning the true (at least with your added paranthetical).
I have a request along this line – Can anyone who considers themselves on the left and “pro-immigration” please fill in the “true position” aspect of the following? I’m trying to create better models of understanding on this particular issue. I understand that different types of “left” positions will answer this differently, from Hard Left Communists to SJW to Blue Dogs, etc., and getting multiple responses would be great. I decided to just leave the “reversed moderation” since that seems pretty clear, but left the Motte empty as well, since that will vary a lot depending on individual motivations.
Pro Immigration (left)
“True position”: ?
“Reversed moderation”: I want more votes for my team.
“Motte-in-the-middle”: ?(variable depending on which subgroup is answering)
This is one of the reasons I am not a fan of the reversed moderation concept Scott proposed. In what way does reversed moderation apply to the view you assigned to it? Some of onyomi’s examples were flimsy as well. This is kind of expected, because reversed moderation is a bad concept.
I take it (as Onyomi used it) to be a stand-in for “worst reasonable interpretation.” That is, something that may be true, but is certainly not sympathetic and not nuanced. Many on the right feel that the left wants more immigrants as a way to ensure voting supremacy. That seems both plausibly true, if shaky, as an underlying motivation, and deeply uncharitable compared to stated reasoning (i.e. it seems to fit the mold Onyomi is talking about).
Since we’re talking about something subconscious and also attributing “somewhat false” to their stated reasoning, this isn’t a very useful way to approach people to start a discussion. I recognize that. I’m genuinely hoping to get some responses that help me to see a view I don’t see clearly, somewhat better. I fully understand that a person can lie and continue the Motte version, or not realize that it is a Motte version, or truly hold what others might attribute to a Motte. I got some good feedback in another recent thread that was unusually productive, and I think SSC might be one of the few places a question like this might get any kind of reasonable response and introspection.
I don’t know that I consider myself pro-immigration, I’m not American at all, and I think you really severely overestimate the importance of immigration to Democrat voters, but can you truly, genuinely, absolutely not see why people might be in favor of more immigration that’s not full-out evil ‘outvote the other guys’?
Do you think this is evil, or do you think that he thinks this is evil?
I think supporting immigration for the purpose of marginalising the opposing vote is an evil point of view, yes.
I can imagine quite a few, and I’ve heard a good number (lots of rallies covered in the news, etc.) I suppose the question is a bit too CW for the introspection I am requesting, especially since the real answer might truly be “all the outwardly said things are true.”
This alone is worthwhile as a response for me to ponder, though. I hadn’t considered the possibility that Democrats really don’t care. If true, then presumably what we hear from Democrats is not so much a full-throated endorsement of immigration, but instead a response to the change in Republican approach.
It doesn’t seem unlikely.
I could see why a Republican voter might care about immigration the most; the stereotypical rust belt voter who went for Trump might very well be able to point at why immigration is an issue. I’m sure there’s a lot of Democrats who care about immigration, too, but it’s unclear to me that they’d care more than they might about wealth inequality or healthcare or gay rights or justice reform or minority rights or lord knows what else.
That said, immigration being an issue is something the right addressed first, and I really do think that a lot of the importance there on the left is taking a side more than careful reasoning from first principles. A mirrored example might be something like environmentalism; I’m not sure the people on the right might have cared nearly as much if it weren’t for the fact that politics split up into factions really quickly.
Or maybe most Democrats don’t care, but some Democrats feel like it’s the most important issue on the table, and others feel like it’s a perfect wedge issue.
Thank you. I appreciate the response and find this useful in modeling the position. I agree that the right’s position on environmentalism is more reactionary than first-principle as well.
This seems likely.
I think a common pro-immigration position might be “I know some people who(se parents) came in illegally, and they’re fine. They’re honestly just fine. Not ‘scary’, not lazy, not moochers, just people. Why is it so urgent that we keep them out again?”. This isn’t my position because I don’t actually know any illegal immigrants, but it’s an argument that I frequently hear and have no reason to doubt the sincerity of.
Isn’t it the case that the places with the highest populations of illegal immigrants are the most sympathetic to illegal immigrants? (Assuming that this effect isn’t illegal immigrants being sympathetic to themselves as the natives stay opposed.)
Edit: “I know some people like that and they turned out just fine” might be the social left’s argument for most things. It’s a pretty strong argument for most people, even if it’s not the most rigorous.
This isn’t quite a “most Democrats don’t care” argument, but it does still fit “Anti-illegal-immigration Republicans were first movers, Dems are just responding by being anti-anti-illegal-immigration”.
Democrat talking here, and I’d wholeheartedly concur. I think the average thought on this topic kind of is as follows (not listed by hierarchy):
1. Some laws are just stupid and not meant to be followed. Someone can smoke weed and be an ok person; jaywalking doesn’t mean you need to be arrested; not having filled out the proper paperwork to live somewhere doesn’t seem like it needs to be THE defining issue when it comes to their life.
2. The negative effects of illegal immigration, if there are any, are pretty diffuse. Maybe no white people can get a job cleaning hotels anymore, maybe various sections of town have a bit more of a language spoken in them that I don’t understand. Whatever, I don’t live in those parts of town anyway. The negative effects of overzealous immigration enforcement, however, are striking. Crying children in cages, sobbing families, op eds about how that guy was a model citizen for 20 years before being thrown back to some place where he’ll likely get killed by gang violence is severely distasteful and immediate. I’m going to favor the policy that doesn’t result in me having to feel complicit in those activities.
3. Even if I were to consider illegal immigration an issue worth solving, and even if I accepted that the only way to do so would be through some relatively inhumane measures, it doesn’t ever reach priority level. Maybe once I’ve solved wealth inequality, reformed healthcare and education and tackled climate change I’ll get to it, but until then we’ve got more important stuff to do.
As far as I can tell, the resistance to Trump’s immigration policy isn’t because we support immigration blindly, it’s because we hate how it’s being done.
I guess I’m also a democrat who also doesn’t really care about immigration. My views were pretty well summarized by This American Life episode 599’s segment with Alex Nowrasteh: why is this an issue and why now?
‘Stupid laws are not meant to be followed’ fails once there is no longer a general societal consensus about what laws are stupid enough not to be followed, and I think it’s obvious we’ve reached the point with the combination of laws, regulations, ordinances, codes, and unwritten rules of society where there can’t be a societal consensus. You end up with groups with the privilege to ignore the rules they think are stupid and those that can’t, and of course those that can’t are going to be angry. In this case, the existence of a group defined by their status as able to ignore a set of laws with impunity is going to be naturally infuriating to anyone feeling victimized by being held to arbitrary and capricious rules. On top of that, the people that want the rules to be enforced are being told they are the bad guys.
Part of the reason that immigration is so important to the right at this time is that it’s probably the most obvious single example of a larger breakdown in the rule of law (or, more precisely, the rule of rules) in the US and how it gets handled is a proxy for the larger debate. If your business is getting strangled by poorly-worded regulations enforced to the letter by petty bureaucrats, it’s galling to see someone else treat actual laws as stupid obstacles to be ignored when inconvenient.
This is entirely a matter of how the issue is framed in the media. If every video of a sobbing illegal immigrant family facing unjust deportation was replaced with a video of a sobbing parent of someone killed by an illegal immigrant that had escaped deportation due to sanctuary policies, the polling numbers for proposals to deal with illegal immigration would be entirely different. The people that choose what stories to present and how are a small group of the American public with specific interests, and those interests can’t be taken to be identical to those of the public at large.
Politics works when we can find solutions that all groups believe benefit them in some way (or, in a more cynical world, when everyone’s back gets scratched). Ultimately, you don’t have to understand why conservatives value enforcement of immigration laws more than they do goals like ‘reforming healthcare’, just that on some scale, you’re not going to get what you want without giving something to the other half in return. The immigration debate is a good place to look at this. Saying ‘why now?’ on immigration is meaningless because this was an issue thirty years ago, and the proposed solution then was one that benefited both sides: amnesty in return for enforcement. The left got its amnesty, the right got shafted, and in result further immigration deals are impossible.
I’m not saying you are inaccurately portraying the feelings on the right regarding the connection between the importance of the rule of law and immigration policy, but after having heard for too many “jokes” and earnest declarations of intent to violate existing and hypothetical gun laws they aren’t feeling that garner much respect from me.
So explain this bit to me, because I really don’t get it:
So a place that’s on your doorstep doesn’t matter to you because you don’t go there. Okay. But then why bother about:
Some guy you don’t know at all (because he lived in the part of town you keep out of) gets sent back to a country hundreds of miles away that you’ve never been to, and that makes you feel concern?
You don’t care about the people living half a mile from you, but you feel guilty about somebody living hundreds of miles away. And that makes no sense to me.
As far as I can tell “the right” has exactly what it wants, busted unions and a compliant class of easily deported Helots to do it’s bidding instead of an uppity working-class.
Maybe you meant the majority of voters for “the right” instead, in which case they haven’t gotten what they want on much (as far as I can tell) for 45 years, such as there’s been little overturning of “social issues” court decisions that “the right” squawk about, just as voters for “the left” (with the marginal exception of Obamacare) haven’t won for 48 years, and the gap between the richest and thr rest continues to grow.
The donor class of both sides has done quite well for itself however.
One dollar, one vote.
I’m not saying you are inaccurately portraying the feelings on the right regarding the connection between the importance of the rule of law and immigration policy, but after having heard for too many “jokes” and earnest declarations of intent to violate existing and hypothetical gun laws they aren’t feeling that garner much respect from me.
People are neither automatons nor idiots. If we are faced with two laws that conflict, our heads don’t explode, we prioritize which one to follow. If a law is impossible to follow, we don’t. If a law is hard to follow, even if we think it’s good to follow the law, we default to the intent of the law over the letter. If the law clearly doesn’t make sense or seems morally wrong, we ignore it.
I expect a tiny minority of the most ‘respect for law’ types obey the speed limit every time, and they mentally justify it by citing the intent of the law rather than the letter of the law. Likewise, it’s very easy for laws regarding guns to enter into the area where they become stupid or unjust and conflict with the fundamental natural right enumerated in the second amendment. If the government passed a law requiring everyone to attend Catholic mass every week, I would expect that even people that highly value respect for the rule of law to recognize that the law conflicts with the natural rights enumerated in the first amendment and ignore it.
Respect for the rule of law requires both sides (the public and the lawmakers) to uphold their end of the bargain. Passing unjust laws erodes the rule of law. Passing laws that are not enforced erodes the rule of law. Selectively enforcing the laws erodes the rule of law. Enforcing a law to the letter when it conflicts with the intent erodes the rule of law. In some cases (such as speed limits), this is unavoidable, but these exceptions don’t add up to much when most of the laws are clearly written and necessary. When there are tons of laws which are often vague, this breaks down rapidly, and we’re forced to prioritize.
The issue with immigration is that the general rules the laws are based on themselves aren’t widely viewed as unjust (we only accept a limited number of immigrants, we prioritize people in imminent danger and those that will contribute a lot to the country, and we expect those that come in to obey the law); it’s just not easy to codify and enforce them without being perceived as unjust. Handling immigration is also a core function of government; if anyone and everyone can walk in, you don’t have a country or a culture anymore.
Can you give some examples of what you’re referring to as “jokes and earnest declarations of intent to violate existing and hypothetical gun laws”?
I suspect there are at least two groups of people involved in your observations here, one more responsible than the other.
You have a point that immigration is not strictly a left/right issue; the breakdown is much more complex than that, and it’s driven the split between the corporate establishment types and the more populist types on the right for years. It’s just the only politicians with the freedom from the establishment enough to make it a real issue have been on the right.
As far as unions and the left, I can argue that they got exactly what they wanted in the short term. And like with any wish on a monkey’s paw, it came back to bite them good and hard.
The jokes are for some reason usually about fake boating accidents. I imagine there’s some cultural history there are missing.
The earnest declarations are both about existing laws (NYS’ SAFE Act) and hypothetical future laws require registration and/or banning certain guns.
You can insist “that’s different!” until you are blue in the face. What I hear is “I think this is a good law and that other one is a bad one”. Which is fine, just go and pretend it’s really all about this higher level principle. I don’t ever buy conveniently tailored higher level principles. If you want to claim one is important to you, show me where it really hurts and you support it anyway.
My point got lost in an attempt at snark, my apologies. It’s not that I don’t care about the people half a mile from me; it’s that I don’t register their presence as a problem. I’m 100% ok with them being able to work here, and it bothers me not at all to hear languages I don’t understand on my daily commute. None of these are problems that I think needs a solution. I’m admitting that maybe this is because my line of work/various privileges have insulated me from any serious negative effects, but that doesn’t really matter. If I don’t register it as a problem, I don’t think it needs a solution.
Moving now to the kids in cages or guys who’ve been productive citizens for decades getting deported: these are the kind of drastic solutions that would require a massive and obvious problem to be acceptable. If we don’t have any problems, I deem these solutions to be illogical and will therefore advocate against them.
I can think of no more perfect demonstration of the Tragedy of the Commons than the argument you are putting forth about illegal immigration.
“The costs are diffuse and minor in each specific case” is absolutely true about illegal immigration. And the Tragedy of the Commons is the best example of a place where specific incentives break down, which is why we need government to intervene.
The joke is that when the government passes its registration of guns law (which they think is unconstitutional and unjust and tyrannical) they will claim to have lost the guns in a boating accident. This is both an act of civil disobedience and a hedge against confiscation.
Thanks. I hear the boating accident joke all the time, so I can pretty safely say this is mostly idle jest from people who know their way around guns and gun rights and are intent on being the exact opposite of sloppy about how they handle them. It’s idle because they genuinely believe the state would never do something as boneheaded (in their considered opinion) as to try to confiscate all guns.
This is consistent with Civilis’ latest. Particularly the part about respect for the law being based on an understanding that both parties are upholding their end. Again, if the state were to try to pass a law that it can’t realistically enforce, or will not protect its constituents…
How did that play out when the most obvious example was alcohol prohibition?
Note that, in that context, there were two alternative solutions–enforce the law or repeal it.
Except that the tragedy of the commons, market failure more generally, is much more common in the political market than the private market.
Consider voting. If I spend several days studying the issues and the candidate in order to vote for the less bad candidate for president, I receive about 1/300,000,000 th of the benefit of doing so. That’s an externality of more than 99.999999%.
The same pattern holds for almost all of the actions that control what government does, although sometimes the externality might be as low as 99.9%.
For most practical purposes, anyone and everyone could walk into the U.S. until 1882, when restrictions came in on Chinese immigration, lunatics and carriers of contagious diseases. Anyone and everyone else could walk in until 1921, and anyone and everyone from the New World until 1965.
For what part of that history did the United States not have a country or a culture?
I’m far from agreeing with the original point, but you could walk here only if you managed to pay for (and in the early days, survive) a long and expensive boat trip first. That considerably limited the number of takers, even in the absence of policy.
During the potato famines there were hundreds of thousands of Irish immigrants who were functionally coming from the poorest population in the world at the time (literally starving to death and legally prevented from accruing property). Cost wasn’t as prohibitive as this statement makes it sound.
All right, fine. How’s this?
True position: Compassion for people looking for a better life (along with slight guilt at having randomly been born, through no virtue of your own, in one of the world’s more disgustingly rich countries). Honest belief that people are all fundamentally alike, so why discriminate? Honest belief that the scary people who’ll come in aren’t any scarier or more common than the scary people we already have here, so again, why be a dick about it for no reason?
Motte-in-the-middle: Blah bla bla country was founded on immigration bla bla sob stories of extreme suffering bla bla inspirational tales of hard-working immigrants bla bla.
Also, I have absolutely zero faith in immigrants from hyper-conservative countries voting for the sort of hippie-dippie liberal policies I favour, so I can honestly say that that motivation isn’t even remotely a factor for me.
Thank you for your candor, but what is the “reversed moderation” here? Something like “you care about foreigners more than you care about Americans”? I could be wrong, but I feel like that doesn’t actually have a lot of sting in US mainstream culture/politics today? Like, I’m not sure it would be considered a major gaffe if a politician stated your true position.
Plumber’s True Position: Wages are too low, the rent’s too damn high, the freeways are too full, and I really don’t like hearing Los Angeles and San Fernando Valley accents (“surfer guy” and “valley girl” are particularly annoying), and I dislike that the poor who grew up here are forced out.
A border wall between Mexico is just a start, I want so many other Americans and even other Californians to stop moving here
The question then becomes whether the border wall will
a) reduce the influx of people who can afford to outbid folks born in your area
b) do so more cost effectively than other options
Given what I know about where you live, your problem with cost-of-living looks to me more like it’s caused by well heeled tech employees than by dirt poor unskilled labourers with language problems.
I.e. you need to get rid of rich and upper middle class immigrants to your area, both those from within your country and those from outside. Those from outside the country are almost certainly legal – very few high income illegal immigrants, and even fewer in tech.
I’d suggest convincing silicon valley to move elsewhere, preferably somewhere that doesn’t have an existing population to be displaced, or where you don’t like that population anyway.
If you can wreck the natural attractions – i.e. get rid of the lovely weather, pleasant culture, etc. that would help too.
For what it’s worth, I hope you don’t succeed – I’m a happy legal immigrant, and I fathermore appreciate the significant increase in value of the house I bought when I first arrived here. Moving elsewhere (to follow the jobs) while losing my paper profit on the house (or worse) wouldn’t be very welcome to me.
But driving out folks like me would do you a lot more good, than keeping illegal south and central Americans out of the United States – except perhaps to the extent that we’re providing employment in your trade.
The late 1990’s employent boom in ‘Silicon Valley’ got me into my trade (Local 393 in San Jose called me for work before 38 in San Francisco or 342 in Concord, and 467 in San Mateo’s only interview question was “Who do you know?), and while they were occasional hospital, residential (only two!), school, and the airport expansion projects, mostly it was silicon chip plants and office parks, and I didn’t feel good about much of it, I remember dismantling a perfectly usable restroom and rebuilding it some feet away so some executive could have a bigger office, and my thinking “What a waste of labor”, and I remember being on a multiple building project in the hills above Palo Alto and seeing what looked like a red fox one morning and thinking what a shame it was that these concrete blocks were displacing it (the schools and the two residences I had some pride in though), my current job doing repairs just feels more useful, and while I should be grateful for the work, it’s hard for me to think of all those low density office parks of ‘silicon valley’ that replaced the orchards as anything other than a blight, and except for job losses, stopping ‘the valley’ seems mostly positive to me.
Where I live though, the engine of outbidding displacement is mostly the University, the closing of which (and shifting of it’s resources towards schools that more Californians have access to besides a privileged few) seems mostly positive to me as well, except for that would likely eliminate the bookstores surrounding U.C. as I imagine students and faculty are more of their customers.
An easier solution, it seems to me, would be sharply progressive income taxes (and stop paying professors and coaches so much in the first place!), so that while U.C. and silicon valley might still be magnets for the ‘cognitive elite’ I would hope that they’d then simply lack the money to outbid others by so much.
If somehow the “great compression of the mid 20th century could be brought back, many of the problems I perceive would be eliminated.
Here is a possible example on the left:
True position: Torture is morally abhorrent and should not be used regardless of effectiveness.
Reversed moderation: I care more about treating well captured terrorists than about saving American lives.
Motte-in-the-middle: Torture does not work.
(I know you are not intending to argue the object level there)
Treating well is the point of contention there. If you swapped it out for “not torturing” it is basically the consequence of the unqualified “should not be used” in the first statement and the reversed moderation is actually accurate.
It would be morally convenient for the third statement to be true and thus make irrelevant the decision of which value is higher for any given quantity of lives and particular torture method.
For certain values of work, it might be right, for others, perhaps not. I think in reality it depends on how readily you can corroborate possible leads given up. Torturing out a confession is silly. Torturing out possible confederates when you secretly have some way of double checking some of the information for veracity is possibly actionable, and the harder but truer test case for the morals.
+1 to the careful explanation there. That’s what I’ve always thought when people say that torture doesn’t work. I’m like, this is either trivially true or trivially false depending on the other parameters of the situation, and the sides are talking past one another.
Concur, and this has always bothered me about the torture debate. It’s basically just wayyyy to pat to handwave away it’s potential efficacy (when it’s supplemented with other means of verifying information) and reduce it down to “it doesn’t work.”
It also implies that some of the most capable intelligence-gathering personnel on earth were doing something they should have known was morally repugnant just for fun,
Makes me wonder what other morally inconvenient truths there are, then I realize that’s probably the maximally CW stimulating question to ask.
This seems a decent example and also points to what seems like a pattern: “mottes-in-the-middle” tend to be not only more socially acceptable but also “convenient-if-true,” whereas the “true positions” or “true rejections” they substitute for tend to be less so. It would be a more convenient moral universe if torture simply didn’t work, for example, since then we would never have to face the hard question of whether to use it.
Inconvenient (especially for conservatives) if true: continued differences in outcome among races are a result of deep historical injustice that can only be remedied by radical transformation of existing attitudes and institutions.
A little less inconvenient, but not very “kumbayah” in its implications: it’s basically impossible to level outcomes between black and white Americans and the two societies will never fully integrate.
Convenient-if-true: it’s basically just a few bad policies conservatives don’t like anyway preventing black people from all being like the Huxtables.
Inconvenient-if-true: there are many poor, hardworking people in the third world whose lives could be greatly improved by coming to the US. Moreover, the kind of poverty they suffer makes US poverty look like a cake-walk. Unfortunately, there is no easy way to let in a significant fraction of them without also letting in many criminals and people who will drain the system. Moreover, even the well-meaning ones, if allowed to come in great numbers, will transform American social and political life in a way existing Americans won’t be happy about. We must chose between denying this opportunity to the vast majority or else allowing our society to rapidly, deeply change in a way that may “kill the goose that laid the golden egg.”
Convenient-if-true: a good immigration policy can both avoid denying the opportunity for a better life to millions (billions?) of hard-working, well-meaning people, while at the same time keeping out the criminals and comfortably integrating the newcomers. American society can accept them all and be the healthier for it so long as they are made to go through an orderly legal process (“a big, beautiful door in the big, beautiful wall”).
Inconvenient-if-true: hundreds of millions of my fellow countrymen actually identify, at least aspirationally, with this Ivy League community organizer guy with a weird name who grew up abroad way more than they do with me and my idea of America. I feel highly alienated from much of my country.
Convenient-if-true: those underhanded DemocRATS always seeking to divide us! This guy’s basically a Manchurian candidate no one would like if they knew the truth.
True position: I hate paying taxes.
Reversed moderation: I am a sovereign.
Motte-in-the-middle: Passing budgets with gigantic deficits will eventually starve the beast.
Question about food in Indian/Pakistani/Jamaican/African/etc. restaurants, for anyone who might have insight:
Why is it that if you order stew-type dishes with lamb or chicken (i.e. chunks of meat in a thick sauce, usually eaten over bread or rice) the meat is often boneless, but if you order a similar dish with goat meat there are always bones?
Nope, the lamb curry I had this week also had bones. The chicken curry didn’t though.
Lamb doesn’t always have bones though. Goat pretty much always does.
Is your experience different?
Maybe it was just called “lamb” on the menu.
Certainly in the UK it is very rare for a lamb curry to actually contain lamb, normally it’s mutton.
Some Indian restaurants will simply refer to this option as ”Meat”, which their customers know will come from a sheep of indeterminate age- most Indian restaurants in the UK don’t serve pork or beef, the ones that do advertise it as such.
Bone-in produces better flavor but is harder to eat in almost all cases. My guess is that this is down to food distributor offerings/prices and also possibly the marginal benefit of leaving the bone in being higher for tougher red meats.
That was my hunch too, but I couldn’t figure out why it happened so far more often for goat than for lamb.
Odd hunch: I imagine goats are butchered by smaller-scale operations than those that butcher chickens or even lambs (even in countries the US where lamb is relatively unpopular). They may not sell boneless goat meat- either because it’s not worth the effort to them, because their customers- possibly the same small butchers sell to private individuals- want their meat with bones, or because there is a market for lamb bones for making stock that there isn’t for goat bones.
I put the question to the friend we are currently visiting, who happens to be a wholesale butcher. He suggested that part of it was that goats are smaller animals. Scale everything down and boning the animal takes more work per pound of meat.
On the lamb vs mutton question … . According to Wikipedia, rules in the U.S. “permit all sheep products to be marketed as “lamb.” Sheep products less than 12-14 months old can be labeled “prime lamb” or “choice lamb” and all other sheep meat can be labeled simply as “lamb.”
I think the idea is that anyone who isn’t turned off by the idea of eating goat also won’t mind eating around bones. From the restaurant’s point of view, leaving bones in is easier and produces better flavor for braised/stewed dishes, but the mass market standard in America at least is that boneless meat is the expectation, save for a few random exceptions like steak and buffalo wings. The less mass-market America friendly the meat is, the higher probability of it coming bone-in. I’ve even seen this controlling for the meat in Chinese cuisine. General Tso’s? Always boneless. Chicken soup? Maybe bones, maybe not. Chongqing chicken? Bone-in always.
I’m guessing it’s based on who is expected to order what: people who order goat are used to dealing with bones, which give a better flavor but really require being eaten with your hands.
If the whole clientele is Indian or African, the chicken will be bone-in too, and hacked rather than jointed, in my experience.
I think this is why.
Where I live, some restaurants have enough Chinese (from China/Taiwan/Singapore etc.) and enough U.S. customers that you can buy a few popular chicken dishes with or or without bones.
I think bones do make it taste a little better, but it’s definitely harder to eat.
Basic, basic accounting question. When learning history, I often run across a sentence that goes something like: the invention of double-entry bookkeeping was key to the growth of the European economy and enabled the growth of banks and large scale merchants. They never explain why. What is it about double-entry bookkeeping that makes it work better than the preceding methods? It’s not nearly as obvious as similar items of progress – I can easily see why you might prefer a windmill to grinding your wheat by hand.
I’ve done enough googling to have a general idea of what double entry accounting actually is, but it’s not clear to me why it isn’t just double work. Maybe that would become obvious if I actually did accounting, but I’m hoping the accountants here can give me a short cut to understanding instead.
I’m technically an accountant, but my understanding is mostly academic.
The fundamental point of accounting is to help management (or other people in charge) see what’s going on so they can make good decisions. I’m not all that familiar with single-entry bookkeeping, but I think it’s mainly focused on what you have and what you owe, while double-entry also keeps track of profit and loss. Keeping track of profit and loss helps you figure out what you’re doing right and what you should stop doing.
Simple question: if your friend owes you $50, how do you record that in your checkbook? Simple answer is that you don’t. Single-entry book-keeping typically tracks just pure cash, which means you can’t do the accrual based accounting that I mentioned above. You also don’t “close” accounts. It’s the cash account. It never closes. That’s kind of the point of the single-entry. But that also means you aren’t able to generate income statements and balance sheets that tell you the health of the firm.
This starts to matter a lot more as businesses grow in complexity and scale.
Very much not an accountant, but I actually know this one. The big advantage of double-entry accounting is that it reduces the amount you have to trust your clerks. With single-entry accounting, it’s way too easy for an unscrupulous clerk to simply steal money. With double-entry accounting, it’s pretty easy to check for a single point of failure because the ledgers should all add up to zero. (Obviously, it doesn’t protect against two clerks colluding, but that’s a lot less likely). Before double-entry, merchants basically could only use their family members as clerks. With it, they could hire people to do that job, letting them get much bigger.
(Ross Anderson’s textbook on security engineering goes into this in much more detail. Also, it’s a really interesting read.)
I remember reading somewhere (Google fails me) that the Assyrian merchant families in Middle Bronze Age Anatolia developed some very sophisticated financial instruments including clay checks (!), but each trading post (karum) had to be operated entirely by kin, with another family member back in Asshur, due to the principle you state.
Also, turning a profit depended on breaking local law.* It’s easier to maintain honor among criminals if you’re all family only cheating the princes of little city-states trying to shekel-and-dime you every step of the trade route.
*”Let them [the transporters] bring the tin via the narrow track [smuggling route] if it is clear. If not, let them make small packets of my tin and introduce them gradually into Kanesh, concealed in their underwear.”
The chapter is here.
People make several different claims about the value of double-entry bookkeeping. I assume that they’re all true, although I don’t understand all of them. But historians probably mean specifically that one of them was more valuable than the others. Different historians may choose different features, though.
Bean’s answer of security against embezzlement is probably the problem that the Renaissance bankers were trying to solve, because they had multiple accounts kept by multiple people locked up separately. And this, especially the expansion of the firm, is probably what some historians mean.
But other historians, namely Max Weber and Werner Sombart, claimed that double entry bookkeeping lead to putting value on capital and thus to managers optimizing the use of capital, which they called capitalism. I’m not sure what they meant, but it sounds like they meant that it gave better abstractions with which to understand the firm.
Better abstractions can have value to the owner-manager in a completely non-adversarial way. But they can also be valuable in an adversarial way to outside investors who don’t understand the firm very well. For example, as ADBG says on elsewhere on this OT, much of the value of the firm is what customers owe less what the firm owes to its suppliers. I think of double entry bookkeeping as a step beyond that, mainly linking inventory into accounting, putting a dollar value on inventory, or services owed to customers.
For example, I have seen several small businesses that sell annual subscriptions (paid up front) and think of them as a big burst of profit. But the transaction is not complete until the year is up. The investor does not want the manager to be able to manipulate the apparent profitability by moving around when the sale is made, just as in ADBG’s examples the investor does not want the manager to be able to manipulate the value of the company by moving around when payments are made. So the outside investor required the company to switch to an accounting system that shows that the customer owes services to the customer. The baseline value of those services, as suggested by double-entry bookkeeping, are price, so the immediate effect of sale is no effect on the value of the company. Each month the company delivers one month’s worth of services and reduces what it owes the customer. If it cost less to deliver the service than the 1/12 of the price paid by the customer, this results in a profit being recognized in that month.
Bean’s correct about security (specifically, the ability to detect malfeasance by auditing books) are correct. In addition, audibility doubles as a way of catching honest mistakes and correcting them before the propagate beyond recognition.
Another big benefit of double-entry bookkeeping is now pretty much obsolete, but used to be a huge deal: double-entry bookkeeping reached Europe well before the concept of negative numbers did, and it allows you to fully describe the ordinary operations of a business’s accounts entirely with positive numbers. Tangentially, the lack of negative numbers explains the major features of double-entry bookkeeping that tend to confuse people learning it: particularly the debit/credit terminology (which substitutes for positive/negative numbers) which switches sense depending on which side of the accounting equation you’re on (because a positive number added to the left side of an equation needs to be balanced either by the same number subtracted from the left or added to the right), and the way the accounting equation is layed out (Assets = Equity + Liabilities instead of the equivalent and more-intuitive-to-modern-eyes Equity = Assets – Liabilities or just thinking of liabilities as being assets with negative values).
Yes, yes it does. And thank you for that insight.
Thanks, all. I think I was thrown by the way articles usually start by describing the purchase of a physical thing. Debt is a much clearer example of something where single-entry can’t capture the whole story – and time shifting in general, really. Single entry accounting for issuing a loan would be a lot of seemingly-unrelated events, where the double-entry method of having it be neutral on the day it’s issued, followed by steady small profit (or the default causing ruin), fits the reality a lot better.
I’ve been an accountant for almost 40 years, and I have to confess I don’t really understand the answer to this question. Bean says it’s easier to catch an unscrupulous clerk, but I’m not really sure how. I think it does make it easier to audit the books, but why? I think it is true that auditing a business is usually done mostly by counting its assets/liabilities and making sure they tie to the books. But the most important numbers in a business is usually its profit. So maybe double entry bookkeeping makes it easier to audit one’s income by looking at the resulting assets and debts. I think I’m mostly uncertain here because I don’t know how single entry bookkeeping was done. It may be that single entry bookkeeping was just less organized so double entry helped audits because it easier to understand what was happening.
I’ve thought about this some more, and I think the benefit of double entry bookkeeping isn’t so much the double entry part as that it is an organized process, making it easier to organize.
Consider a very simple retail kiosk selling widgets. It does business in cash only. The person running the kiosk has had no training in accounting, but wants to keep track of the numbers. This person will likely write down all the widget sales, and all the spending to buy more widgets and pay rent for the kiosk. Also the cash and widgets are counted at the beginning and end of the day. Obviously, a numerate person can calculate whether cash or widgets have disappeared. But by using normal bookkeeping methods, it is a simple process to have book numbers for cash and widgets, to compare to the count. Thus the formal process makes an audit a lot easier. And this is compounded as businesses become more complicated.
And what Sam says below me. In my example, one audits assets to calculate income. Double entry bookkeeping makes it all happen automatically.
In my mind, double-entry book-keeping has the key advantage that it links the balance sheet and the income statement, while keeping them separate. All the other advantages listed above–auditability, no negative numbers–are extra. The real key insight is that you paid Joe $50 from cash, or in goods, or you owe Joe $50 but haven’t yet paid it. Single-entry isn’t good for looking at liabilities–single-entry tends to be cash-only, and net profit only.
Question for people with customer-facing jobs:
What’s something any customer could easily do — but which most don’t — that would make your job easier or more enjoyable?
(Please indicate what your job is and who your customers are.)
I’m a plumber for the City and County of San Francisco, and the “customers” are other city workers, most often deputies working in County Jail #4.
The number one thing that would help me out would be specific room numbers on the former repsir requests (service orders), and contact info so that I may actually talk to the person making the service order.
The second thing would be to stop making verbal repair requests without following up with the formal entry on the “Computer Maintenance Management System”, as I get in trouble for doing those repairs instead of the listed ones.
At the parts counter of the motorcycle shop I worked at in the ’90’s the main thing would be supplying VIN and Engine numbers (on the registration) through (as I had to explain to one pair of customers) “The bike you you were sold is a two-cylinder motorcycle from the ’80’s, the title you were sold is for s four cylinder bike from the ’70’s”, so even that’s not fool-proof, and then there’s when “customization” has been done by previous owners.
And here I didn’t think you were actually a plumber. That perhaps you were really into the Mario franchise or something.
How long have you been a plumber for?
I started as an apprentice plumber with U.A. Local 393 San Jose on February 3rd, 2000 (but my uncle was a plumber in Oakland, California before then so a few odd plumbing jobs with him).
And I started with the City and County of San Francisco, and transferred to U.A. Local 38 on April 4th, 2011.
Don’t lie to me.
Seriously that’s it.
I am a software developer, and from time to time support requests make it all the way to me. So I am on the phone/meeting with a customer, trying to troubleshoot ‘through them’ as it were. (That is, They tell me what is going on and how long it has been happening, as well as what they want, I tell them what to try, they tell me what shows up on the screen, eventually I have enough info that I can go back into source and try a few things, meeting over.)
They lie like rugs about each and every part of the above.
How long has this been happening?
“Oh, it just started doing this” (…3 months ago when we bought the software and installed it)
What did you do just before this happened?
“Nothing, it just did it on its own” (…after I deleted all the configuration files and changed the display language to Sumerian)
What do you want it to do instead?
“I just want it to do what it says in the literature” (…and also be the holodeck.)
What does the screen say?
“It is just giving me an error message, no details” (…except for this stack trace.)
It drives me absolutely insane. Why are people like this?
This one drives me crazy. People have been trained to immediately close error messages, without even bothering to read them, much less record them for you. It’s a nonstop uphill battle, fighting this tendency.
A pet peeve of mine is the old XY problem.
Part of the problem is that there are so many error messages, and most of them are completely meaningless to regular users. Generally seeing an error message doesn’t mean you need to call customer support right away, so people close the message, go on about their business, and only call support after the problem persists or additional problems pop up, at which point it is too late to get the original message back.
In other words, this is an annoying problem, but the alternative is probably for users to stop work and contact support for every error seen (which for some applications isn’t even possible anyway), which would probably be much more annoying.
I agree that part of the problem is poorly written and excessive error messages, but your alternative doesn’t follow. Plenty of errors are replicable, and users regularly figure this out themselves, at least if they try. Meanwhile I have gone to end users’ actual computers, asking them to replicate it so I can see the error, they go through the whole process, only to immediately close the error when it appears. It’s maddening!
I had one of the most infurating examples of that a while back (though just as a slightly-more-expert-than-other-users end use).
I was the guy in charge of doing the Unit Status Report for my battalion (every month every unit in the Army is required to report various data in standardized form to give the Pentagon an idea of the readiness status of the force–training, equipment and personnel on hand, etc.) This was done on a standardized program which included validation of the data.
I had one of the company executive officers call me to say that he was having trouble submitting because of a persistent error message he was getting. He couldn’t tell me what it was over the phone, so he brought his computer up to the battalion headquarters so I could see it in person. He went to the page, clicked on the validation button, an error message popped up and he clicked the close button and said “See, sir, it’s giving an error.” I told him that I couldn’t read what it said before he closed it, and asked him to do it again. He repeated the same sequence, including closing it before I could read it.
After two more iterations of this, I threatened to take him outside and smoke him like a pack of cigarettes if he clicked the close button before I had a chance to read it. He finally stopped clicking close so I could see exactly what the error message was.
The error message was in nice, user-friendly English, and said something like (I don’t remember the exact error, but this is morally pretty close to what happened): “Invalid data entered on Equipment page. Click here”
Clicking on the provided link brought you to the equipment page, where it said something like: “You are required to enter the commander’s top 25 required equipment shortages. Only 22 are entered.” I told him to pick a couple more. He did, and clicked the button throwing the error before and, lo and behold, it worked! (and yes, the program was smart enough to not require 25 if less than 25 pieces of equipment were short–though we always had way more than 25 line items that were short)
Did you branch transfer to Chemical?
I’m not an IT person, but somehow I’ve fallen into the role of fixing tax errors in the system just because I’m a tax person. The error messages we get are 95% useless. Every once in a while I get one and then I know “aha, this is coming from such and such a system.” But I am constantly getting people telling me the error message and expecting me to understand what the problem is. I always tell them the message doesn’t tell me the answer. It seems to me this has also generally been my experience when I talk to real IT people. This is why people don’t tell you the error message, because the experience of seeing its uselessness. Also that most error messages are something like 50 characters of meaningless jargon, so it takes 10 minutes to write it down. Or sometimes I get pages of error messages.
No, we didn’t have a CHEMO at the time and the S-3 Training owned the USR. (Which, technically, is probably a better fit for the data fed in anyway, but I think Chemical has it for lack of other peacetime work)
Just teasing/trolling any chemos who happen to be reading.
Maybe programmers shouldn’t be putting out OS/programs that prevent you from copy-pasting the error codes/descriptions.
That disturbingly common trend miiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight have a tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiny bit to do with why people are bad at providing that information.
Or, perhaps, programs should be dumping error information into a default text file that the user can then send to debuggers, instead of only outputting it in a temporary dialogue box that the user must exit out of to do anything else. That might help. /s
Why on earth does anyone have to resort to barbaric rasterizing methods like screencapping, or worse, webcam/phonecamming like they’re doing an indirect TV/film bootleg!?
Not only error messages.
I get so much mail from Ryanair titled “Important information about your flight” to the effect that the cabin baggage policy is not the same as one year ago (but still the same as eleven months ago) that when I got one with almost exactly the same subject line saying that my flight was cancelled due to a pilot strike I almost missed it.
I had a problem recently with a piece of software on a scientific instrument and I ended up with several megabytes of error logs and dozens of screenshots of different error messages. It was helpful in the end but very frustrating at the moment.
I’m guessing that people don’t save error messages because it’s obnoxious and they don’t understand how it will help get the problem fixed faster.
It would help, I think, if at least part of the error was worded in words the user could make sense of.
Something like “Unexpected termination: error code 1A2-B” is going to get closed immediately because it looks like gibberish and unhelpful.
A message that tells a user what to do with the information will still get people who dismiss it absentmindedly, but probably less of them.
“An error occurred. Contact customer support and provide error code 1A2-B” is at least a little better.
Sometimes they actually are gibberish. In the problem I was talking about, at least two of the error messages ended with seemingly random Japanese characters. The machine was built in Germany by a German company and the software is otherwise entirely in English.
But yeah, more comprehensible error messages would be helpful. Having software issues is already very frustrating without your computer speaking in tongues at you.
The best way to handle it I have ever seen is a simple message directed at the end user, and then a separate listing of debugging information (hidden in a dropdown) that the end user can provide to customer support.
The worst thing is “Error Code 0001235XYT” so I try Googling that to see what comes up and it recommends the product website and I go there and enter the error code and it comes back “Not recognised” or even worse “This page has been deleted”.
The only way to improve upon that would be a ‘search stackoverflow for this error’ button.
That probably means you’re looking at a Unicode string (common in international software) that’s full of uninitialized data. So yeah, gibberish.
I can think of some easy, plausible explanations:
How long has this been happening?
“Oh, it just started doing this” (…3 months ago when we bought the software and installed it) …and then left it alone without actually using it or checking that it installed properly, because we got distracted by something else. But we’re not going to tell you that, because we want you to think we’re good, diligent customers.
What did you do just before this happened?
“Nothing, it just did it on its own” (…after I deleted all the configuration files and changed the display language to Sumerian) …or rather, our sysadmin did it and didn’t tell us. Or: I made all sorts of weird changes months ago, but hadn’t used your software since, and now I’ve forgotten that I’d done all that.
What do you want it to do instead?
“I just want it to do what it says in the literature” (…and also be the holodeck.) …I’m not a software developer or similar type of engineer, so I’ve never developed the habit of Talking To The Duck, so I have a hard time articulating what I want… I just know it isn’t what you just put in front of me. (This drives me up the wall, too.)
What does the screen say?
“It is just giving me an error message, no details” (…except for this stack trace.) …all that fine print is utterly meaningless to me, so I assumed it’d be meaningless to you, too, and I didn’t want to waste your time… so, yeah, I guess you got me; I might be kinda dumb. (Or, +1 to what a lot of others said above.)
People lie because they are punished for telling the truth.
Keep that in mind when you think someone is lying to you. If you want to get the truth out of them, you *must* 1) make that not happen, and 2) persuade them that you were effective at doing so.
If you can’t do that, direct your ire at whoever or whatever is preventing you from doing so, instead of directing it at your customers.
This is naive.
The normal explanation is that the person who is lying to me is an employee of one of our customers, and he fears being punished by a more senior employee of that same customer if he admitted the truth. (And frequently for good reason…) There’s a sense in which maybe I should blame the senior martinet rather than the junior doofus, but it’s all the customer.
If you are asking your customers for error messages, your application has already failed, and it probably failed long ago, probably when it was being written.
The app should be logging all of it’s important state transitions, current utilization and health, and the event and error log, and you should be able to review that log, or the customer should be able to push one button to send it to you. If is not, is not your customer’s fault.
Uh, so if my customer lying to me about what is on their screen isn’t their fault, then whose fault is it?
Like, I’m not mad, it is just a weird experience to have someone be like ‘what is your gripe’, and me be like ‘cancer’, and then you show up and start saying how cancer is making a lot of great points.
This exchange amuses me. It sounds like someone asked “what is your gripe”, you said “cancer”, and you say they said cancer made some great points, when what they’re really saying is that that cancer is a stupid black box of a machine that really only says what you told it to say.
Or to break it down: Mark is claiming that your app was written in a way that gave your users the opportunity to lie to you, and since the author of your app was presumably* you, you’re really complaining about something you let your users do**.
*The author may of course been someone else. I strongly suspect Mark is perfectly aware of this, and expects you to blame the true author in that case.
Seconding this so hard.
I kind of hate that graphical loading screens are a thing, especially for OS boots nowadays. If loading goes wrong, then I want to be able to know exactly at what point of the process it went wrong!
The propagation of this aesthetic is why Tumblr has infantilizing “ooopsy poopsies we made a mistakesies! \^0^/” pages instead of goddamn error codes, and Apple is happily trying to prevent right-to-repair, and farmers are hiring Ukrainian hackers to fix their IoT tractors.
Not really customer-facing anymore, but previously?
Have your information.
Current and up to date and all the pieces of paper. Bureaucratic requirements are a pain in the backside, but the person asking for a piece of identification really does need it. I can give an anecdote from the social housing job: a person applying for this needed to provide proof of address, and all they supplied was the address label from a magazine subscription, and they steadfastly refused to provide anything better to prove that they were living where they said they were living, which made us suspect they were lying about “and there are sixteen of us to a room and I’m expecting a child and my sister is expecting a child and we can’t fit eighteen people in, please give me a house!”
Some people genuinely need help filling out forms and are otherwise co-operative, but if you’re ever tempted to blow up at the clerk at the counter because you have six of the eight pieces of paperwork, do you really need that trivial other piece? Yes you do. We’d love to just take the six but (a) we get hammered by superiors who get hammered by their superiors for doing that (b) experience shows that “okay I’ll take your form and start processing it and you can send in the other parts later” means “later is never” (c) scammers tend to pull the loud demanding to see a supervisor because this clerk is abusing me with red tape stunt.
Also, we don’t make the rules. The guys you vote in who go to parliament/congress pass the laws which are turned into the regulations which then filter down to the front-facing level in the civil and public service, and we don’t get to choose which bits we’ll apply and which bits we will wave away. Yelling at us may make you feel good but it won’t change things.
As for private industry type jobs – again, treat the people like humans. They are not deliberately making things harder for you and are not capriciously choosing to deny you and give it to someone else, they’re just as stuck with ‘I don’t have the power to accept six months expired coupons for a completely different product’.
A few years ago, I worked as a telephone fundraiser for various charities (my employer was a for-profit company which charities contracted to do their fundraising). Many, many people would say something to the effect of “Right now isn’t a good time – could you call me back.” No doubt some of those people meant what they said, but I’m pretty sure the majority just wanted to get out of the call without being forced to say, “No, I have no interest in giving UNICEF money to spend on blankets for Syrian orphans” or whatever it was.
The trouble with this approach is that you will in fact be called back, repeatedly, unless and until you actually say “No,” or better yet, “I’m not interested and please delete my contact information from your system.”
Also a mistake: hanging up the phone without saying anything the instant you realize what’s going on. If the fundraiser hasn’t stated their name and the organization they’re calling on behalf of yet, that will be logged as requiring a call-back. If you wait until they have communicated that information before hanging up, it will (or at least should) be logged as a “hard no”, meaning you won’t be contacted again as part of that campaign.
I imagine much of the above is the result of UK regulatory requirements and would also apply to sales calls (and not apply to other countries), but that is speculation.
It sounds like the UK is much less pathological in this area.
I’m in the US. I will be called back – full stop – often by a bot that may or may not connct a (virtual) tape player, depending on how many people happen to actually answer their bot calls that minute. To actually interact with a human, I’ll have to listen through the message – and follow some instructions given after the 2 minute taped spiel. And there’s no guarantee that following thiose instructions will (a) work or (b) work effectively. I.e. it’ll take longer for them to get around to removing me from their list, than it will take for them to receive another copy of my phone number from their partners.
Net result – I don’t answer my phone, and sometimes don’t check my messages either.
Does anyone know whether Canada’s regulations are currently more like the US or more like the UK?
Looking for help from the Bay Area natives or those who lived here for a while.
Are there any New Year events around which go beyond “as glamorous a party as you can get for this amount of money” template?
A weird question I know, but that’s what this blog’s audience seems to be good at.
If you’re looking for a good resource for Bay Area things to do by day, especially cheap or free ones, check out funcheap.com.
It’s not about cheap, it’s about doing something other than dancing to the club music and drinking. But they seem to have a sizeable list of events, there should be something here, thank you.
I seem to have forgotten who was the greatest author of English-language works in the 20th century. Oh well, I’m sure someone will remind me.
sorry if i’m spoiling the fun here, but what is the objective of this question? The two things that seem most likely to me are (a) thoughts (and debate) about the metrics which should be used to evaluate an author or (b) a list of authors that, implicitly, SSCers recommend you should read.
While there are many authors I like, “greatest” is too difficult a position for me to defend.
You are thinking of C.S. Lewis. Over 70 works listed in Wikipedia, master of fiction, non-fiction, and rhetoric. Created one of the most successful children’s book series ever, made the strongest arguments in support of Christianity since Aquinas, and overall an eloquent writer.
Ima let you finish, but G.K. Chesterton out-Lewised Lewis before Lewis.
Yeeeah, while I liked the Space Trilogy well enough, The Ball and the Cross and The Man Who Was Thursday are really excellent.
In the same group, but better: Dorothy Sayers. Best-selling mystery author, best apologist I’ve read, awesome take-off on the Athanasian Creed, clarifies law (code) vs law (reality)…
Isaac Asimov, of course. One of the most prolific writers ever (over 500 books to his name), with a writing style that tended towards wit and accessibility even when dealing with complicated scientific concepts. A philosopher deeply committed to humanism and rationalism. A decent author who opened entire cultures’ eyes to the folly of the Frankenstein Complex and the possibility of finding beauty in the machinations of an orderly universe. By all accounts a kind, thoughtful, considerate man whose legacy has sadly withered in the decades since his death.
Why, Terry Pratchett of course!
Donald Knuth? Basically the Thomas Aquinas of computer science – devoting a large part of his career to a never-to-be-finished magnum opus, which begins with basic fundamentals but is unreadable for anyone but experts, and for them, invaluable. Also the inventor of a great digital typesetting system which large swathes of academia and industry rely on, and a new programming paradigm developed for the purpose. He’s an inspiring example of how programming expertise can be combined with literary skill. He’s also a polymath with interesting things to say on many non-technical subjects.
Disclaimer: maybe I’m wrong about the value of The Art of Computer Programming, since I’m one of those who can’t possibly comprehend it. But I do greatly admire Knuth.
“The Art of Computer Programming” is not that hard, if you go very slow and carefully, and don’t skim it looking for “an answer”. You really do have to read every line, and follow every piece of math with pencil and paper, it does not lend itself to short-attention-span, leetcode, stackoverflow, style “learning”.
It looks forbidding, but almost all the “number math” and “calculation” is algebra of integers, and it carefully walks you through all the combinatorics and graph theory and other higher math needed. As is, in fact, a better textbook on any of those topics than any focused textbook I’ve found.
There is also a really awesomely fun “the really fun parts” version that will take only 6 months to read, instead of 6 years. “Concrete Mathematics” by Knuth.
“Author” seems like a very limiting factor for the 20th century, when other audiovisual forms of storytelling developed so much. “Author” would be so much less influential on the populace than the collectives making magic happen on screens.
With, perhaps, the exception of nonfiction, in which case we may have to go with Einstein.
Best Director of the 20th Century, go!
Robert Oppenheimer was director of the Los Alamos Laboratory during the Manhattan Project. Later he was director of the Institute for Advanced Study. That’s some pretty good directing right there.
Hmm, yes, does he have anything on Netflix?
Netflix has lots of things on him, so by the principle of reciprocity yes.
Eh, auteur theory may apply to certain productions, but most are very very much more a collective process. The more I learn about behind the scenes, the more I realize how much autonomy and creative contribution the other myriads of departments have, and the directors are just like “yes, your ideas are awesome, approved.” Otherwise, we’d probably have to give the prize to good ol’ Walt. Or rather, to Walt’s copyright-extending lawyers, damn them.
I’ll keep believing until the end that the most influential author of English-language works in the 20th century was Lovecraft. His impact on popular culture in terms of tropes and standard stories is ridiculous and continues to this day.
As for the greatest, if that can mean anything, I’ll vote for Faulkner.
Being out of copyright helps, but what about Conan Doyle?
Heh. “Lean Times is Lankhmar” is just about a perfect short story. “Where is the jug? WHERE IS THE JUG?” I don’t think I’ve ever laughed harder at a story.
You have excellent taste!
I’ve read and liked some Anderson, Asimov, Bradbury, Hammett, Howard, Moorcock, Moore, Niven, Smith, Steinbeck, and Vance (to name some other authors off the top of my head that I’ve liked), but none have quite matched Leiber for me.
I’ve read quite a lot of all the authors you’ve listed. (Smith is E. E. “Doc” Smith, I’m assuming.) Here are some others I’ve liked:
Avram Davidson: He was unique, and I don’t know really anyone to compare him to. My favorites were his Dr. Eszterhazy stories and his Unhistories. He has a very digressive style, but the seeming irrelevancies are going somewhere.
Gene Wolfe: His New Sun books are his best known, I think, but I preferred his Soldier and Long Sun books. His short stories are even better (Island of Doctor Death, for example).
Roger Zelazny: He’s probably best known for his Amber books, but Lord of Light and Creatures of Light and Darkness are two of my favorite books. Oh, and A Night in the Lonesome October is fantastic, too.
C. J. Cherryh: She somehow reminds me of Vance in many ways. My favorites are the Company War books.
Steven Brust: Most of his books are in his Vlad Taltos series, very good; buy I especially liked his Khaavren Romance books, modeled after Dumas.
Glen Cook: His Black Company books are amazingly good—kind of fantasy/war novels. I also liked his Garrett, P.I., stories as lighter reads.
I’m away from home for the holidays, so I can’t look over my bookshelves, but that’s what I’ve got off the top of my head.
Clark Ashton Smith (“The Return of the Sorcerer”, “The Seven Geases”, et cetera, is the author who I referred to.
Anyway, I’ve read and enjoyed some Davidson and Wolfe (but for some reason I’ve never gotten too far into The Shadow of the Torturer despite it being well recommended), and thank you very much for some tips of othet authors to check out.
In that case, I’d add E. E. “Doc” Smith’s Lensman series to the list!
Wolfe’s New Sun books, (Shadow of the Torturer, etc), are pretty extreme in their “I don’t know what’s going on here” vibe. I think his other stuff is more accessible. That said, they do eventually come together, for the most part. They seem like fantasy, but they’re actually more science fiction; and the narrator is willing to hide and lie about things from time to time. They have a feel somewhat like Vance’s Dying Earth books, which I definitely have to be in the right mood for, too.
Philip Larkin, for his insight, clarity and astonishing ability to pickle a moment, or thought, or feeling.
Best prose stylist probably Capote, greatest writer for theatre Sondheim, writer of the greatest plays Peter Shaffer.
Personal favourite Graham Greene, who is noteworthy as being to the best of my knowledge the only writer to acheive greatness in both novels and screenplays, but I would be hard-pressed to make the case for him as the greatest.
Repost from the totally dead OT:
Is anyone here aware of Andrew Yang? He’s the first potential candidate I’ve heard of (outside of minor/third parties) in a Western country that is making his primary platform all about automation and the basic income guarantee (OK the UK Conservative Party had some stuff in a pamphlet somewhere but it’s hilarious stuff about the “positive conservative vision” of shaking hands with a robot while wearing a VR set). He’s a Democratic Party candidate, not some independent figure with zero chance. Actually, we know from Hillary’s book “What Happened?” that she had a chance to raise these issues but deliberately chickened out. This guy is hoping to make the issue the Democratic Party’s flagship issue and make the basic income its flagship policy (though he calls it a “Freedom Dividend” in an interesting piece of marketing).
As well as being a Democrat (I would have preferred a Republican but ho-hum) that is focused on automation, the third important element to me is that he’s neither an actual radical socialist nor someone trying to rehabilitate the label of socialism like Bernie, as can be seen from this FAQ answer on his website where he expresses it as a policy to advance capitalism. He repeatedly talks about evolving capitalism into a new form in his speeches, which is good. This normalizes the policy and is both a fact based defense against conservative dismissals using the buzzwords of socialism/communism (basic income is compatible with markets and private property), and assuages the fears of market positive moderates who are suspicious of those trying to sneak a real socialist agenda in by other means. So I’m rather pleased about this so far.
I’m (CULTURE WARning, but at the same time disclosure) right of center, a nationalist, and I don’t like the left wing identity stuff that’s part of his platform and worldview, but that’s to be expected, and all things considered it’s really rather paltry. All that kind of stuff pales absolutely in comparison to the importance of getting policy on technological unemployment and autiomation right. We have opposite views on affirmative action, guns, immigration etc but that doesn’t matter when it comes to the rise of the robots. The Culture Wars don’t matter in the face of that.
My only affecting issue (and it’s a big one) is that the basic income is a context sensitive policy. It shouldn’t be brought in too big, too early. He’s offering $1000 per month for every American over 18 (over 20 if you don’t graduate), which is a rather large amount. He seems to be under the impression that a lot of jobs have already been lost to automation, but this is highly disputed. It was always going to be the left that advanced the basic income first, but I’ve long been concerned about them ruining it by bringing it in as a massive wage boost rather than a replacement for most wages in the context of massive permanent unemployment. The one case risks inflation, the other not so much. The one is just another level of hand out, the other is existential.
It’s entirely likely he’ll lose in the primaries, but I’m sure (if he isn’t still known as “Who?” by that point) he’ll force the issue into the mainstream where Hillary could not. It’s possible that 2020 will be the breakout year for the basic income, or it might be the year that it kills it dead for a while. I just wish he’d started with a smaller amount of money that would be grown over time in response to rather obvious and indisputable tech-unemployment. That’s the way to do it.
What do you think? I’m told from the discord that he’s a virtual unknown, but my point is that if he’s the first good chance to push the platform into the Democratic primaries, maybe we should try and help make him well known. Even if his “freedom dividend” is way over the top for now, chances are he’s not going to win and implement that dumb version of the policy anyway. The main goal here would be to promote someone with that platform so that the other Democratic candidates start addressing it. That very process of exposure to critique by mainstream candidates could argue the basic income down to something practical and pragmatic that can be built up over time.
I’m not going to reiterate my arguments against UBI again here, but even if you think it’s a good idea in general there’s a fundamental problem with Andrew Yang’s proprosal:
What do we do if the singularity doesn’t happen immediately?
A UBI that pays $12,000 a year to every American adult would have cost three trillion dollars in 2017, assuming zero administrative costs. That’s roughly equivalent to the entire annual revenue of the IRS in 2017. Unlike Scott Alexander, Andrew Yang doesn’t mention cutting any existing entitlement programs to pay for this: his website says that he wants to pay for it with a Value Added Tax. A VAT capable of paying for this would need to raise an amount of money equivalent to over 15% of America’s 2017 GDP. I don’t know how to convert that into a rate but it’s going to be a steep one.
Implementing this plan is depending not just on the inevitability of a technological singularity, but on being able to time it precisely. If you’re not already on the cusp of a singularity, the ruinous expense could crash the American economy. Are any of you soconfident that we can count on the singularity happening within the next few years that you’d bet the entire US economy on it?
I’m not sure how relevant practical arguments against his position really are. Unless you’re going to argue that he might actually win, supporting him would just be trying to get the idea of UBI more into the public mind, which would be detached from policy details.
If I were doing a phased introduction of UBI in the U.S., and justifying it as a response to tech-driven unemployment, I’d implement it as an unlimited extension of unemployment benefits. You keep getting the same check forever even if you get another job. This is sort of equivalent (U.S. unemployment benefits vary wildly but are in the neighborhood of $1K a month) but has some nice qualities:
– You have to work first and not be fired for cause in order to qualify so we at least nod in the direction of addressing some of the objections to UBI.
– It scales up automatically in response to spikes in layoffs if, say, the trucking industry gets wiped out overnight.
– It uses existing infrastructure (and actually saves money in the extreme short term due to removing restriction enforcement costs).
– It’s already adjusted by the states to local cost of living.
If it works out you just make it easier and easier to qualify, maybe provide a guaranteed two year term of public service employment to anyone who applies with accommodations for disabilities, and increase the benefits if necessary.
That works for the people who are forced out of the workforce, but doesn’t do much for the people behind them who are never able to enter it.
Hence the “guaranteed minimum job” as phase 2. Which I don’t think we’d need for a while since UBI will cause people to leave the workforce faster than entry-level jobs will disappear.
@Nabil ad Dajjal
I think it’s astronomically unlikely that Yang gets into power and implements this proposal in this form with zero resistance. It’s not about “Andrew Yang should be President”, but “Andrew Yang should be a significant figure in the Dem primaries where his ideas can be put on the table”. It’s like how Bernie realistically had a staggeringly low chance of winning, but by putting a $15 minimum wage on the table, he got Hillary to seriously consider a $12 minimum wage.
If Yang is all about automation and the basic income and nobody else is, then promoting him means these issues get talked about more in the mainstream party circles. His crazy plan of “give all Americans between 18 and 65 $1000 a month” can then become a sensible Democratic candidate’s plan of “give all Americans between 18 and 65 $50 a month, which gradually scales up over time as other entitlements are scaled down in proportion, in line with a new office of government that will carefully monitor job loss due to automation over time”.
Seriously though, why would you expect other programs to ever decrease? They each have strong constituencies and large bureaucracies whose existence depends on that particular program. Apply that reality to your proposed automation department and you’ll see the same thing applies to UBI itself.
Well, what’s the alternative to pushing UBI/BIG into mainstream and ramping it up slowly?
The two alternatives to this seem to me to be:
1: Wait until technological unemployment is so massive and permanent that people are screaming in the streets for it. This could work; big tech capitalists seem to already be for the policy, but it’s also cruel and dangerous to wait until things get really bad before you push the policy.
2: Wait until that point but then don’t do anything and have a bloody communist revolution (with ethnic undertones) instead.
My alternative is to wait as the projected date for mass technological unemployment keeps being pushed forward to “twenty years from now” every year until I’m laying in a pine box. It’s like making policy based on the Rapture: people have been predicting that this would happen within their lifetime for centuries.
But yes, if mass technological unemployment does happen, then that will be the appropriate time for government intervention. Not before.
I would suggest that it needs to happen before. How far before, and predicting when it will happen to time it correctly are the challenges. If you wait until after mass unemployment has occurred you are going to have a bunch of problems that UBI will not be able to fix because it can’t be implemented quickly enough and the people impacted might…find their own implementation in the meantime.
Since unemployment is extremely low, it seems odd to pick now as the appropriate time, at least. I’m pretty content kicking the can down the road for as long as the economy is doing reasonably well. For that metric, even 2008-2012 was a really good economy that met most people’s needs.
I am just spitballing for the next part, but I would say that sustained 12-18% unemployment would not wreck the economy without recourse, but would certainly show signs of “mass technological unemployment.” What do you think about that range as when we consider a UBI?
I agree that it isn’t necessary now. Waiting until the economy is doing poorly doesn’t make sense though, because the economy is doing poorly implementing UBI is going to be difficult or impossible because you have to find that money somewhere.
I guess it depends a little on how you are measuring the economy. Perhaps if you see unemployment/underemployment increasing without seeing expected impacts on GDP (or some better metric) that would be a good trigger to seriously consider whether UBI is warranted?
There’s a lot of gymnastics that are used to keep the numbers from looking low, certainly, but the combination of underemployment and shoddy counting certainly exists and should be kept well in mind.
I suppose we would expect to see a huge increase in stratification, with segments of the society doing unbelievably well, and sections literally unable to find any income despite being healthy and available. I can see that we may be at that first part, with tech industries pushing the way. I don’t see that we’re in the second part.
Certainly true, but this seems more like an object-level consideration, while I feel that the UBI conversation is at the stage of “what types of information should even be considered.”
Why would it need to be “unable to find any income” as opposed to “unable to find sufficient income to support themselves”?
Sorry, that was sloppy writing on my part. I had in mind a more direct comparison between Employed and UBI, temporarily discounting a more general safety net or underemployment. At the abstraction of “UBI – Y/N?” for this thread, I didn’t want to bog down in partial incomes and a discussion about how much income was “enough” and COLAs and all that. You are correct.
3. Technological unemployment continues its historical trend of always being just around the corner, but never actually arriving.
Another thought related to Nabil ad Dajjal and Jaskologist’s points about technological unemployment. I’m sure this is something is discussed somewhere, but I don’t believe I’ve seen much of it.
Has there been any analysis about technological underemployment as opposed to full unemployment? Do people who do not believe technological unemployment is a valid concern (at least at this time) have the same view of technological underemployment? “Service economy” and “gig economy” seem like concepts that hint at this somewhat.
I think regulatory underemployment is the bigger problem. And that’s something we’ve actually seen happen in many places in the past, so we know it’s real.
Only if we consider Indonesian labor to be a technology.
The Good Jobs™ are for the most part still being done by humans, just not American humans. Germany has demonstrated very convincingly that you can run a first world economy with a robust manufacturing sector and ample trade jobs, if you care to. And there’s a lot of dirtier work that could be done profitably by Americans if not for regulation, such as coal mining.
Underemployment is a problem here but I’m far from convinced that it’s a technological problem. If anything, the technology underlying the gig economy is mitigating the problem as it at least gives people the option to do some work.
Before the “service economy” and “gig economy” there was the coal mining economy, the auto manufacturing economy, the agricultural economy. The service and gig economies seem far superior to these economies by a mile, and if anything a lot of the earlier economies had “overemployment” when you compare how much people would like to work vs how much they had to work.
I think thr ultimate effect of an extra $1,000 in everyone’s pocket will be everyone’s rent going up by a $1,000, since housing costs always seem to grow eventually.
Isn’t that an argument against everything that increases disposable income for renters?
Pretty much yes.
I’d say the only ways out of that cycle is new building, land reform, and/or population losses.
You should start lecturing on economics.
Can you think of any way of testing that belief? It doesn’t follow from any conventional account of the economics of rent.
Real per capita income has increased about eightfold over the past century. If your theory is correct, that should have had no effect on the welfare of anyone but people who owned housing. Is that consistent with the evidence?
In the last 100 years?
In the last 40 years?
Something happened in the U.S.A. in the 1970’s that caused the bulk of any subsequent increases in wages to be swallowed by increases in the cost of housing (and education and health care).
I’m very curious as to why the change.
Among other things, housing size almost doubled while family size fell. A huge part of the reason housing costs are up in real terms is that we are consuming far more housing per capita. And when I look at how my mother grew up (6 kids spread out over 20 years in 2 bedrooms) I think that’s money well spent.
The only way to claim no improvement since the 1970s is to arrogantly disregard revealed preferences and claim to know what “really” matters.
Maybe that’s true in the rest of the U.S.A., but for me who grew up in Oakland and Berkeley, California and for my wife who grew up Seattle, Washington both of our parents bought houses at younger ages for less labor hours that were bigger and newer than the house we eventually bought, and we have the same number of kids in a smaller and older house than my parents had and we have more kids in a smaller house and much older house than my wife’s parents, and I’m the only one among my friends who I grew up with who managed to get a house near where we grew up, and none live in bigger homes than their parents.
Of my generation the only people I know with a higher standard of living than their parents are immigrants from other countries.
Brad, I’m pretty clueless about what you mean, a “revealed preference” to work more hours for pay that buys less?
It is a much more desirable place to live than it was back then. As evidenced by revealed preferences. If you and your friends have idiosyncratic preferences that and don’t appreciate the massive increase in value, you can realize it as cash and use that money to buy things you like more.
The arrange house in 1970 had half the square footage per person, no microwave, no dishwasher, no dryer, no air conditioning.
I grew up in the Bay area, and living elsewhere has taught me the folly of generalizing from there. California has seen the population double, the vast majority crammed into a tiny share of the land while development has been massively restricted. It’s a textbook case for bidding up a good of fixed quantity.
That only works when you own property, and his the explosion in property prices that’s harder to achieve.
That was very interesting.
What are conditions like elsewhere? .
One easy way of getting some idea of housing prices elsewhere is to go up on Zillow.com.
A common example I like to give is Texas. I grew up about 30-45 minutes outside of Austin. My sister and her husband build houses for a living. They recently sold a 1500-sqft newly renovated house, 3 bedrooms, 3 baths, for about $130k. It came with about 10 acres of land.
This is normal for that area. Zillow listings look about half the price of the same size and occupancy and type of house in Maryland (where I live now). Location is by far the dominant factor in pricing.
This is why GDP is often such a lame measurement of how well a country is doing. It rarely matters that your salary is twice as high, if everything costs twice as much. PPP matters much more.
@DavidFriedman and @Paul Brinkley,
What I wondered about “conditions” wasn’t just the nominal prices of houses but how likely someone who grows up there may have one.
From what I’ve read someone born poor in Salt Lake City, Utah or Seattle, Washington is more likely to get to be a middle class adult than someone born in Atlanta, Georgia, but what their definition of “middle-class” actually is I don’t know, I’m guessing earning close to the national median annual income.
My perception is that the “Bay Area” is a place where the lucky and talented go to increase their fortunes beyond what they may where they come from, and it’s also my perception that most who grew up here can’t earn enough to stay here, an economic centerfuge turning some into millionaires and others into tent dwellers.
There’s also lots of reports of “dying” rural small towns, “coal country”, and the “dying rust belt”, where young. people who stay aren’t doing well as their parents, and I’ve seen many reports showing that the last 40 years has been an economic centerfuge for the whole U.S.A.
What I’m wondering about is if they’re still places in the U.S.A. (Utah?) that don’t have the migration of the desperate and the ambitious to and from and instead just have the majority of people who were born and raised there get steady work and detached homes that are family sized (ideally while they’re still in their 20’s), like my parents generation here 50 years ago.
Any such places?
I grew up in the Eastern suburbs of Cleveland and my 5 siblings live in the area still, each married, 4 of them with kids (between 1 and 3 of them), living in the same general area. Each owns their own, unattached, house. I found a nice little 6 bed, 4.5 bath, 6,700 sq ft house on 2.5 acres for you, for $400,00. It needs some plumbing work, but I think you are up for it.
4 out of 5?
If your siblings didn’t have family money (and between 6 how much could there be?) those are really good odds!
Cleveland is represented here as part of the “dying rust belt” but, just judging from your anecdote, Cleveland is doing right for it’s residents in a way San Francisco isn’t!
well for a start, when I moved to DC, I looked at prices and thought “huh, downtown rents here are pretty cheap.” Everyone else thinks I’m crazy. I had a friend move here from san carlos a couple years ago, his rent for a similar sized place in a similar sort of neighborhood when from 4500 to 2800 a month. California in general, and the bay area in particular, is uniquely terrible when it comes to housing prices.
Sorta what Plumber said.
Trying to sum up, the basic problems of UBI I’ve run across are as follows:
1. It’ll either be so paltry that everyone will say “so what?” and walk on by, or as Nabil says, it will cost so much that the US will bankrupt itself trying to keep its people solvent.
2. It’ll just cause prices to rise across the board. PPP will remain unchanged, or drop a bit due to the overhead of the new Department of UBI.
3. People are already sensitive about illegal immigration. A program that promises Free Money illegals if they file a DUBI-US claim is going to hit a nerve.
4. How certain are we, actually, that automation is a crisis in need of UBI as a solution? I keep hearing this, and I keep not being sold on it, for multiple reasons. (I even have a bookmark to an article claiming that the cost of labor will double due to automation – great news for laborers – but I’m still waiting on some parts before I can repair my computer and get to it again.)
That’s a new one for me. Do you recall what the mechanism for that was supposed to be?
Sadly, no. And a casual search doesn’t turn that article up, although it turns up similar language. (Note the section on the effect a surge of female labor had on the wages of men.) I’m trying to remember who wrote that article; it might be David Henderson, and it might be on Econlib, but I haven’t found it, and my computer won’t be fixed enough for me to re-acquire that bookmark until probably this weekend or later.
Thanks for searching. I am familiar with the argument in your link (essentially, we’ve been automating for years and it doesn’t seem to cause unemployment). Since that’s been true for several hundred years, I happen to find that argument fairly persuasive. I would need to be persuaded that something is different for that to change.
I’m still curious about an argument that human labor would become more expensive, though, as that doesn’t seem to follow from history or economics. No big deal, but I would enjoy reading it if you do find it.
Lump of labor stops being a fallacy if marginal consumption is less than marginal labor. We’re definitely not at that point globally yet, but there’s no reason to expect human appetites for consumption to be infinite, and per capita productivity growth is slowing.
I don’t unequivocally believe this, but I don’t unequivocally disbelieve it either.
Assuming I’m reading you right:
(1) Could you double-check whether per capita productivity growth is slowing? I thought it was increasing.
(2) Appetite for consumption is either finite, or infinite.
(2a) If finite, then perCapProd will eventually satisfy it, at which point we Win.
(2b) If infinite, then perCapProd will eventually either catch up and presumably stay caught up, lag behind more and more and thus leave AforC unsatisfied, or somehow manage to stay in step but some finite distance behind.
(2ba) If it catches up, we Win, per (2a).
(2bb) If it falls behind, then there’s perpetually something for people to do, so the automation crisis has failed to manifest. Furthermore, the greater the unsatisfied consumption, the greater the demand for labor, and therefore the higher the wages (maybe this was the argument I had forgotten?).
(2bc) This might be where the automation fear comes in. The robots are racing humans for the available jobs. Whenever a job is identified, a robot snaps it up and does it before a human can learn to do it. Result: humans are endlessly frustrated, looking for something to do that they can trade for buying power, but always surpassed by a metal man before they can get anywhere.
But (2bc) seems too much like (2ba) to me. At worst, human consumption demands Something To Do, which robots instantaneously satisfy by producing… skinner boxes, I guess.
Is the above accurate to you? Missing something important? Way off base?
I am not Hoopyfreud, but here are my thoughts:
1) Per capita productivity is increasing. Per capita productivity growth (the rate of the increase) has decreased from where it was from 2000-2010. It would be hard to determine what exactly this means (if anything) or extrapolate to the future without some serious data analysis and probably a deeper understanding of economics so I’m probably not the guy for that. It probably also matters how you measure per capita productivity, I think there are multiple methods.
2a and 2b) Why would we assume that perCapProd would never exceed appetite for consumption? Sort of sounds like assuming an infinite frictionless plane of uniform density to me. Also, perCapProd being equal to appetite for consumption is not mutually exclusive with mass unemployment. If a very few workers (along with a bunch of automation) are producing a ton of stuff we might still be increasing per capita production but with a large population producing nothing/next to nothing (and thus receiving the same in compensation). That’s kind of the whole point of the UBI argument.
If I misunderstood (or completely missed) part of what you were saying please correct me.
The only reason I assume perCapProd would never exceed appetite for consumption (2bb or 2bc) is that those two or (2ba) neatly cover all possible cases. perCapProd either meets+exceeds, falls behind, or exactly trails appCon. I suspect perCapProd will never meet appCon; but I don’t have to assume my suspicion.
If perCapProd equaled appCon, then everyone is satisfied by definition. In the mood for a burger? Robot gives you burger. Prefer ratatouille? Robot gives you ratatouille. Want a cruise to Alaska? Robot rolls up the self-driving car to take you to the gangplank, and your toiletries are already in your robo-bag in the trunk.
If even a little of this isn’t being provided by automation, then it’s a toehold for human labor. You either do it yourself, or someone sells it to you. If you can’t afford it or do it yourself, then you do something else that you can sell. If you can’t find out what that is, ask the robot. If robots can’t do that yet, then that’s the service you sell.
If cooking burgers and packing bags for Alaska and figuring out which of those demands are unsatisfied are literally the only things left for humans to do, then this is very arguably no worse than the current market economy where someone gets stuck hanging around with nothing to do every so often.
In every case and sub-case of this situation I try to consider, a UBI ends up being nothing more than Monopoly money. It’d be more efficient to just give everyone a UBSiri.
The only extreme exception to this is where you really can’t even pack bags. Like, you’re literally a zucchini. In which case, I have bad news if the ratatouille bot is nearby.
There is no reason to expect them to be bounded.
Are you imagining that increasing consumption means consuming larger amounts of stuff? That surely is bounded. But where is the upper bound on desired quality? I would rather have a car where the chance of my being killed if it runs into something is 10% than one where it is 20%, 5% than 10%, 1% than 5%. I would rather have a car that gets me where I want to go faster (unless the trip happens to be itself enjoyable), with no limit up to instantaneous transport. I would (if single) rather have a matchmaker who finds me a wife with an 80% chance of working out than 70%, rather 90% than 80%, rather 100% of working out wonderfully well than 100% chance of working out tolerably well.
My casual impression is that everyone believes there is a level of consumption above which additional income is useless, pure display. Typically the level for each person is about twice his current income. That lets him buy all the things he has thought of buying, would like, but didn’t buy because they were too expensive–but he hasn’t considered the things that someone with twice his income would have considered but decided not to buy because they were too expensive.
Consider the King of England in 1902. Surely nobody could reasonably want more wealth or comforts than the king of the richest and most powerful country on the planet had. And I guess that explains why wealthy (middle-class, working-class) people now don’t expect any better creature comforts, electronics, entertainment, medicine, etc., than he had.
Why would you expect that to happen? The money handed out as UBI isn’t coming out of nowhere, it’s being taxed or borrowed from people who, as a result, are not spending it themselves.
What is true is that a UBI at the level people tend to imagine–enough so one will have a modest but comfortable life on it alone–costs an enormous amount.
I think I spoke hastily. I don’t actually believe prices would rise across the board. However, I do believe that the prices for things people relying on UBI to buy – food, rent, mortgage payments, clothes, etc. – would rise, relative to the price of things they tend not to buy – shares, high-end luxury goods, and capital goods. (I could see a few people on the margin for whom UBI makes the difference in them being able to expand their business, but I suspect far more are going to be on the margin in the other direction.) Since I see capital as a driver of the ability to create consumer goods, I see a drop in capital purchases as a slowdown in production of such goods, raising their prices even further. It may be that most people would experience a negative in PPP as a result of a UBI program.
Does this seem plausible / accurate to you?
I don’t think an increased demand for food or clothes would have much effect on their price, since quantity can be increased pretty easily. I would expect a UBI people were willing to live on to decrease the demand for housing in places where prices are now high, since those tend to be places people live in because of good employment opportunities. If your income doesn’t depend on a job, it makes a lot of sense to move to somewhere housing is cheap. And building housing isn’t all that expensive, as the Austin figures someone else cited show–the problem in places such as the Bay Area is the combination of limited amount of land that it’s legal to build on plus a lot of regulatory restrictions on building.
Again, it all depends on what a UBI is responding to.
If UBI is brought in as a response to advanced automation, then the productive capacity of the economy should be so correspondingly greater that aggregate supply can easily adjust to this hypothetical rise in aggregate demand. Even if machines can only do things as well as humans (not superhuman AI), then they can do them for far longer a work week, with no holidays, with the only breaks being for maintenance, with no safety regulations slowing down production, and with the monetary cost being purely reproductive, unlike wages.
If anything, I’d expect full automation (the only situation where a truly universal basic income makes sense) to cause slight deflation as the rich capital owners stay where they are, the bottom proletariat more or less stay as they are in terms of income as their wages are changed into the UBI and they become the new lumpenproletariat, and then the real consumption change happens in the white collar professional class, who will see their previously high wages exchanged for a blue collar wage level equivalent UBI. This should lower consumption, leading to either a decline in the rate of inflation or even deflation… at least in the transitiory period. (When everyone can buy into capital with robot slaves to work for them then all bets are off and a UBI might not even be necessary, but that’s extrapolating even further into the future).
Incidentally, I expect the white collar professionals who don’t own much capital, and have jobs easily automated, but stand to lose income when transferring to a UBI standard of living will be the biggest proponents of any new luddism, anti-automation, and human traditionalist movements.
A French writer wrote a very interesting book about the divide in France (although it also touches on other places where similar things may be happening). Here is a very interesting and long review of the book.
The TL;DR version is that the claim is that the successful parts of the country, mainly Paris, push out low-ability native Frenchmen, who have trouble paying the rents. Who are left and who migrate in, are an upper class of very liberal and well-earning native Frenchmen and a lower class of migrants and their descendants. However, even within the cities the latter are on the periphery, just less so than the lower class native Frenchmen.
The consequence of this is then that the upper class forgets about the lower class native Frenchmen, as the people cleaning their toilets and serving them in restaurants are migrants. So the logical consequence is then that their view of the underclass is distorted, which in turn makes them very susceptible to blaming racism. After all, from their perspective, the upper class is white and the lower class is colored.
A fact from the book that I found very interesting was that while London grew by 1 million people between 2001 and 2011, the population of white Londoners fell by 600,000. I used to believe that urbanization was still going on, but the reality might be more complex, where international migration to cities is hiding a white flight out of city centers by the middle and lower class.
The book seems to explain lower class native Frenchmen being pushed out as being due to tribal/ethnic conflict, where housing complexes and entire blocks are ‘owned’ by a certain ethnicity, who don’t accept the presence of the other ethnicity. However, I think that this is incomplete. My belief is that migrants perceive much more benefit from being in the city, as that is where the migrant communities are with their culture, while if the native French move out of the city, they can still enjoy French culture there. Furthermore, migrants seem to have lower standards. I think that natives are less likely to be willing to stay with their parents until late in their life, live in squalor and especially want to provide their kids with good prospects. I see a lot of people leaving cities to have and raise children.
In Dutch, we have a saying, doing thing with ‘a French swing,’ which means doing things sloppily. Unfortunately, the book seems to conform to the stereotype, in it’s use of data to support the claims. However, the basic ideas from the book do seem promising avenues for further investigation as they seem to explain reality better than many other explanations.
That pretty much matches San Francisco, California except for one detail: blacks (who’s families have usually been in North America longer than most of their white countrymen) are moving out in a greater percentage than whites (actually other whites are moving in along with Asians and Latins, replacing those who move out).
Well, black Americans who have been in the US since slavery are no more migrants (or 1st/2nd/3rd generation) than most white Americans. We should distinguish race from migration status.
I looked up some numbers and could find the percentage of foreign born for these cities:
San Francisco: 35.6%
This doesn’t count second and third generation migrants, even though they are often still poorly integrated and can cause high friction with especially lower/middle class natives.
The low figure for Paris might reflect that Paris is most likely far less appealing to well-educated foreigners than SF and London. I think that for London and SF, that group of migrants can be split up in a large group of well-educated foreigners and a large group of not so well-educated people. I suspect that this is very different for Paris.
Very few residents are “Californos” (descendants of people who were here before California was part of the U.S.A.), and even 4th generation is rare.
The number in Paris might be skewed by the fact that Paris Proper is an unusually small city, in terms of superficy. In the US, the UK or Germany, most of the mid-size cities on the periphery* of Paris, which is where the bulk of migrant population live, would have been incorporated into Paris decades ago (this is eventually planned for Paris, but it’s a work-in-progress nowhere near completion). This means that what is counted as Paris is only the most expensive quarters of the Greater Paris Area, whereas the poor districts which concentrate migrant population are autonomous cities and thus not counted in the statistics of Paris’ population.
*: more exactly, the “migrant and proletarian cities” are mostly the cities around the north and east of Paris. The cities west and south are whiter and more middle class, or even bourgeois.
My favorite example of this:
The population of London(*) is less than 10,000.
(*) The City of London is, confusingly, embedded inside the city of London. Both of which are headed by someone called the *mumble mumble* Mayor of London.
Sort of, for the UK. London has not really expanded geographically since 1965. Places like Dartford or Watford probably should be in London but aren’t.
‘Hasn’t really expanded’ in the sense that the Gov’t decided that a 30km wide, sprawling London is a bad thing, and really heavily restricted building in the countryside surrounding Greater London.
They have, at least, not paved over most of England and called it Even Greater London, so there’s that.
I already looked at that, but the percentage of first generation migrants is actually lower in the Greater Paris Area than in Paris itself (17.9% vs 20.3%).
So this doesn’t explain the disparity.
Maybe after “London” is renamed “Trantor” or “Castle Gormenghast”.
One reason rents and housing prices are very high in London is the greenbelt–the fact that a belt of land surrounding London is, in effect, zoned unavailable for housing.
Something similar appears to be largely responsible for the high housing prices Plumber complains about in the Bay Area. There was a story some months ago about a large chunk of land in Milpitas that went on the market. It was zoned agricultural and sold for what I estimated to be between one and two orders of magnitude less than it would have sold for as land for housing.
I have seen estimates that between 80 and 90 percent of the land in the Bay Area is not available for housing, due to the combined effect of zoning, parks, and other restrictions. I have not checked the calculation, but I have seen the same figure both from a source that thought it was too high and one that thought it was too low, which makes me at least suspect that it may be true.
Where I live, small houses on small lots sell for about a million dollars each. Most of them are single story, a few one and a half stories (two stories over part but not all of the house), almost none a full two stories or more. Given those prices, it’s hard to believe that the pattern does not reflect regulatory restrictions.
Which is to say that the pattern Plumber would establish were he king of California, where land use is decided by the government, is in large part responsible for the expensive housing he objects to. Of course, if he were the government … .
I would reign both justly and mercifully, though I can’t promise the same of my agents (good help is so hard to find!), I’d suffer an exile republic in
IcelandCatalina Island for a few generations, in time the benefits of my rule (ale, corned beef sandwiches, hammocks, and cookies!) would be extended to Yorkshire and the rest of the Danelawsouthern Oregon, lumber from which would be used to build the pubs and homes that would replace the office parks of Santa Clara County, and for new brass and bronze plumbing fixtures sources of copper, tin, and zinc would need to be secured….
Retirement? If I’m a white senior citizen with a fixed pension, and all matter of prices are raising around me in Paris, I’d seriously consider moving out.
That’s actually an upgrade. I have family near Paris and they don’t go into the city unless they have to. It’s (relative to where they live) crowded, polluted and dirty. Selling a million dollar old apartment and moving into a 500k villa in an idyllic small town… not a hard decision.
On the other hand plenty of immigrants go where the work is. Rent prices in London are famous – 400 pounds per month for 3 people living in the same room. But if you don’t see it as a household but as making money, you still end up with a very good wage to save or send back home. And even if you bring your family with you, it may be crowded for a few years but the kid will go to a british kindergardern and the wife will have a british wage as well, so it evens out.
I am super happy that the US is (in theory) pulling our forces out of Syria. I really hope Trump gets his way here, and they actually do leave within 30 days. Fingers crossed!
How about if we have an actual public debate about whether we should have troops in Syria for the next few years, culminating in a vote on the matter in Congress, with congressmens’ votes a matter of public record so the voters can respond accordingly.
Presently I see no need for a debate, since what I want to happen is already happening, but if the situation changes in such a way as to make the public debate the most likely way for me to get what I want then I’d be delighted to support it.
I have this radical utopian idea that sending US soldiers off to war should be taken as a really serious decision, done out in the open where the voters can see what’s done, with Congress required to actually vote to authorize it and then voters able to change their votes depending on how things turn out.
You seem to be operating under a model that was only arguably true in, say, the 1800s, and definitely doesn’t work today. Specifically, the idea that you have “war”, where you send your troops to fight, and “not war”, where you keep your troops at home and aren’t fighting. Where does a US assistance mission to help train the Philippine Armed Forces to fight terrorism fall? Do we need a vote on that? What if Indonesia asks for a similar mission? What about the ships deployed to fight piracy off Somalia? How do things like the drone strikes fit into all of this?
And this isn’t a new problem. The Barbary Pirates were a serious problem in the early 1800s, and the US had to fight them. To a large extent, wars were between civilized countries, while violence against the rest of the world was normal. All that’s changed in the last century is that the “rest of the world” now is technically countries, too.
I know it’s a crazy idea but how about the President, whoever he is, follow the law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1543
Is Congress’ schedule so cramped and full that they don’t have time to discuss and authorize all the places we have our military intervening in?
I understand there are edge cases where a formal declaration of war wouldn’t make sense, but Syria (like Iraq and Afghanistan) is just US soldiers fighting in a war and holding down territory afterwards, right? Is it really your position that Congress can’t be expected to authorize something like that, on the record with an actual vote? Did you feel the same way about our “kinetic humanitarian intervention” in Libya?
AIUI, our troops in Syria are mostly there as trainers, and that all of our direct operations against people in that country are either airstrikes or by Special Forces (or artillery, which is actually a specialized form of drone airstrike). Neither of these is trying to take and hold ground in our own name (the SF might be working with locals to do that, but that sort of thing has a long history, too), and thus neither fits well into the traditional “War Y/N?” model.
I’m not advocating for Congress not paying attention to this stuff. Should there have been votes on Libya and Syria, given our levels of involvement there? Yes. But neither is involving us in a war as traditionally understood, and there’s a lot of stuff going on that doesn’t even reach that bar. The US military has some level of engagement with almost every country on the planet. This is a good thing. It gives us links, and keeps people on our side. But it’s also definitely within the purview of the President as CinC and the man responsible for foreign policy.
It’s true that there are cases where it’s ambiguous whether or not we’re at war. But the United States has not been in an officially declared war since WWII. Korea, Vietnam, both Gulf wars, and Afghanistan were all undeclared. Congress no longer decides whether we go to war, at all.
I would be in favor of a law that says the military can’t enter a foreign country, or shoot into a foreign country (except when fired upon), without authorization from either that country or Congress.
It certainly is not “definitely” within the President’s Article II powers.
The are two schools of thought on the Commander in Chief clause (also on the receive ambassadors clause).
One school holds that it is an extremely broad grant of power that makes the President the senior partner vis a vis the Congressional Branch when it comes to war, peace, and generally anything even tangentially related to the military.
The other school considers it to be little more than a senior generalship with the delegated discretion that implies. People in this school might perhaps think the President has some exclusive space for tactical decision making in a military context but in no way do his powers begin to approach Congress’ powers spread out across a half dozen broadly worded provisions (e.g. To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;)
The important thing to note about the first school is that it is made up almost entirely by people that were either in the executive branch at the time they wrote their analysis or at least had spent significant portions of their life in the executive branch.
The same, mutatis mutandis, is not the case in the other school. That one is made up not primarily of Congressmen, congressional aides, and those formerly in those roles but instead almost all third party scholars, most judges, and so on that have looked at these questions have come down much more in the second school camp. Even some people with executive branch experience (albeit not those at the OLC).
Anyway, maybe the maximal CiC folks have the stronger argument but there’s no way they have a “definitely” strength argument.
I’m not a lawyer, and it’s been a while since I looked much at war powers in general. You might well be right, and I definitely don’t want to get into Congressional vs Executive power in general.
That said, the War Powers Act has always struck me as the worst sort of useless feel-good legislation. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was an explicit Congressional authorization to the President to go into Vietnam. Johnson got their permission to do what he did. So why pass a law saying “You can’t do that without our permission again”? For that matter, they control the purse, and that brings a lot of power indeed. If Congress wanted out of Syria so badly, they could have said “no more cash until you leave”. They didn’t, ergo, they’re essentially trying to have their cake and eat it too.
It may be a silly law, but in my opinion—formed after a semester’s worth of looking at that and related questions—it’s a constitutional law. Presidents swear an oath. One that has no exception for laws they consider silly.
We didn’t have an actual public debate about deploying them, why should we have one about recalling them?
Budgets are debated publicly, and there have been special funding bills or provisions for nearly all US military ‘adventures’. It is a talking point to say Congress does not approve US military deployments but the reality is that they do.
Has that ever happened for any military conflict, ever?
Congress should declare war, but I don’t think they get to keep it declared.
There’s no public debate because no one cares enough to debate it. Interventions like Syria and Yemen are too low-key for all but the extremely online to care about. There’s not enough blood or glory to captivate the average voter’s attention in an age of endless distraction. The belligerents are too exotic and ambiguous for moral clarity, and the geopolitical motivations are too complicated to understand. Congressmen will always vote in line with the wisdom of the foreign policy blob because they don’t have to answer to their constituents on this issue.
Foreign affairs are foreign.
With the single exception of the immigration of people from elsewhere to the U.S.A., unless Americans are coming home in body bags, nothing overseas sways elections very much.
This is something I have to constantly strive to remind my colleagues of. Deep down, most americans do not care about other countries. They don’t dislike them, they aren’t afraid of them, they just ignore them, because they’re largely irrelevant to their day to day lives. Sure, they’ve read about them in books, but they’ve also read about unicorns and gandalf in books.
This has substantial, and generally underappreciated, effects on the conduct of american foreign policy.
At this point, I don’t think Americans care much about the bodybags either: Afghanistan Nov 2018.
It is important to recall that for all that we’ve been in Afghanistan for 17 years, there have only been ~5,000* US deaths and ~40,000* US wounded. It’s just… you know, not that big a deal, unless you are or personally know one of the people contributing to those numbers. Per CDC we had ten times that many people die from the flu/pneumonia last year alone, and this is rather less present in peoples’ minds than Afghanistan.
*Wikipedia gives it as 2,412 military deaths and ~2,000 contractor deaths; the split for wounded is 22,773 and ~15,000. I assume they’re undercounting to at least some degree but it ought to be in at least the right ballpark.
I don’t know enough about the situation, but I’ve seen some people suggest that Turkey wants to drive its offensive against the Kurds into Syria. Kurdish militias have been a key part of the fight against ISIS and I assume they have some embedded US “advisors”. Withdrawing US forces thus avoids having two NATO countries shooting at each other on the Euphrates plain–but it leaves the Kurds out to dry. Does anyone know enough to say how likely this scenario is?
Well, I “hope” Trump gets his way, in the sense that if Trump is ordering troops withdrawn, they are withdrawn. Trying to block the withdrawal sets up all sorts of problems for the next guy.
In terms of actual policy, it doesn’t affect the US directly in any immediate sense, but it really undercuts the position of the Kurds, and probably encourages the Syrian government and its allies to go back on the offensive. It’ll be up to other people to try to stop that offensive, but you might end up with just another vacuum, and ISIS came out of such a vacuum in the first place. IMO, we are better off with the current situation with an effective stalemate, especially since it doesn’t take all that much US commitment to keep that stalemate stable.
The Kurdish position has already been undercut, and it was the defeat of ISIS that undercut it.
Before, the position of the Syrian Kurds was that the Assad/Putin alliance wanted them exterminated or wholly subjugated, and the Turkish government wanted them exterminated or wholly subjugated, and ISIS wanted them exterminated or wholly subjugated. But Assad/Putin and the Turks also wanted ISIS exterminated, and were perfectly happy to play “let’s you and him fight” with the Kurds and ISIS while preparing to take down whoever emerged victorious. The Kurds only had to fight ISIS, and the United States could safely help them without having to fight anyone but ISIS.
Now, the position of the Syrian Kurds is that the Assad/Putin alliance wants them exterminated or wholly subjugated, the Turkish government wants them exterminated or wholly subjugated, neither have any further use for the Kurds, and United States assistance means putting the US on the opposite side of a shooting war from a hostile nuclear superpower and one of our own sworn allies at the same time.
The Syrians and their allies are going on the offensive regardless. If we stick around, they’ll do it through deniable mercenaries and “volunteers”, but if we try to stop it we will be shooting at people who are in fact Russian military personnel (and possibly also some Turkish military personnel), and that’s the sort of thing we really should consider carefully in the halls of Congress.
Otherwise, there’s a perfectly reasonable position that the United States is willing to help the Syrian Kurds fight ISIS but not help them fight Russia, and that it is therefore time to pull back and go home. Preferably without blindsiding major US allies and the US military itself in the process, because even if Trump occasionally makes the right object-level decision he tends to implement it in the most offensive way possible.
This isn’t 2011. Syria is a Russian protectorate now, and Vladimir Putin isn’t likely to throw away a geopolitical victory of that magnitude by letting a third-rate pretender to the Caliphate muscle in on his action.
If you are an atheist/agnostic, but were under a government that forced you to choose and practice a theistic religion, which would you choose and why?
Didn’t Indonesia (and perhaps Malaysia?) do more or less that, no hypothetical?
The boring answer is protestant Christianity, since that’s my cultural background. If the requirements are ceremonial, so it’s mostly just a matter of showing up once a week to sing songs, pretending to pray, and having the pastor hector us about our sinful sinful ways, it doesn’t much matter which denomination. If the expectations are higher, I’d have to consider the matter more carefully, to sort out which denomination’s version of wrong is the least wrong or least offensively wrong.
If you shop around you can find a pastor that doesn’t much bother you about your sinful ways, but wants to tell you about how great Jesus thinks you are. This would probably be all the more so if some unspecified church attendance were mandatory.
Tempting, but if my ego got any bigger it wouldn’t fit
in my pantsunder my hat.
I’ve flirted with the idea of practicing Mormonism before, mostly rejecting it because a) Christianity is slave morality and b) I like coffee. Neither my addiction to caffeine nor my love of Nietzsche is stronger than my desire not to be imprisoned, so Mormonism would win under the hypothetical.
Mormonism makes historical claims which are idiotic even by the standards of other Abrahamic religions, but in terms of how the religion is practiced they’re a clear winner. Mormons do a nice job balancing between reproductive success and being economically successful in the modern world. Mormons have a respectable TFR of 3.4, with the rarity of income being positively correlated with fertility. And judging by the state of Utah, they seem to be pretty peaceful and well-adjusted.
What do you mean by slave morality?
It’s a concept from Nietzsche.
Salt Lake was the cleanest big city I’ve ever been to. I walked around there thinking “man, I wish we Catholics could run shit like the Mormons do.”
Have you been to Vatican city? Like, maybe when the catholics actually get to be officially in charge they keep stuff mad clean too. (I don’t know this, just sort of trying to stick up for the church, no idea why)
Yes, I’ve been to Vatican City. Did midnight Mass with Pope John Paul II for Christmas 1999. I guess it was hard to tell how “clean” it was because it was packed with people.
But for Salt Lake I didn’t just mean the areas around the temples. The commercial districts, and the whole city just seemed like really nice, orderly places to live.
Ottawa, Canada gave me the same impression.
Montreal seemed much more like a typical American city to me despite the language.
Any other similarities between Canadians and Mormons?
To throw in another wrench, Singapore was not built by either Mormons or Canadians, and it’s incredibly clean.
Catholic ’cause Saint Ambrose is near my house, but my wife went to Catholic school and may veto it, so second choice would be Saint Alban’s Episcopal Church a little further, which we’ve been inside for their annual rummage sale and looked quite nice, actually all the nearby churches looked nice inside when they have their sales, and “Urban Adamah” has Jewish services in a private park they have that looks quite nice.
Otherwise I guess whichever sect has the easiest “Cliff Notes” to memorize so me and my wife and son’s can pass as practicing.
If the I order means my wife is more forgiving of my slacking on home repairs and yard work duty because the time is needed for worship instead I’d consider it a win!
But it’s more likely to cut into my cooking, reading, and sleeping time so probably a burden instead.
Are people donating things to the churches nearby that they can’t use and therefore hold sales to try to turn those unwanted things into usable currency?
Ha, sounds like how the Salvation Army asks people to stop giving them clothing
Pastafarianism, ’cause it’d be the least effort.
I think a government repressive enough to make religion mandatory wouldn’t recognize Pastafarianism as a real religion. The U.S. recognizes a lot of obviously fake religions because of our commitment to the government absolutely not telling you what to believe. Germany, in contrast, is a liberal democracy but has never recognized Scientology as a real religion despite Scientologists actually believing it.
Depends whether I’m optimising for likelihood of being true, avoiding persecution, or having an interesting religion.
Likelihood of being true: either Judaism or Shia Islam
Avoiding persecution: Anglican Christianity
Having an interesting religion: Greek Paganism.
Why Shia Islam specifically?
I’ve done very little research into this and I know very little about it, but I understand that Muhammad requested that all his followers follow Ali after his death. Abu Bakr was among those who pledged to do so. But when Muhammad died and several important people started following Abu Bakr he seemed to forget about his promise and Muhammad’s wishes and took power.
It seems that God’s prophet wanted one thing, but politics played out the other way. If God exists, and if Muhammad was His prophet, then I take his wishes more seriously than a “who’s best at playing political games” contest.
But then you have to decide whether to be a Twelver and support things like vigilante execution for the crime of criticizing Muhammad (plus the bizarre empirical claim about the hiding immortal imam) or an Ismaili and follow the liberal Ismaili imam.
This can be a pretty important decision for the people around you!
It’s not at all clear what Mohammed desired regarding leadership after his death.
What is clear is that when Mohammed died, all the important Muslims around got together and decided, consensually, on who should be the new leader. They had a much better idea than we do now on what Mohammed had said and done, throughout his life, and at the time leading up to his death, regarding a new leader. They decided that Mohammed’s father-in-law, abu Bakr, should be the Caliph (“successor”), and they all – including Ali ibn abi Talib – pledged allegiance to him. That entirely settles the matter in the view of the vast majority of Muslims.
But even if you think Ali ibn abi Talib should have been the first Caliph… so what? He had to wait a couple of years, but he became the fourth Caliph anyway, so you end up in the same place. The big split on leadership is not on who the first leader should have been, but who should have been leader after Ali, and what was the nature of leadership. Ali isn’t the central figure in Shi’ism, Hussein is.
Importantly, the Caliph did not inherit Mohammed’s authority, only his leadership of the Muslim community. His was a much more circumscribed role. This upset a lot of the nomadic tribespeople, who wanted ongoing revelatory leadership – partly because they were naturally drawn to that sort of charismatic leader, and partly because too much settled law and order was contrary to their interests. These were the original Party of Ali, who murdered Uthman, the third Caliph. And much the same was still true with Hussein. This is why the early Shi’a rejected the whole concept of a Caliph and instead believed in an un-Quranic, semi-pagan hereditary Imamate. Of course, after a couple of centuries the Shi’a were as settled as anyone else, and wanted stable rule-of-law rather than ongoing revelation, just like everyone else, hence why they were happy with a pretend hidden Imam who couldn’t cause any trouble, rather than following a real-life Imam who might say and command all kinds of things.
The other cause of the division is that abu Bakr and Omar al-Farooq conquered Persia, which was a much older, more sophisticated, and non-Islamic culture. Hence Shi’ism, which rejects abu Bakr and Omar, has gotten wrapped up with Persian nationalism, the preservation of ancient, non-Islamic folkways, and rejection of Ottoman authority – none of which are reliable sources of truth!
More generally, even if the Sunni view of the succession is mistaken, that wouldn’t make Shi’ism “true.” It has to stand of fall on its own merits – the Ibadi have some pretty devastating criticisms of them on their own terms.
What is your reason for believing that?
Isn’t the evidence better that Uthman was the one acting in his own interest–appointing his kinsmen, some of them very poor Muslims, to various lucrative positions?
The immediate cause of the murder of Uthman was that he responded to the delegation complaining about the governor he had appointed for Egypt by agreeing to replace him with (I think) Umar’s son. On their way back to Egypt they stopped a slave of Uthman coming past them and found he was carrying a message telling the governor of Egypt to kill them when they arrived. They turned back, told their story, Uthman denied authorship of the message but enough didn’t believe him so that he ended up dead.
As to your point linking Persia to Shiism, Persia only converted to Shiism under the Safavids, from about the sixteenth to the eighteenth century. The first major Shia power was the Fatimid Caliphate, originating in North Africa and eventually taking control of Egypt.
Thanks for the info. Perhaps Sunni Islam would be a better shout because a large number of people are less likely to be wrong?
Basically, I don’t consider myself wise, intelligent or knowledgeable enough to determine which way of worshipping God is correct, so I’m gonna have to base this on following other fallible humans to some extent.
Oh, and in reply to why I believed what I said, it was mostly from reading the Wikipedia page on Succession to Muhammad.
Well, the immediate cause of the death of Uthman is that Ali withdrew his sons providing him symbolic protection from the beseigers. But sure, Uthman was a weak, self-interested ruler who is extremely lucky to be considered Rashid, and in many ways he was the first Umayyad.
But that says very little about the motivations of the people who opposed him. The coup was successful because Uthman was bad and weak, but those same people would have been plotting against him anyway (many of them had also rebelled against abu Bakr). They just would have had a harder time of it if he had been a ruler like Omar al-Farooq.
It’s a bit like – to draw an analogy – you can’t explain the likes of Cromwell solely in terms of Charles I’s weak rulership. Sure, that helped shape it, but at some stage you have to look at the Puritanism too.
Correct, and Shi’ism only became linked to resistance to the Ottoman authorities at about the same time – or even later. Obviously these things weren’t developments in early Islam! The point is that the modern popularity of Shi’ism derives from nationalistic propaganda and opportunistic resistance to an unpopular ruler, not to disinterested truth-seeking or a continuous line from the Sahabah.
EDIT: looking back, my earlier comment was perhaps unclear. The original Party of Ali was in the time of Abu Bakr. And then many of the same people participated in the murder of Uthman. I am not saying that the first Shi’i arose in opposition to Uthman’s policies, that would be crazy.
Don’t be too sure about Anglicanism.
Reform Judaism. Meshes well with my cultural background, makes very few demands of believers, and its adherents are generally kind, decent, tolerant people who I like interacting with. I know this is sort of an easy answer because it’s kind of weak-sauce about just how rigorously theistic it is, but I do think it still counts.
Christianity. It’s the one I have any experience in. And I have also, as I’ve gotten older, started to think that a lot of parts of it make a lot of sense, even though I also think that as a worldview it has the slight drawback of being, well, not true. I could get behind its overall sentiments (e.g., “we were supposed to be super-awesome, yet somehow we’ve all turned out to really suck”) enough that I could probably avoid looking too hard on its specific metaphysical claims if I really tried.
Church of England. It’s like Christianity but no one really expects you to go to church unless it’s Christmas or Easter (you could go on both Christmas and Easter but most people would think that’s a little keen).
Surely a government that required the practice of Church of England religion would actually enforce the formal requirements of members rather than the current cultural norms of people who put “Church of England” on their census form but are basically secular? The formal requirements of members of the C of E are not tremendously onerous (if you’re a practicing Christian) but they do exist. Non-hypothetical: when the English government did require C of E practice there was a non-trivial attempt to enforce at least Sunday attendance.
Unitarian Universalist, on grounds of not being soaked in blood and generally pretty well regarded.
Or Wicca for the trolling factor and more entertaining rites.
(Don’t consider myself an atheist, somewhere between true agnoticism and indifferent deism)
If there isn’t much choice/it has to be Christianity: Catholicism, due to familiarity with culture, low number of strict religious prohibitions, and Catholic church buildings don’t look like giant prefab broom closets, so at least there’s pretty architecture to look at during the mass.
If there’s more choice: whatever sect of Hinduism has the most emphasis on determinism and rejection of free will, and the least emphasis on theistic aspects (that is, sects that accept that all the divinities of hinduism might all be just metaphorical). Prohibition on cow meat is fine, it’s my least favorite meat.
Imperial Roman paganism. It seems to be the religion least interested in legislating morality, and the only real requirement is that you pay some lip service to the deified emperors now and then, otherwise you’re free to worship or not as you like. It’s the closest thing there is to a libertarian theistic religion. Well except for the slavery thing, but having slaves is not actually a tenet of the faith, just an economic reality of the time. Pretty a modern industrialized Roman paganism wouldn’t have any.
Well, sort of. The pre-Christian Romans were quite afraid of witchcraft and bad magic — even by the standards of their time. Roman historians report thousands of people executed for witchcraft during Republican times, and Roman laws banning magical books, magical artefacts and divinations are frequent.
That can arguably be said to be distinct from the religious phenomena, but unlike with Christianity, where the fear of witches was more of a vulgus things and Christian authorities generally rejected the belief in the existence of witches as supertitious and heretical (until German Protestants ran away with it), in Roman times it was a very official thing endorsed by the patricians just as much as the plebs.
Republican Roman paganism was very concerned with legislating morality. There was this one time where they literally banned all women from wearing jewelry or fancy dresses during a national emergency out of the belief that sheer puritanism would strengthen the Roman fighting spirit or something. Then they kept the ban going for like ten years until the women got fed-up and basically staged a general strike in protest.
This is why i specified Imperial Roman, since once you get deep enough into the Empire things get a lot more cosmopolitan and relaxed. As long as you pay that lip service to the deified Emperors that is, otherwise… well see the whole persecution of the Christians.
Any tips/recommendations for visiting Italy or Greece? What about arguments for doing the one vs. the other? We’re trying to figure out where the next big vacation should be. Parameters are probably two weeks-ish and aiming not to keep overall costs towards the low end relative to the set of all longish international trips, if that matters.
What are you visiting for? Beaches? Ancient history? Something else entirely?
How much of an issue is money going to be?
History and general culture for me, general culture and activities/scenery for the SO, to a first approximation.
Not a huge one, we’d just like to avoid unnecessary money on for example Google-recommended hotels if there’s a more cost-effective but less-well-advertised-in-English option, or on tours of e.g. the Parthenon if they’re uniformly crap/easily replaced with a book and a few hours. That sort of thing.
Okay, that helps.
Visit Italy, not Greece. Much as I enjoy ancient Greek history more than that of the Romans, the sad fact of Greece is that it’s had earthquakes to deal with and that very, very little remains. It is no exaggeration in any way to note that Paestum has Greek temples in better state of repair than Greece itself does.
I’ve no recommendations on hotels or tours, although Italy is possibly the European country with the history that’s been written about the most, so you can find a wealth of information anywhere. Generally speaking, the further south you go, the older the history and the cheaper the tourism gets: Italy’s ancient Greek settlements and the like are all in the south, the renaissance stuff et al is further to the north.
Do visit Rome, whatever you do. Being an ancient history nerd, I can recommend southern Italy well, if everything being relatively ‘unpolished’ doesn’t really bother you. There’s Pompeii and Herculaneum to visit, the aforementioned Paestum I spoke of, as well as some other nice places to visit, and anything beachside is cheaper there, too.
Just make sure you either plan everything out very very well or set aside a decent amount of money, because Italy has gotten good at the tourism thing and things you buy on the fly will end up quite expensive.
The Mediterranean is surprisingly filthy. If you go walking along the beach, you’ll end up with big oil stains on your feet. Consider enjoying the mountains rather than the seaside.
Back-country Greece is poorer than you might expect, considering it’s a European country. You might still see some people getting around using donkeys and such.
Major European historical attractions are world-famous and get mobbed during tourist season. It keeps getting worse and worse as more of the world can afford to travel. If you’re planning to visit the big-name sites, go during low-season, probably during the winter.
Tuscany and Umbria are as beautiful as the pictures say, the little hilltop towns are charming and full of historically interesting art and architecture, the people are wonderful and the food and wine exquisite. Umbria is noticeably scruffier/more downscale and cheaper than Tuscany, so if you’re looking for bargains there are plenty to be had there. I was in the Orvieto area in August and had a terrific time, and can give more specific recommendations for that area if you want.
Just went to Italy in May:
-Take the high speed trains! Faster than driving
-Try to dine where the locals do rather than tourist traps. Much faster service, especially if you’re eating during American hours (seem like Italians eat later)
-Spend more than 1 day per location. Ideally I would have had 2-3 days each, but we saw Rome, Naples (for Capri), Florence.
-No tipping in restaurants! So take this into account if you think food is expensive.
-A lot of people use AirBnB, but there are plenty of decent hotels.
Beware of packs of seemingly harmless children who try to engage you. While one or more distract you, one of them will be picking your pocket.
Italy, as well. Rome is a must – you’ll be passing 800 year churches in the street and they’re not even a landmark, just a church. Florence is a close second, I think, with Venice being… Venice.
There is a continuum of rich/less rich from north to south, with Sicily having low prices and nice weather year round (I often go there in February) and Trento being almost Austrian, with equally good coffee and beer, pasta and wurst.
Airbnb is a good choice, even for last minute bookings. You can also use it to find local guides.
A rented car would be the most expensive option – trains and public transport are pretty good. Old cities don’t have a lot of parking spots.
Apparently sometimes WordPress rejects my comments without saying anything. Is this happening just to me?
There is a list of banned terms; see the section titled Censored Words. Including a lot of links can also trigger the filter, and also using the name of someone banned, I think?
Can we actually get a full list of the banned terms? I’ve had comments get rejected that were wholly mundane, but maybe I used a euphemism phrase with its original non-provocative usage?
The fed is being criticized by other economists but they won’t listen. If you did a poll of economists right now, I bet the majority of them would say that the fed is raising rates too fast. Yellen probably would have been more responsive to that.
There definitely is a strand of inflation-phobia in econ but that was much more widespread ten years ago than it is today.
The issue with this POV is that according to 90-100% of economic theories the “inflation-phobia” is functionally why we haven’t had bad inflation for 30 years and it was not worrying about inflation because you “can’t get high inflation with high unemployment” that was a major contributor to the high inflation of the 70s.
We’re not going to get double digit inflation because the fed lets inflation hit over 2%. In fact, for most of the last ten years the Fed has been undershooting the target. It would take an extraordinary set of circumstances for the US to have inflation at that level again. There is absolutely no justification for worrying about inflation at this time.
You don’t need double digit inflation to get problems, the structural issues in the US are different now than they were in the 70s. With debt to GDP ratios of 100%+ sustained 4-5% inflation rates that translated into an extra $400-500 billion in interest charges in 4 years*.
Over the last 10 years average 30 year mortgage rates have been under 5%, just matching inflation with interest on deposits at 5% would put most mortgage holders in the US in serious financial trouble, and the Fed’s typical inflation fighting tool, raising rates, would make the matter worse in the short term.
5% inflation would be at least a minor disaster in the US, and 7-8% would be potentially another 2008 in terms of financial distress. The US has become extremely path dependent on there being low inflation, and the Fed knows this.
* with the government set to roll over ~60-70% of its debt in that span.
We’re not even close to 5%, not even during the relatively dovish Yellen.
For better or for worse, mortgage holders is now mostly just the federal government in its various incarnations. A significant part of the nominally private part of the national economy is instead socialized and the party that is supposed to be the champion of the free market doesn’t seem very bothered by it.
You have mistaken the point of the above post to mean that because there are obvious expected problems at 5% inflation mentioned that the space between 2% and 5% is therefore clear. There isn’t some obvious “inflation can go this high without causing a problem” line in the sand that they can toe up towards and then safely sit behind. The Fed literally has a mandate to keep inflation under control, and their other mandate seems well in hand at the moment (actually they have overshot their other mandate by their preferred metric).
The government currently backs most mortgages on the market, not outright owns them (though they do own a large portion as well). The issue of rising inflation->rising interest rates would cause a funding issue for banks not a delinquency issue which the Federal Government wouldn’t be on the hook for.
The concern is actually fairly serious for financial analysts. If inflation increases pushed up interest rates and caused financial issues for the banks the Fed’s most likely channel for smoothing the crisis would be to lower short term rates which is supposed to push up inflation.
But the banks all have huge equity cusions, can survive 5 sigma events, and even if they fail have living wills that ensure orderly shutdowns with no contagion.
I keep rereading your reply and can’t figure if you are being sarcastic or not.
Sorry, yes I’m being sarcastic. The post-crisis laws and regulations which were substituted for the feedback of of failure, bankruptcy, and career destruction are wholly inadequate.
You know what’s worse than inflation running a little hot? A recession caused by the fed needlessly increasing rates. Which would you rather have?
What are the odds that a 0.25 point increase that was planned months (years) ahead of time is going to push the US into a recession? Your underplaying the risks of inflation and overplaying the likelihood that such a small, routine and planned move could actually push the US into recession.
There is a much higher chance of another recession than whatever you think is going to happen if Powell doesnt go through with interest rate increases.
If a recession does happen in the next year, would that even change your views?
These aren’t my views, these are the explanations of why people critical of the Fed’s recent behavior are shortsighted.
There isn’t any particular reason to fear a recession from a macro point of view, there are a huge number of recessions on record and only a handful of them particularly dangerous (and those are also associated with other mistakes). There is basically no evidence that countries can perpetually avoid recessions and growth returns to trend after most recessions meaning they should be about as concerning as mildly above trend inflation most of the time.
Career destruction was probably still inadequate even if less inadequate. Let’s bring back the Code of Hammurabi for bank executives.
I’m sure that people who lose their jobs will be happy to know that it doesn’t matter from “a macro view”.
Australia hasn’t had a recession in 25 years.
People are constant losing jobs when there isn’t a recession, you need a broad and healthy economy to absorb them and recessions are likely a part of that.
Due to a technicallity of how recessions are defined. Their UE rate jumped from 4% in 2008 to 6% in 2009 and has remained above 5% for nearly a decade now, between their under employment, unemployment and lower labor force participation they dropped 4-6% of their labor force between 2009 and 2014, but because it occurred at a different pace it didn’t technically become a recession.
This is a standard SS tactic. When he wants to highlight the Australian CB he talks about nGDP and how they avoided recession, while ignoring the employment numbers and when he wants to highlight the Japanese CB he talks about their employment numbers and downplays the nGDP stuff (except for the period where he foolishly attributed a 3% sales tax increase boosting the inflation rate to CB actions and their new nGDP target, and he wanted to highlight both).
The Fed believes it’s currently depressing interest rates below the “natural” rate. If you accept this as true, the Fed should raise interest rates as long as they can do so without causing some sort of crisis, so the data that say “raise” are the same ones that say that the economy is isn’t currently huffing stimulus (opinions seem to be split, but the Fed has a very real incentive to believe it’s not, of the “oh fuck oh god oh no oh fuck please just recover we don’t have time for this” variety). Whether you accept this as true rather depends on whether you believe current economic conditions (and the last decade’s bull run) are a house of cards built on that low interest rate. If you assume they are, get ready for a bumpy ride, ’cause the 🐻 gang is coming. There’s enough irrational behavior floating around that the business cycle is inevitable one way or another, ans it won’t hit less hard just because rates are already low.
I’m confused about SF Bay Area. I’ve visited A few times. For work reasons I read some news from there. And my impression is it’s a rather unpleasant place to live. It’s expensive. Commutes tend to be awfully long. Not that much interesting stuff seems to be going on there. Yet A lot of people move there. I wonder why?
I presume there are people from the Bay Area here. Could you give me your reasons for choosing to live There?
I went to Silicon Valley, i.e. the Bay Area, because it is the heart of my industry. Things tend to happen there first, and there are opportunities there that exist nowhere else.
That said, living there is very expensive and while pay is high, particularly for the major companies, I’m not sure it’s quite enough to compensate. I keep hearing about really crappy commutes from well-paid colleagues. SV may still be the best place to do your best work as a software developer. But if you want to live well, you’re probably better off in one of the secondary centers. And some of them, particularly Seattle, aren’t very secondary at all.
Thanks. I’m a kind of software developer and it’s true that it’s easier to find interesting projects in the Bay Area. It’s useful to know what you think about trade off between options there and in other places (that you chose SF Bay but secondary centers look better if one puts values life quality vs impact than you do).
I eventually left the Bay area to move back to Canada. Now I kind of wish I had stayed. But the next time I go looking for work, I’ll start in Seattle. They have many of the same growth challenges as the Bay, but seem to be managing them better.
The easy but true ones: climate, natural beauty, bohemian culture tolerant of a lot of things of which most places in the US are less tolerant, and access to lots and lots of high paying job opportunities. Also, “not much interesting stuff seems to be going on there” is not true for most nerdy (artistic or techie!) values of “interesting”.
Q: What’s the difference between the South Bay and a bowl of yogurt?
A: The bowl of yogurt’s got an active culture.
I have to wonder what sort of beyond-the-fringe cultural experiences you are looking for if you can’t find them in the Bay area.
What kind of cultural experiences can one get in the Bay Area? My impression was that it was very boring place with a few interesting spots (a bunch of Slate Star Codex / Less Wrong people and events). Even when I’m just visiting I’d be interested in what should I look for.
If I were there now, I’d take up either surfing or hang-gliding. You can do both locally. If I wanted something more sedentary, I’d join a Go club; given the ethnic mix, there should be some good ones around.
There is always something happening in the Bay Area. Festivals and events happen every weekend, a lot even happens on weekday evenings. The arts scene is very active, so you can find lives for any genre of music you want at any time. There’s endless hiking and walking around that can be done, and lots of hiking/walking groups to do them with. All sorts of niche meetups exist. The variety of quality food available is infinite.
Much of this, of course, is contingent on having the money to spend. But “lack of things to do” is usually the result of lack of effort from the person looking, not from an actual lack of things to do.
First of all, the Bay Area includes the city of SF, which has world-class cultural institutions of many sorts (the Opera and Symphony, the museums, etc). Second of all, at least in the area I’m most familiar with (choral music) there are a bunch of good ensembles that regularly give high-quality concerts in Palo Alto and San Jose.
I was born in Oakland, California where I lived for 22 years, and still live near.
The water tastes bad to me in most places further away (such as San Jose, California).
The weather is unpleasant elsewhere (too hot summers, too cold winters, etc cetera).
I know my way around. I spent some months in Seattle and near and in Los Angeles and found those places extremely disorienting, my sense of North, South, East, and West was off, it felt almost like being a bit dizzy all the time.
How dark it was at 9AM in the morning in Seattle in December was off-putting, otherwise it seemed nice for a foreign land Where be Dragons.
I worked construction in and near Santa Clara county (Palo Alto, Mountain View, Santa Clara, San Jose) for a decade and found it much like Los Angeles (bad air, water, etc cetera), and when my wife came down and we both spent nights down there her allergies were triggered.
Palo Alto barely qualifies, but don’t believe that “south bay” stuff about San Jose, I’ve been to the Alviso neighborhood of San Jose that on the maps borders the bay, but I only found weeds, not water, in the bay area you should be able to see the bay from a roof if nowhere else!
I’m stubborn and don’t want to be “tractored out”, I feel much like Grandpa Joad:
I came here because I’m a highly specialized techie, and this was the only area I could find where I had reasonable expectations of being able to get another equally good job when my current job evaporated or developed major downsides – I’d been moving to a new state (or country) every time I got a new job for a while, and I wanted to put down roots.
Once here, there were two things I loved:
– the weather
– the fact that I went from “weird leftie” to “normal, maybe right of center” by coming here – without changing my behaviour or opinions
It took a while for me to notice some downsides, but my commute was never one of them. I bought a fixer-upper that I could barely afford, a short stroll to Caltrain and about 2 miles from my job. It’s been within a 30 minute drive of all but one job I’ve had since – and that one was right on the Caltrain. (Of course I’m selective about jobs I interview for – if I won’t like the commute, I don’t apply. There are enough choices *here* that I can afford to be that selective.)
And as for interesting stuff – I’m a techie. The valley is full of interesting tech stuff. Lots of interesting people too.
Starting buying CDs this year (1yr, once a month), and even though I bought my December allotment, I just opened another one as PurePoint is offering a 2.8% 1-year promotion. Hope it’s easy to close out during the 10-day grace period…
In previous Open Threads, there has been extensive discussion of drone regulation, including the (allegedly excessive) FAA rules regarding permissible drone operation.
Today, one of the world’s busiest international airports was shut down by a rogue drone operator, with no end in sight to the disruption. What do commenters here think of these developments, and how can they be prevented?
First inclination is “shoot/net/hack/etc down the drone in question, pay compensation to its owner later if they had a good reason for it to be there.” Trying to prevent malicious actors from smuggling in a drone in the first place scales poorly, and drones are disposable enough that we can probably swallow the costs on innocent mistakes.
Obvious caveat: once bullets are up, who cares where they come down? That’s not my department, but the idea is you’d have shot that can bring down drones but not people in the event you miss. Something something Dragon’s containment foam.
Literal shot — spherical balls of metal that you fire out of a shotgun — would probably work pretty well. Rifle bullets have good enough aerodynamics that they can still be dangerous when they come down, but spherical shot and especially birdshot rapidly loses its energy. So as long as you’re firing at high angles you should be fine.
I wonder what the effective range is of shotguns firing buckshot at drones. Could they be effective out to 100 m?
Buckshot will retain about half its energy at that distance, but you’d probably get too loose a pattern to reliably bring down a drone. Could be wrong, though. 50 yards is the figure you’ll usually hear for maximum effective range, but that’s for animals, not drones.
Seems like a decent place to start. It won’t solve the whole problem, but shotguns and shotgun training are cheap, and you already have cops on duty.
The effective range of a standard shotgun is almost certainly ineffective for this to be a useful strategy. Even if the drone is being flown below ~50m altitude, it probably isn’t coming within ~50m of the shotgunner. And is fast enough to evade any gunner who tries to chase after it on the ground, and likely malevolent enough to try and lead them onto an active taxiway or the like.
If you need a kinetic solution, it will have to be something we invent for the purpose.
Other drones! Drone dogfights! I can already see the shitty hollywood movie about the misfit teen who gets recruited by the government because he’s the only one with the piloting skills to stop the terrorist drone-flying hotshot.
Okay, seriously though, there’s some money in this; who does SSC know in Hollywood?
Teen will need a scene where he has a training accident and beans his best friend’s drone, followed by a hearing, then probation, then a montage where he trains back to qualifying status.
Also, at some point, he will have to charm the program instructor into falling for him. Work a volleyball game in there, too, but it could probably be just Wii Sports or something.
What good reason? Did they just not know Gatwick was there or something?
I’m with you in that they should shoot first and ask questions later, but in this case, the questions are more like “Who are we hitting with a hundred thousand-dollar fine and/or sending to jail?”
As for how to bring them down, I’d think your best option is a drone interceptor. Basically, just collide with the drone, grab it, then deploy a parachute. Attach the bill for the interceptor to the huge fine you sent to the operator.
No idea, but I’m also not feeling particularly imaginative at the moment; was thinking “in the unlikely event of Hollywood-style shenanigans”. “Honest ignorance” would not be a good enough reason for compensation, but it seems it would count as enough reason to avoid jail the first time around. You’d need something like a deaf operator to get the “ignorance” defense to work though.
Or, short version: agreed.
Separate musing… are there fines for people deliberately causing traffic jams?
I’m not sure deaf gets you out of this one.
Neither am I, I’m just reluctant to conclude “there are never good reasons” from “I can’t think of any good reasons”.
I vaguely recall there is a moving violation for disrupting traffic, but a quick search (“obstruction of traffic”) brings up this:
Yeah, that’s the sort of thing I was thinking of. Seems like the sort of thing that could be generalized/scaled up to drones in airspace.
Does seem to have a bit of a loophole at the moment for non-vehicle obstructions, but I’m guessing/hoping those are presently covered by other laws.
Obviously whoever did this (and it was clearly malicious) is in huge trouble if caught. The maximum penalty is only 5 years – hopefully they will find supplemental crimes to charge him with.
But the whole question is how can it be stopped. They did want to shoot it down, but it was judged too dangerous.
How would a drone interceptor work? Would you be able to run the airport as normal and then if a drone appeared, immediately intercept? Or would you have to shut down the airport if a risk appeared, wait for the drone to reappear, hope to intercept, and only then all clear? Because that’s a massive difference.
May cause a communications arms race, but maybe equip the interceptor to broadcast a short range jamming/disruptor signal so that the drone automatically shuts down?
Jamming the control signal will work on most consumer drones, but if you’re really trying to screw with the airport it wouldn’t be hard to make them autonomous (or at least smart enough to hover in place until the signal comes back). You probably need something to physically knock them out of the air as a backup.
> But the whole question is how can it be stopped. They did want to shoot it down, but it was judged too dangerous.
That’s what happens when you put safety over everything else. Sure, 120,000 people were inconvenienced, but at least there was no chance anyone was going to get hit by shotgun pellets or a stray bullet. It’s like someone trying to do the torture v. dust speck “experiment” in a less extreme way.
High-level sketch of my airport defense scheme, designed to deal with drones with minimal interference to the airport:
Initial drone detection is done by an active system of some sort. Probably a short-wave radar, because we really want to be able to use this in all weather conditions. It scans the sky, looking for things it thinks are drones. If it sees something it thinks is a drone, it tries to use a secondary sensor (probably IR/visual) to discriminate it. Most likely confuser? Birds. If it still thinks it’s a drone, it alerts some human, who can give a second opinion. If it’s still a drone and needs to be taken out, then measures are taken. They might try directional jamming at first, but if that doesn’t work, then you need to launch an interceptor.
I’m not 100% sure on the details of the interceptor, but I’m thinking you’re looking at a relatively fast fixed-wing drone. It’s supposed to bring the target drone down in once piece. It might launch some sort of net, or collide with the target and bring them both down. You’d probably fit it with a camera and use it if you need to, say, inspect a possible bird in bad weather. If it turns out to have been launched in error, then just land it and send somebody out to put it back in its silo. So you only possibly expend the interceptor for an actual threat, and one of these will be a lot cheaper than shutting down the airport.
My thought is that you’d have stations along the airport perimeter, each with a sensor set and a few interceptors. The interceptors should be fast enough that you can deal with a drone by waving off one or two airplanes, and there’s not much risk of a drone getting away.
Is a drone actually more dangerous to planes than a bird of a similar size?
a) Yes, since, drones can be made of stronger materials and used to carry all sorts of nasty devices, and b) birds are extremely dangerous to aircraft, so drones being similarly so wouldn’t really be a safety win for them.
Quite possibly. Pretty much everything in a bird is softer than a plane, which means it’s going to lose a collision. This is not true for a drone. (Yes, it does matter. Look at the mythbusters chicken cannon revisit.)
@Statismagician If b) was the only concern, then drones shouldn’t be a serious concern as long as there is much fewer of them (at least by flying time) than similarly sized drones. Or at least it should be possible to estimate their danger from the number of plane crashes caused by birds. That doesn’t hold if a) is true.
I don’t think you’re conceptualizing the concerns about drones and airplanes sharing airspace correctly. A bird (or flock of birds) is basically a natural hazard, and one which while a serious problem is not actively trying to destroy planes; I assume birds generally try to fly away from the giant very loud alien monstrosity if they have the chance.
This is also true for the vast hypermajority of drone operators. The problems are that if something weird does happen (and that’s more likely than for unit birds, because people are more likely to be trying to closely observe airplanes than birds are), a drone can do more damage to an engine or a cockpit because metal and electronics > bird for such purposes, and that if somebody is trying to destroy an airplane, for example by strapping a bomb onto their drone and crashing it into the cockpit, there’s no way to tell until it’s very close to going off. Therefore, the policy is ‘absolutely no drones near airports;’ there’s just no reason to introduce completely artificial risks here.
Also of note; this is really more of a Black Swan type risk and so calculations based on literal White Swans aren’t going to be super useful.
It’s worth noting that active jammers are illegal in the US. There is something there about “authorized use by the federal government” but the last time I checked (and it has been a while) that meant only people developing jammers for the military to use overseas, and those were only used in military bases. If I remember the items I read at that time correctly, some states and police agencies asked if they could use cellphone jammers to prevent the use of cellphones in prisons and to prevent the use of cellphones in hostage situations and were flatly refused.
The situation is the same in the UK. For a while, mobile phone jammers were sold openly, but with a disclaimer that they were only for use abroad.
There was a discussion a few years back of using them in school exam halls to prevent cheating (British education systems rely more on high-stakes exams than US ones do). The government refused to allow it.
Can we get a special dispensation for college classrooms?
This seems… super weird? Is anybody familiar with the relevant laws/precendents? I would not have predicted this given the general trend of US regulations.
I’d guess it’s a consequence of the post New Deal administrative state structure. The FCC operates under an old, fairly broadly worded law. They probably could carve exceptions for intentional emitters if they really wanted to, but the best reading of the law probably is that it doesn’t authorize such carve outs and the kind of people that go work on radio policy at the fcc probably have an instinctual adversion to wideband intentional emitters.
Are you asking why the FCC prohibits jammers, pretty much flatly? Part of it is that the US Government makes a lot of money selling pieces of radio spectrum. They hold the position that nobody can transmit without either an explicit or implicit license from them, so it’d be rather poor customer service for them to license a part of the spectrum to users for a purpose, then also license people to use jammers to prevent that first group from using it for that purpose.
As Brad also alludes, the FCC sees its mission as allowing communication on the radio spectrum. Jamming is kind of completely against that, so they tend towards not seeing it as legitimate.
I should note that when I (and the FCC) say “jammer” we’re referring to actively transmitting to interfere with other users. If you want to build a faraday cage around your lecture hall or in your movie theater that will prevent the use of cell phones, you’re totally allowed to do that. What the FCC is saying is that transmitting a signal that intentionally interferes with others is prohibited; since they can regulate all transmission of signals, that’s how they derive the ability to say that.
Another reason for their dislike is that most jammers are really shitty electronically (they’re cheap pieces of crap), and it’s hard to make a broad-spectrum jammer that won’t jam things outside the intended slice of spectrum. This goes double when other consumer devices are also cheap pieces of crap that might receive outside their intended band–small signals from cell phones might not interfere with the operations of these devices, but jammers flooding the whole cell phone spectrum might. (Though, technically, if your TV has cheap electronics that will be interfered with by signals in an adjacent spectrum, that’s your problem. That’s what that label “must accept all interference from authorized devices” means.)
One difference is that it’s illegal to sell jammers in the US, and so far as I know that’s always been the case. Here’s an action from the FCC fining a company $34,000,000 for marketing jammers.
I found one of the documents I was thinking of when talking about jammer use being forbidden to law enforcement.
FCC Enforcement Advisory DA 14-1785
As I said, I think the FCC has only even granted permission to federal agencies for the purposes of developing jammer technology for use outside of the US for military purposes.
Also if interest for this discussion, since @The Nybbler pointed out that drones use the 2.4GHz band:
Enforcement Advisory DA 15-113
Firing guns at an airport might have problems other than failing to bring down the drone or causing collateral damage which might be enough reason for airports to look for another opt. I imagine it would be fairly disconcerting for anyone not expecting it, which might be enough reason on its own for airports to look for other options.
I could also imagine some overly convoluted Oceans 11 style plot to use gunfire directed at an unauthorized drone to cover up/distract from less friendly gunfire in some kind of airport plot (although I’m not sure that part is likely enough to be a problem).
Small guns are not *that* loud, and airports are places that are already full of very very loud things.
These are pretty great, and the rounds auto-destruct in the air if they don’t hit a target: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS#Centurion_C-RAM
Auto-destruct or no, sounds like a great way to litter a runway with bits of pointy steel.
4500 20 mm rounds per minute sounds a bit heavy for 5 kg drones.
It usually fires in 100-round bursts. Which is still massive overkill for this role.
No. Auto-destruct fuzes are not perfect, particularly ones that have to fit in a 20mm shell. When you’re shooting at incoming mortar shells, this is an acceptable risk. When you’re in the middle of a major city shooting at drones which are not loaded with explosives and being used as cruise missiles, it’s not.
I wouldn’t expect this to remain the case, especially since they did an excellent job proving the concept this week.
First, they really didn’t. What they proved is that whoever runs Gatwick will freak out at the first sight of a drone. I have a feeling that this may not continue to be policy.
Second, the problem is that you can’t easily tell the difference between a drone flown by an idiot or troll and one flown by a terrorist. Any system which can handle the first is going to be able to handle the second, pretty much by definition. Yes, if terrorist-flown drones become common, C-RAM starts to look pretty appealing. But I kind of doubt that will happen. (Yes, the terrorists could build much faster drones that are essentially primitive cruise missiles, but they’ve been able to do that for years. Also, getting access to explosives is hard.)
They have been talking a lot about lasers at Gatwick – but I have no idea whether that would actually work to shoot down a drone.
Shooting a low-powered laser at a drone isn’t going to do all that much. You could take out the camera at most. A high-powered laser could certainly do damage, but you have to be really careful about your backstop — wouldn’t do to laser a real plane. A maser (microwave laser) would work — if you soften the rotors or overheat the electronics, the drone is coming down — but I don’t think anyone’s made a practical one.
The practical implementation of a maser weapon is a directed EMP, which should fry the drone’s electronics. (If you’re melting it, you’ve gone too far.) But that has issues. Even leaving legality aside, you have lots of potential issues with frying legitimate electronics.
All the regulations implemented and proposed so far aren’t going to do a thing about someone deliberately trying to shut down an airport with a drone, which is apparently what’s happening at Gatwick. If you went as far as you could without banning it, demanding every drone have a transponder and GPS with no-go zones programmed in and be subject to remote takeover… it still wouldn’t make any difference, as the technology to make a drone without such features is already out there. Much as people still laser planes coming into Newark from the NJ Turnpike despite the restrictions on lasers similar incidents engendered.
Of course the FAA will use it to crack down more on recreational users, because their mission is to make the world safe for the airlines, and if shutting down the entire hobby results in one less plane crash in 25 years, they’ve come out way ahead. But incidents like these are an excuse, not a reason.
Yeah, and handmade two-meter ham radios are out there and secure crypto is out there, so it “wouldn’t make any difference” if the NSA were to browbeat all the cellphone manufacturers into including an eavesdrop-on-demand feature into their phones.
It makes a huge difference whether unlocked drones are something a handful of elite nerds can build or something anyone with a credit card an buy from Amazon. And for that matter, it makes a difference whether the nerds can be arrested as soon as they are found with an unlocked drone or whether the police have to wait for them to misuse it. Yes, “the technology is out there”, but almost nobody understands it and almost none of those understand opsec well enough to use it and remain undetected, and that’s 99.9% of the problem solved.
If you’d prefer a solution that doesn’t involve drones without GPS lockouts and FAA overrides being regulated in approximately the way machine guns are regulated, now’s the time to offer your alternative proposal. If all you’ve got is “there is no solution, leave me alone!”, I’m pretty sure everyone else is going to go with the 99.9% solution.
What you’re saying is true for “idiot flies toy drone near airport”; if you get rid of or neuter all the toys, you can mitigate those. It’s not true for “malicious person flies multiple large drones near airport” which is what this incident is.
You don’t have to be one of a handful of elite nerds to build something without lockouts, or to defeat them; I believe hacks to defeat the geo lockouts on DJI drones are pretty widespread, and I wouldn’t be surprised if such a hack was used here. Trying to stop such things from being distributed will be about as successful as preventing people from pirating movies. You only need enough knowledge to apply what some elite nerd has figured out, which is something available to a large class of people. It’s a smaller class than can buy something from Amazon, but that doesn’t seem to be what Gatwick is dealing with.
I don’t have a seat at the table. Nobody with any authority is asking me anything. And putting a gun to my head and telling me to come up with a solution or you’ll pull the trigger is unlikely to result in anything but a messy wall.
That’s true, but I’d be very curious as to what you’d propose, even if posting here won’t affect any decisionmakers.
As it happens, I somewhat lean towards your POV that maybe we’re getting a little crazy with how much we’re willing to spend for marginal increases in safety. However, we’re now in a situation where we’ve had one person killed on a US-flagged carrier since 2009. And if you include scheduled airline flights in the US, even with non-US-flagged carriers, you’re still only up to four deaths. Understand that jeopardizing that record so you can fuck around with a teeny camera in the sky is a big ask.
There’s not much useful I can propose when the weight of the interests of myself and those similarly situated is zero or negative (there are quite a few people who take joy in ruining others fun and sneering at them while doing so, usually something about “overgrown boys and their toys” or “fucking around with a teeny camera in the sky”).
If the airline safety record has gotten so good that to preserve it, every non-zero risk must be eliminated by any means necessary at any cost to people who don’t matter, go ahead, ban unmanned aircraft entirely (or with the usual exceptions for police, military, and the politically connected, it’s all the same to me). Why should I be allowed a hobby that doesn’t involve committing a few crimes?
Do we know how dangerous a toy-level drone is to a modern airliner? Presumably these things are already designed to be resistant to bird strikes, and a toy drone should be somewhere in the same neighborhood of size and weight.
If aircraft can reliably be landed safely after collisions with drones, that changes things, since we are dealing not with immediate danger to lives but rather danger to property, and the appearance of danger to lives.
A bird can bring down an airliner if it’s very unlucky, so I assume a drone could also. The University of Dayton did a test with a drone and a smaller aircraft wing which wrecked it pretty good; DJI (the drone-maker) has complained the test wasn’t realistic, but it’s probably a decent worst-case.
The problem is that airliners are so safe that any measurable probability of an issue is significant. It’s basically Pascal’s Mugging in real life. I can’t estimate the probability of a drone downing an airliner with sufficient precision to say it’s not a significant risk. So the regulators will demand a risk of zero. Against a benefit of allowing ordinary people to fly of zero to negative. I know how that plays out.
I have to wonder whether this is really the right attitude to approach this issue with, or perhaps that this might be a sign of a broken regulatory relationship. I used to be into flying gliders, and got to talking with some of the pilots who had been around the soaring movement, including some who had been in positions where they needed to deal with the government. And they seemed pretty positive about it. I got the impression of useful dialogue and respectful attention both ways. Both sides seemed to understand that the other had legitimate things they wanted, and compromises were useful and necessary. That’s not at all what I am hearing in these discussions about drones. Why the difference?
I kinda get the impression that the FAA is willing to play ball with hobbyist communities it feels are consistently serious and responsible, but not with ones it views as abetting the clueless, feckless, or malicious.
While you’re not entirely wrong about the level of safety the airline regulators demand (I once told some of our senior engineers that I thought they’d only be happy if we replaced the entire aircraft every 3000 flight hours [a very low amount]) this still strikes me as very much a matter of you being piqued that we’re asking you not to play in the middle of the highway. Airliner crashes are serious things. They get lots of media attention. If you don’t manage to find a way to coexist with them, then drones will be banned, and they’ll deserve it. It has nothing to do with your depressive view of politics or the FAA. People don’t like dead bodies on their TV screens.
Also, your consistent refusal to try to offer any kind of solution is really, really irritating. Everyone here knows we’re speaking hypothetically, but you continue to cling to some sort of depressive worldview where nobody will listen to you. Even when we ask.
Pretty much what Nornagest says, and I think we’ve seen an evolution from the first kind to the second in the drone community recently. Back in the old days, you had to be really into flying to fly drones, and that raised the maturity waterline a lot.
I’ve actually dealt with the FAA professionally, and they seemed pretty reasonable to me. In some ways, a lot less unreasonable than a lot of my company’s engineers. I was once the point man for the implementation of a new process that was intended to make both of our lives easier, and actually presented to the FAA at their office, and they were very helpful. So I think that if there was a serious hobbyist organization that was trying to create a safe way to share the air, they’d play ball. But you get people like Nybbler who seem determined to have their own way, and the FAA sees no reason for compromise.
The FAA does not believe that ordinary people flying drones have any legitimate things we want, and sees no need to compromise with us because we have no power anyway. The FAAs first move on recreational drones in recent history was a registration scheme, promulgated as an emergency measure, that they were explicitly statutorily denied the authority to enact. They cowed the self-appointed spokesgroup for the hobby (the Academy for Model Aeronautics, or AMA) into not opposing this by firing a shot across their bow — they expanded the no-model-aircraft zone around Washington D.C. from 15 miles to 30 miles and shut down a bunch of AMA clubs. This didn’t work, because a gentleman named John Taylor sued them anyway, and they lost. Congress then tacked an amendment on the defense authorization bill to re-instate the regulations. Womp-womp.
When Congress went to do the FAA authorization bill this year, the AMA was explicitly left out of the room during discussions; the only drone interests around were commercial. The AMA had a Senator promising them a bunch of stuff (including giving the AMA a few special perks; I’m not happy with them either), but they and we got nothing, in the final bill.
The FAA hasn’t published the new regulations based on the new bill yet, but I’m sure thanks to this Gatwick thing that they’re happily adding new restrictions to their work-in-progress.
If by “gliders” you mean unmanned ones, they’re actually some of the worst hit by the new legislation; it specifies a 400′ ceiling. If you mean manned ones, there’s two effects there. One is that the FAA is willing to deal with pilots. If you’re not a member of that club, and you’re not a passenger, you have no legitimate interests. The other is you’re not seeing the people who the FAA did drive out…number of pilots is way off its highs, and increasing regs is part of that.
Edit to respond to bean:
Except that the FAA considers “the highway” to be everything above the ground, anywhere.
I’ve answered that. There is no solution that will both allow me to fly and satisfy the FAAs safety levels. I cannot come up with a set of regulations that guarantee that no one is going to fly a drone into an aircraft and cause a crash.
There is not really a “hobbyist community”. The aforementioned AMA is an umbrella organization that charters local model aircraft clubs. The local clubs tend to be very “clubby”; some are closed to new members, others only if you know someone or with a long initiation period where you pay dues but don’t fly. Many also allow only particular types of model, such as fixed-wing, or sailplanes, or helicopters. This setup goes back to the days when the models were generally large and very noisy and needed a lot of space. There are about 200,000 AMA members.
When the FAA required registration for model aircraft, they got over 900,000 registrants. That’s quite a bit more than the number of full-scale pilots. And at least 700,000 aren’t members of the AMA. And that’s leaving out the elephant in the room, all the people who never registered even given the requirements. This means that there’s no organization representing most people flying drones. Which is good for the FAA in a way because it means no one to oppose their regulations. But it’s bad for the FAA because it means there’s no one to put pressure on to obey. They can’t go to the AMA and say “Hey, AMA, if you don’t make your members obey our rules, we’re going to shut you down by hook or by crook”, because most of us aren’t members of the AMA. That means they have to enforce their regulations themselves. Which means the only dealing with the FAA someone flying a drone will ever have is a Notice of Civil Penalty. There’s no reason for a person flying a drone recreationally to ever deal with the FAA except when it’s bad.
I have a great deal of sympathy for you here, but you’re wearing it thin. A drone in the flightpath of an airplane is about as dangerous as a tiny bomb on the wing. Airplane passengers demand more safety for the same reason train passengers do: they’re not behind the wheel. And the fact that the drone’s controller risks nothing by buzzing a plane while passengers and pilots risk their lives really can’t be waved away. A $3000 drone isn’t worth 300 dead Americans, and it’s hard to get drone operators to fly as if it is. Especially if the prospect of 300 dead Americans doesn’t faze them.
Do I think there are better solutions than just not letting you fly? Yes. Does the FAA? Probably. But if you aren’t willing to respect that the FAA is vastly more concerned with making sure drone pilots don’t cause a national tragedy than with your ability to fly, it’s going to look to you like you’re not getting anywhere. If you clash directly with the FAA they will roll right over you because many more people care about getting home for Christmas alive than care about flying drones near airports. And if that means you have to drive an hour or two away from an area of major air traffic, nobody is going to shed a fucking tear.
Fight for reserved airspace and a sane flight ceiling and I’ll be right behind you. Fight to share airspace with planes and nobody will listen, least of all me.
Also, I think a “shoot down and charge the owner within 15 miles from an airport” is a decent policy. It’ll get expensive fast enough that operators will hopefully not want to do this again. Gold code beacons with license IDs may also be reasonable, with “shoot down and charge the owner” being the method of enforcement. Enforce flight ceilings the same way you do for rockets, and use the license beacons to verify that flights are at or below licensed levels. You don’t even have to associate licenses with people, just with ceilings – and have some airspace reserved where licenses aren’t required. Rocketry enthusiasts have been doing this for decades. There’s no reason the FAA won’t accommodate you too.
No, you don’t, considering your proposals are worse than the current FAA ones.
Yeah. You’re willing to add a four-hour round trip every time I want to fly. And I rarely fly for more than 40 minutes or so at a time; I’ve only got so many batteries and also it’s somewhat tiring; if I fly for too long I’m more likely to crash. This is why there’s no point in me making any sort of proposal; what other people think I ought to be willing to accept is not even in the ball park of what I actually am willing to accept.
Only the high-powered rocketry people have to deal with that stuff. That’s another exclusive club. And it was ATF who put them out of business for a few years.
I’ve posted my field location here before. It’s maybe 7 miles from EWR. My flying hasn’t bothered any airliners, but thanks for demonstrating why there’s no point in my expecting anything reasonable.
We’ve been over this. That is not the state of current regulations, but it will be if people like you keep insisting on a nonsensical and frankly dangerous approach. You could be fully in compliance with the rules for less than the cost of one of your drones and a couple of phone calls. Yet you’ve refused to put in even that much effort. I get that you think you’re charisma is negative and that everyone hates you, but insisting that you can’t even be bothered to try to play by the rules sounds dangerously close to putting your right to have fun over the safety of everyone who chooses to fly in an airliner. And that, sir, is an attitude I can only describe as depraved indifference to human life. If it’s common among the drone community, then I’ll absolutely back the FAA in shutting you all down.
This is only for a very idiosyncratic definition of “allow me to fly”, where you have to do no work at all. The current regs, if followed, will keep you well away from air traffic. You just refuse to follow them as they’re “too onerous”.
Seriously, this is getting really annoying. When you say “the FAA’s regs are too onerous”, people try to come up with what sound to them like reasonable rules, usually without checking what the FAA is actually doing. This often involves rectal extraction of numbers, which may be worse than the existing numbers. This is a reflection of ignorance, not unreasonableness. I know that 15 miles is way too much because airliners try to get as high as they can as fast as possible. But Hoopyfreud is probably not someone who has vast knowledge of aviation, so he made up a number. I basically did the same thing when I first got into this discussion.
I don’t really have a dog in this fight either way, but it is worth noting that I have personally witnessed someone flying a drone smack dab in the middle of the approach for an airfield.
Like, literally right in the approach. I’ve watched planes flying that approach (because war planes, fuck yeah!) and if anyone had been flying that day I am pretty confident they would have died.
I’ve got everyone in this thread pissed at me, so I think that’s demonstrated quite well.
There isn’t a “drone community”. Outside the clubs (which constitute a minority of flyers), it’s just people flying drones.
I know and you know that flying my models in the little valley I’ve described in past posts isn’t going to present any threat to an airliner that isn’t already in rather greater danger from terrain, yet you’re perfectly willing to shut me down because you don’t like my attitude. Authorities tend to have the same reaction to me, so any regulatory regime where I have to ask is one where I can’t do. Trying to fake a different attitude doesn’t help; I can’t do one where I neither get their back up nor end up just agreeing that sure, I understand the answer’s no.
I know that your drone in your valley isn’t a threat to an airliner. You know that, and anyone from the FAA who looks at it will know that. But we don’t have the resources for the FAA to preemptively evaluate every single area where drones could be flow, so you’ll need to do some sort of legwork to convince them to be safe. And I live in Oklahoma, an area notably devoid of little valleys, so there’s a nonzero risk that anywhere I try to fly a drone could become an operating area for helicopters. So any regulatory regime we come up with has to be set up so that I can get out of their way when they come through, and it makes a lot more sense to apply that to you in your valley than to try to set up a second, parallel process for areas which are always going to be safe. And there are people who will do stupid things like try to fly drones in the approach path of an airport. I’d really like to be able to throw the book at them while still allowing cooperating drone pilots to fly, but if you won’t cooperate, I’ll cheer the FAA on while they throw the book at you, too. That’s how laws work. And if few enough people are willing to cooperate, then we just shut the whole thing down, I guess. I don’t want to, but it’s better than losing airliners.
There’s an important distinction you need to make here, between accidental and intentional risks. On one hand, you have the risk of an accidental incident with a drone bringing down a plane. Let’s suppose that risk is really low (which it probably is); it could probably be lowered still more by putting in default restrictions on where drones could fly, even if those restrictions were pretty easy to bypass. This addresses the situation where some dumbass buys a drone and wants to take pictures of airplanes taking off, without thinking about any potential risk, and manages to get his drone sucked into an engine during takeoff and cause a plane crash.
There’s also the question of whether someone trying to take down a plane can use drones for this purpose. In that case, restrictions that can be pretty easily bypassed are probably not as helpful (though moving the attack out of the reach of the terrorist equivalent of script kiddies is worthwhile).
One important difference here is that you can think about probabilities of accidental things (how likely is it that Mr Dumbass manages to put the drone in just the right place to get sucked into the engine at some critical point in takeoff that maximizes the chances of causing a crash). But intentional attackers will try to figure out what that point is and put their drone there, and will outfit it with a small bomb or a spool of steel wire or something intended to maximize the damage to the engine.
The cost of over-regulating drones is not just messing around with a few hobbyists, it’s preventing people playing around with a cool new technology in ways that could lead to new stuff being invented. The more we restrict people playing around with cool technology (so you need to jump through some hoops and get past some gatekeepers), the less innovation we should expect. That’s not something that will show up in any clear way, either. If concerns about intellectual property had guaranteed that nobody who wasn’t sufficiently credentialed was allowed to play around with operating systems, we wouldn’t have Linux, and that lack would be completely invisible to us.
Who represents commercial drone users? That’s a fairly big and growing sector. Surely they have some organization that speaks for them in Washington? Seems like that would be the place to start to have some input on government decision making.
Of course, rules for commercial users probably aren’t quite right for amateurs. The commercial users are probably going to be using larger and more expensive drones and can deal with more regulatory paperwork. But something is better than nothing.
My biggest concern about a drone isn’t it going into an engine. That’s pretty unlikely to cause a crash, because airliners are required to be able to operate with an engine out. (The US Airways flight that ditched in the Hudson had geese go through both engines.) It’s a drone hitting the cockpit. That could take out both pilots, or at the very least distract them enough that the plane goes down. There might be spots a drone could hit and cause a crash for mechanical reasons, but I don’t know any specifics.
But I’m somewhat less concerned about intentional terrorism for a very simple reason. The sky is big. Even if you program the drone to try to dodge into the way of the airliner, you’re most likely to get a near-miss or a non-lethal hit. (Unless you load it with explosives or something, but that tends to draw the attention of authorities for other reasons.) This is going to bring the authorities down on you. More likely is annoyance tactics like what’s happened at Gatwick. Overall, idiots without malice are a greater threat simply because there are so many more of them.
The FAA opinion is that super-heavyweight and restrictive waiver processes accessible only to companies like Google who can hire people like Dave Vos is quite sufficient for that.
That would be the Commercial Drone Alliance. But their interests are at odds with recreational users; they have this vision where their autonomous drones roam around making deliveries or whatever, and having recreational users in the air interferes with that. They want recreational use restricted to below 200′ and even then only in certain narrow areas. They’re happy with things like only being allowed to fly certified equipment ($$$$) and having transponders and licenses and all that, because those kinds of things are relatively easy for a company with resources and a compliance department to do, but rather hard for an individual or competitive upstart to do
The last time we went around on this, I posted the name and phone number of the guy you needed to talk to for permission to fly at this field. Did you ever actually call him?
What’s frustrating me in this discussion is that I can’t figure out what you’re demanding, other than “I should be able to fly my things on the spur of the moment without ever talking to anybody, and making me have some sort of training to keep current on what the rules are is oppressive.”
The rest of us in the airspace communicate with each other, even if it’s before flight. Yeah, you should have to communicate your use of drones to towered airfields within 5 miles. They are responsible for the airspace from the ground up in that radius, and it is way too difficult to try to carve out, on a national level, some sort of rule that will permit drone flights near an airport, what, “when the drone operator thinks it won’t interfere with air traffic.”? The ideal, from both the drone side and the airport side, would be a memorandum of agreement that lays out what the areas of operation and the protocols for communication are, and nothing in the previous ruleset prohibited that. But yeah, you’re still going to have to talk to people.
That’s why I asked what I did: I don’t care, for the purposes of this discussion what you think you’re going to get. Tell us what you want the rules to be, devoid of any other political concerns.
I want to be able to fly my models without asking permission of government officials (including ATC), or of airport operators who have better things to do than talk to people flying drones. You know, the way it was before the FAA decided drones were an existential threat to the NAS.
I understand there’s an incredible amount of red tape, radio procedures, certifications, training, maintenance schedules, permissions, checklists, required equipment, etc, etc, to fly a real plane. Not to mention some sort of favor economy to get all that. If that’s what it takes to fly, I’m certainly out of the club. Even 1/1000 of that, and I’m out of the club. You talk about a “memorandum of agreement” as if it’s some sort of normal thing, and maybe you deal with such things all the time. But I don’t, and talking to people is very much my weak point. And this is a pretty advanced version of it; I want something, but have nothing to offer in return. They have something I want, but no reason to offer it, and access to force if they choose not to. It takes someone who is really good to make something of that situation, and I’m really bad.
I’d note that much of the rhetoric reminds me of what I see in the gun debate:
* Insist that what you value should count for nothing.
* Insist that any adverse harm must be prevented absolutely.
* Refuse to consider positive side-effects which are diffuse and might not materialize.
* Demand that the person with a complaint provide an alternative solution to a complete ban while meeting the requirements previously laid out.
* Conclude that anything short of a complete ban is a gift for which others should be grateful.
In practice, we have something like a million private drone owner/operators in this country, of which there are a handful who engage in some form of dangerous behavior, and approximately 0 intentionally. That an airport was impacted significantly is sufficiently rare to make international news!
In my view, if the government is going to keep building the panopticon security state, the least it can do is identify and arrest the people purposefully engaging in mayhem.
Concurrently, do airports shut down service if a stray goose is seen anywhere in the vicinity? I know that they may engage the use of dogs/ people/whatever to discourage nesting near the airport. But if they don’t shut down the airport due to similarly-massing wildlife in similar positions, it’s simply an institutional freak-out over something new rather than something substantially different.
Those are mostly Nybbler’s strawmen of the FAA, not positions anyone here is advocating for. Except maybe out of frustration with him, because I will say that if given a choice between his position of “no regulation at all” and a complete ban, I’ll take the ban. But it’s not my first choice.
Define “some form of dangerous behavior”. Yes, people who intentionally try to get aerial footage of airplanes landing at LAX are pretty rare, and people who deliberately fly drones over the runways at Gatwick are even rarer. But what about someone who lives a mile from a hospital and whose drone might get in the way of a medivac flight? Or who is visiting a friend and doesn’t realize that the friend’s house is under an alternate approach path to an airport. They’re not being deliberate about it, but it’s definitely dangerous. Under the current rules, the first person will probably do something like emailing the hospital when he flies and they’ll call him if they need him to land. The second will check the rules and learn of the danger. And the danger is growing substantially, because drones are cheaper and easier to use, which means that people who are less knowledgeable and less concerned about safety are using them.
They do not. However, a lot of work goes into trying to keep birds away from airports. But you can’t reduce the risk of drones by changing the grass or putting up plastic owls. The Gatwick shutdown is probably an overreaction, but it’s not a trivial matter.
That would be a much better analogy if the gun debate were dominated by arguments over those horribly oppressive, downright tyrannical laws against discharging firearms in city limits other than in self-defense or at an approved target range. If gun owners were daft enough to insist on such a thing, claiming it was an intolerable imposition to make them actually go to a range rather than blast away in the nearest back alley, yeah, you’d see about the same level of ridicule and opposition.
Only bits of this discussion deal with the question of deliberate terrorism. I have no expertise in the field, but it seems to me that if a terrorist wants to bring down a plane on takeoff or landing and is willing to accept a significant chance of being caught in order to have a significant chance of doing so, both chances as good as the terrorist could get by using a drone, it shouldn’t be that difficult. I don’t want to suggest ways of doing it, but am I wrong?
Drones + bombs/grenades is already a battlefield issue against fixed targets. But once a jetliner takes off it is going 150+ mph, so a drone would have to be either incredibly fast (e.g. not typical COTS tech) or already in a very favorable position to close with the target.
An airliner is the next best thing to a fixed target — it’s a target whose location is known well in advance.
Everything is a fixed target in the right coordinate system. For airliners we know what that coordinate system is. 🙂
But incidents like these are an excuse, not a reason.
Incidents like this (warning: the link is to The Sun which is a tabloid so it is more interested in melodrama than strict accuracy) where two people apparently used two drones to act the maggot make it a lot harder to be sympathetic to recreational users, Nybbler. Before this stupidity, the argument would have been “nobody is going to deliberately fuck up an airport for shits and giggles, it’s not fair to penalise recreational users”.
Well, somebody did, and it sure looks like more by luck than judgement that they didn’t cause an accident with the planes trying to land or take-off. Shutting down an entire airport for a day during one of the busiest parts of the year is going to piss off a lot of ordinary people, making it a lot harder for people who do only want to fly their drones for fun to make the case. And human nature being what it is, this makes the chance of copycats thinking this certainly sounds like a fun prank to pull off to show off how clever they are much more likely.
And then arguing “well the relevant authorities are intending to crack down anyway, this case had nothing to do with it” looks more like whining and less like reasonable argument. If you sound paranoid and as if you prefer your fun not to be interfered with in any way even if that causes inconvenience and possibly even danger to a lot of people, then the non-recreational drone flying public is going to say “Fuck you, I hope the authorities take your toys away from you completely”.
It may not be reasonable, or fair, but it’s human. Try sounding less like “everyone is out to get me and I’m not even going to try complying with anything, I demand to be free to fly my drones where I like when I like how I like and you just have to trust that I’m not going to turn out to be like the Gatwick Two” and you may get further with appeals to the ordinary public.
How easy is it to track the transmitter?
Leave 3 or 4 SDRs running at the airport. When you see a UAV, trilaterate every weird looking radio source nearby and dispatch some kind of police there.
The radio sources aren’t necessarily weird. Mine run using 2.4Ghz spread spectrum; there’s a LOT of stuff like that. You’d need something more sophisticated that could decode the various common air protocols; these exist but are fairly new. However, it’s possible the people disrupting Gatwick are not even controlling the drones by radio; they may have them set up to follow waypoints, in which case there could be no radio signal at al.
Arrest made in the Gatwick case.
47-year-old man and 54-year-old woman. I think you’ll find this is not your normal demographic for people buying cheap drones off Amazon and flying them anywhere and everywhere. No motive reported yet (though some right-wing papers are speculating about environmental activists upset about airport expansion).
They’ve been released. Also, the army got involved.
Well Bean sure timed his EW miniseries well.
Apparently the guy’s boss said he was at work at the time, leaving Lestrade’s genius squad out of luck. Not clear why they arrested the couple other than that the man posted pictures of his drones online (and some wonder at the mistrust drone flyers have for authority). Alas, “Mr. Sherlock Drones” is nowhere to be found.
One of the complicated parts of Fed actions is that they are heavily reliant on forward guidance, The Fed announces its plans in advance and there are two primary consequences of this. The first is that The Fed doesn’t like to change course quickly unless it is necessary, they prefer to change their future promises to give the market ample time to react. The Fed did this as while they raised rates they cut one expected rate increase in 2019, meaning they are balancing the two concerns to some extent.
The second point is that the increase was expected which means (by most theories) that part of the impact of the increase has already been baked into the numbers. In one sense the indicators that you are citing are the outcome of this rate increase as much as they are the cause of the policy.
This sentiment, while common, is not particularly grounded. The Fed started raising rates in late 2015 coming off a bad quarter of growth and lots of the same voiced concerns, that the Fed was pushing us toward a recession. Instead growth picked up, and rose while rate increases became more frequent. The Fed stopped increasing rates 18 months prior to the start of the 2008 recession, and 2 years prior to the financial crisis. Rates were at 4 year lows on the eve of the crisis.
Are you familiar with the market monetarist school of thought, or Scott Sumner’s work?
Attributing the Fed’s stance based on the Fed no longer increasing rates or the nominal level of the rates before the Great Recession is a common misunderstanding of the evidence, reflected in a lot of popular articles.
Here’s a decent summary of how the Fed caused the Great Recession. For example:
If you want more detailed info on the recent Fed moves, read the most recent couple of posts on Sumner’s blog.
I’m probably not doing a great job of explaining, but please, read the linked article at least and look at the empirical economic evidence available around the monetary base and what the Fed was doing to it.
Even if the monetarist view was useful (its not) the Fed raising rates is still tighter than not raising rates, and lowering rates is still looser than not lowering them (for most theories) meaning the point is still valid for the current conversation.
SS sees everything through a single lens, without question, his posts aren’t informative beyond that.
Why do you believe the Fed’s decision to stop printing additional currency during late 2007 and early 2008 and the resulting change in the monetary base growth rate, combined with the Fed starting to pay interest on base reserves (boosting the demand) is irrelevant to the resulting economic slowdown?
Aren’t those involved directly in “tight money”, while any Fed stance on interest rates is at most a proxy for how “tight” money is? Why would the Fed’s monetary actions have less effect on the monetary base than their interest rate decisions?
Obviously you don’t agree with Sumner, but curious as to why, as I’ve never seen anyone make a coherent argument tied to actual empirical economics as to why those monetary actions don’t matter.
You have the facts and causality entirely backwards. The way the Fed system works is that the Fed sets a rate at which it will loan and banks then come and ask for loans (its more complicated and roundabout, but that is the direction). The monetary base growth rate fell because banks stopped trying to loan money out, not because the Fed cut them off. The Fed responded by cutting rates faster than they typically do and the banks responded by still not demanding more money. The only way to interpret this as the Fed not printing enough money is to start with the assumption that the Fed could have tempted banks into lending which requires some pretty strong evidence. The evidence against it is the fact that delinquency rates were rising across the board leading INTO the recession, not starting after the fed “tightened”.
IOR is a red herring.
1. Banks were already increasing their reserves in exactly the correct reaction to an increase in delinquent payments. IOR was a method of keeping those banks solvent in the short term, making sure large reserves didn’t drain them of capital and start a feedback loop.
2. IOR was tiny (0.25%) from late 2008 through late 2015, 30 year mortgage rates were over 4% through 2011. The notion that a 0.25% payment rate was preventing banks from making loans at 4% that they would have expected to be profitable at any notable rate is nuts. The spread between the 30 year mortgage rate and IOR was over 4.5 percentage points for the entire crisis period and over 4% for almost the entire period through mid 2011. Banks were not passing up 4.5 billion dollars in profit for every 100 billion dollars in reserves that they had so that they could collect 0.25 billion instead, they judged the loans to be to risky to take on. Any loans that were not made due to IOR during that period would be insignificant to the broader economy.
3. IOR has risen with the fed funds rate and is now close to 2.5%, and the spread between the 30 year mortgage rate and IOR has declined and is at its all time low at under 2.5%, and yet banks haven’t decreased lending during the tightening of that spread. This is an extremely strong indicator that perceived risk was the driving force of decreased economic activity.
No. The Fed controls interest rates (ie it directly controls the federal funds rate and the IOR rate) and that is a first order effect, the money supply/demand for money is a combination of the Fed’s actions and market actions. The Fed has, by definition, less control over these things than interest rates and they cannot be more indicative of Fed policy than the Fed’s actual policy.
The response to this is that the monetarist position is coherent because it assumes that the Fed controls nGDP. It takes a uni-variate* model, and that model then spits out a straightforward answer. The coherence of their position is a bug, it takes an extremely complicated system and collapses it to a single function, so it can spit out an answer. When you do that you are myopic, its why Keyensians are always convinced the problem is Aggregate Demand, and Monetarists are convinced that it is Monetary Demand, and MMTers are convinced that
space aliens seeded life on earthyou can just print money whenever you want and the markets will take it. These are people searching for a policy answer when the real answer to “what should we do during an unprecedented housing crisis” is I don’t know. Its unprecedented, we are mostly guessing and seeing what happens.
*You could argue its bi-variate with the Fed controlling nGDP and the markets controlling how that translates into rGDP.
I don’t really see a criticism of the Sumner position other than that he thinks the Fed is more powerful than they really are. Banks holding onto money leads directly to recession in directly the uni-variate way you are criticizing them: banks holding onto money drains money out of the economy and will cause an immediate contraction if prices do not respond accordingly. Banks holding onto money are the typical animal spirits running into bear mode that will cause a general glut in traditional Keynesian economics.
Both the Monetarists and Keynesians look at it in a univariate way because it’s pretty much univariate. Recessions are typically caused by a lack of aggregate demand. How to respond to the lack of aggregate demand is an entirely different question, but (IMO) right-wingers are too hawkish on this question, and do more damage to their own cause when lingering recessions create demand for people like FDR or Bernie Sanders.
But, yeah, Sumner is wrong in the exact question of “who caused the Great Recession,” because the Fed is not Superman and cannot directly drop money from the skies. Maybe they did cut rates too slowly in the spring and summer of 2008, but they had already cut the rates massively by then. They can do unorthodox monetary policy, but you don’t really have the political mandate to do crazy stuff unless crazy stuff is happening to the economy, and that doesn’t happen until AFTER Lehman collapses, TARP fails one time, etc.
(Keeping this as high level as possible in order to not lose others, so forgive me if I explain my understanding a bit too much for you.)
It appears to me that in your reply above about the change in the monetary base, you’re confusing the results of different tools the Fed has. You appear to be talking about the discount rate (which you’re right, the Fed sets the rate and then banks decide how much to borrow at that rate), rather than the Fed’s open market operations, which is where the Fed decides how much to buy or sell in securities and either increases or decreases the same amount of cash in the monetary base (depending on if they are buying, which adds cash, or else selling, which removes cash).
This is relevant because while the Fed’s discount rate decisions must wait for a response from banks to borrow or not at that level (although I disagree that they couldn’t have lowered that rate much faster, if they were actually trying to increase lending faster), for open market operations all the Fed has to do to inject cash and increase the monetary base is to go on the open market for securities and buy some. That tool doesn’t depend on anyone’s willingness to lend or not.
I agree, the IOR is a lesser issue, although it does discourage lending and shows that the Fed wasn’t really actually to encourage lending at the time, because if they were, they wouldn’t be raising the IOR, quite the opposite.
Either way, it seems the Fed did what seemed reasonable to them at the time given the information they had, not that it would have been impossible for them to avoid or diminish the impact of the Great Recession had they made better decisions (based on better information, rate targeting, etc…). They could have cut the discount rate much lower, they could have at the very least stuck with the same level of increasing the monetary base via open market operation purchases (or even increased it more), rather than curtailing them.
Yes, delinquency rates were rising, but they were significantly rising at the exact same time the monetary base was falling in Q2 2007. That fits the market monetarist explanation.
According to the Fed itself in regards to what it’s intentions were in 2007 (emphasis added):
Agreed, there were some negatives starting with early mortgage credit issues from housing price fluctuations, but rather than seeing the signs correctly and loosening, the Fed actually used open market operations with the intention of making sure reserves and the monetary base did not increase. That matches with the Fed actually making things worse, not better, at the time.
Real GDP was still increasing in 2007. There was some time for the Fed to respond correctly, but they did too little, too late. Instead, they were more concerned about inflation targets, even as late as their December 2007 meeting, when Bernanke and friends rejected a call for a 50 basis point rate cut from Mishkin and Yellen. It was predictable enough to have been predicted. Here’s Yellen at that meeting, asking for a 50 basis point cut:
With an assumed 25 basis point cut at this meeting, the Greenbook foresees the economy barely skirting a recession, so any more bad news could put us over the edge; and the possibility of getting bad news, in particular, a significant credit crunch, seems far from remote.
The decision-making at the Fed was just wrong in 2007. It was somewhat understandably wrong, but that’s because things like the Taylor rule and they way they pursue their inflation target (undershooting, but never allowing overshooting if they can possibly help it) led them to make bad decisions. The Great Recession could have been avoided by the Fed using the tools available to them in 2007, but it wasn’t, instead they seem to have contributed to making it much worse by their open market activity impacting the monetary base.
They both take a multivariate function and reduce it to a uni-variate output so that they can prescribe the exact same actions because the diagnoses all look the same. However it doesn’t work, a bank might stop (reduce, slow whatever) lending for a variety of reasons, their need to raise capital due to losses is a different animal from a need to raise capital due to potential losses (ie a reduction in the value of their collateral), and both are different from the bank judging the lending pool to be of insufficient quality, and all are different from borrowers trimming back their lending for the variety of reasons that they might do so. Compressing the causes only blinds you to those possibilities and from the possibility (ie certainty) that some actions which may have been appropriate under conditions A, B and C are not at all appropriate for conditions X, Y and Z.
OMO are the tools that the Fed uses to match the Fed funds rate to (roughly) the overnight inter-bank lending rate. They can either state the interest rate that they want and then shuffle the monetary base around until they hit it, or they can state the monetary base that they want and move the Fed Funds rate around until they hit it, but they can’t target both simultaneously.
So when you say
Yes, but by doing so they would have to let the Funds rate float, which would then depend on people’s willingness to lend. The overnight rate shot way up during the crisis, and the FFR would probably have to have risen to nearly match.
It does not, the nominal monetary base was at an all time high in Dec 2007 and the adjusted monetary base had a tiny, not at all unusual, decline during that period. What changed was the velocity of money (V of M2 fell, of M1 stopped growing).
There is literally zero evidence for the bolded claim outside of the tautology of the monetarists. The rising delinquency rates are a clear causal element for banks restricting lending, which is a clear reason for velocity to fall. Delinquency rates continued to rise through the Fed cutting interest rates down to 2%, continued to rise when they cut them to 0% and continued to rise through the end of QE1, and they remained high for several years on.
There is no action* that the Fed took, and they took many, large and unprecedented actions during the time, that correlates with a slowing of the delinquency rate, and there is no logical reason to believe an expanded monetary base would cause lower delinquency rates.
That is the intended effect of that one program, but the magnitude of their commitment to that program was very small compared to the other programs that push in the opposite direction. IOR was like gently tapping on the breaks while going down a hill, you don’t draw the conclusion that the driver is trying to stop in such a situation by noting the brake taps.
* If you line all of them up you get correlations like the announcement of QE3 lines up with the begging of the long decline in single home delinquencies, but QE1 and QE2 line up in the opposite directions.
Caveat: I’m totally an amateur economist and I know a lot more about micro than about macro, mostly because it’s usually more interesting to me in a practical sense.
Thanks for your continued engagement. I appreciate it and it’s not only informative, but also forces me to go research your comments, during which I learn even more. 🙂
To clarify, I don’t think any economist is arguing the Fed directly actively caused the recession in toto, and certainly not deliberately, but that they had the tools available to minimize it and didn’t use those tools early enough because of their decision-making methodology, the goal being to improve the Fed’s decison-making.
You state “What changed was the velocity of money”, but isn’t that a key part of the monetary base and shouldn’t a theoretically “perfectly managing” Fed be taking that into account and injecting money accordingly to offset that slowdown in velocity? After they cut the federal funds rate to effectively zero at the end of 2008, then they started just injecting money (QE) for the next 6-7 years, correct? But the rate wasn’t so linked that it dropped into negative territory to compensate (although I can tell you from personal experience that banks were getting ready for negative interest rates to happen in all sorts of places, even checking and savings accounts). No need for a zero-bound digression, just that it’s an indicator the Fed doesn’t have to be constrained by OMO effects on rates.
The Fed actually changed how they used OMO at the end of 2008, corresponding with how the MM would have had them do it a year earlier. Within a few months of that change, GDP growth was positive again and the recession “officially” ended. Maybe it would have ended anyway, but obviously at that point the Fed thought it was necessary to do QE, so why not earlier instead?
Agreed, the mortgage bubble was going to burst, because there WERE bad securitized mortgages out there. The question is if the rest of the economy needed to slow down to negative GDP growth at the same time.
Let me pose you a question, with the benefit of hindsight. Knowing what you know now about the start of the crisis, what are the best decisions the Fed could have made in 2005-2007 to prevent the mortgage credit/default issue from spreading as much to the wider economy? In a possibly related question, why was there such a global slowdown, even in countries with no housing bubble sell-off and no default issue?
I’m having a difficult time finding a reasonable answer to either of those questions, other than the market monetarist answer, which basically points at the Fed needing to make a change at least a year or two earlier, which to me means in turn that their increase in rates from mid-2004 through mid-2006 was maybe a bad idea, or rather potentially a good idea taken too far and overshooting the ideal mark to maximize future growth in the overall economy. If the Fed’s inflation target has been 2% since 1996, they don’t seem to have done a great job of hitting that target, instead mostly falling short.
I’m having a good time with this, I’m glad to have a back and forth of this quality.
If you agree with the proposition that delinquencies (or something else) caused the initial recession, and that the Fed took actions to attempt to mitigate those issues then you ought to be able to show that the Fed’s actions, while inadequate to stop it, at least had some impact on their rate. If you claim that the Fed lowering rates faster and more aggressively in 2007 would/could have prevented the worst of the recession then shouldn’t the Fed dropping rates in an aggressive manner at least have slowed the rate of delinquencies? If expanding the monetary base more/sooner would have prevented it shouldn’t the first 2 rounds of QE have been associated with some kind of directional change?
This already sits on the assumption that it is possible to increase the monetary base faster than velocity declines. If V declines proportionally to increases in MB then you can literally never have the effect that you want. Besides that the relationship between V and MS is not consistent across time, making it a practical impossibility to forecast the resulting V from your shift in base.
I’m not positive what you are asking here, the “rate” that didn’t go negative do you mean the federal funds rate?
I don’t know what you mean by MM would have had them do it a year earlier. If you follow SS’s preferred metrics you would conclude that the Fed was to loose from 2007 into 2008. From memory inflation and inflation expectations were rising through April or May of 2008 with inflation expectations hitting 2.9% and inflation hitting 2.5%. Overall inflation had been above the 2% target from 2004 or so on, if the Fed had instituted a plan of level targeting in 2004, 2005, 2006, or 2007 they would have raised rates in 2008, not cut them (prior to September).
I don’t think that this is an answerable question, the economy is crazily complex and outcomes are unpredictable. The worst excesses of the time occurred during a period of rising interest rates (that is the Federal Funds rate). To me this implies (though how strongly I don’t know) that if the Fed had the power to stop the issues that were brewing it would have had to do so before 2005. My position though is that it is unlikely that the Fed had such power in 2008, and probably earlier than that. I probably need to develop a stronger opinion on the Fed’s actual actions (or at least figure out how to) but I don’t know if this is a situation of X would have worked.
I’m going to put off answering the 2nd question tonight.
What would that look like? Rising delinquencies means that banks have to increase their buffer, so they have to have more reserves that they aren’t lending out. It is very difficult to see how you can prevent housing prices from falling in this environment, and if housing prices fall that amplifies the delinquencies/reserve ratio issues, but also shifts a lot of other stuff. Fewer houses selling means less work for realtors, movers, people who fix up the homes before sale (painters etc). It also makes moving harder and labor mobility is strongly positively correlate with growth, a decline in which should make growth harder. The residential building boom had already petered out and housing completions were falling. Where are those workers going, plus the demand for building materials? Commercial delinquencies were picking up right along with mortgages and credit cards, pretty much ruling out the easiest transition point for those workers and materials.
I don’t see how you can compartmentalize such a large portion of the economy and not have spill over effects.
Welp. Mattis is gone.
While I don’t think this portends “lul Trump’s gonna nuke someone,” it speaks to me of potentially Bad Things – if not now then later, on a stage where NATO actually matters. I’m not educated enough on these matters to say exactly what I’m afraid of, and I’m usually the first to say “fuck Chesterton,” but this and the gutting of the State Department do scare me. Reasonable fear or not?
A good heuristic is that anything people fear about Trump, it’s overblown.
The state department hasn’t been gutted. people reporting that it has misunderstand how the department works. State has an up or out promotion system with, at the higher levels, a lot more people than slots. This means that it has unusually high turnover for a government agency. People who don’t know or don’t care how the department works have spun this up into some nonsense about how “trump is purging the department” or “state is being gutted”. It’s not true. You can see their own headcount figures here:
They’re down slightly at the very highest level positions, probably because the trump administration is behind on appointments overall. That’s not good practice, but it’s also not a disaster. it just means that some senior people are being forced to serve as chiefs of mission, not ambassadors, and acting chiefs instead of chiefs.
As for Mattis leaving, I’m second to none in my respect for him, but I am quite happy about us getting out of syria, and if that’s the hill Mattis decided to die on, well, that’s unfortunate. I have a hard time imagining that he much liked the job anyway.
I would like to believe our pullout from Syria was the result of careful thought about what role we should play in the region, our track record, the desire not to have an endless occupation, etc. But I actually suspect it was the result of a spur of the moment decision from Trump. That may still be the right decision–I think we’re way, way too enthusiastic about having soldiers wandering around in foreign countries–but if so, I suspect it’s right by accident, rather than because the decisionmakers are carefully thinking things through.
Trump’s been criticizing our involvement in Syria for years. This shouldn’t really be that surprising.
I guess you’re right. But is that a reasoned position on the merits of involvement or a reflexive hatred of everything of everything Obama did? I reflexively assumed it was the latter.
I’m curious why you’d assume that. I’ve never gotten the impression that trump cared much about Obama one way or the the other.
What Wrong Species said. He tried to pull out six months ago and backtracked at Mattis’ urging. If nothing has changed in those six months (and I don’t think it has), great, bring our boys home.
Your link just went to a splash page, but I assume you’re talking about this document.
I don’t think that backs up your assertion that it’s OPS normal, minus some political appointments. Every position is down (minus local staff) at least 5%, and when you get to senior positions, likely those we’ll be most impacted by if we lose, those jumps go to around 20-30%. This doesn’t seem to be explainable by an up-or-out mentality.
Moving past the raw numbers to analysis, we keep getting articles like this from foreign policy (who I trust on this topic) talking about how the State department continues to be understaffed.
I work government HR, so I’ll let you know that 5% vacancies is a perfect example of Situation Normal All Fucked Up. The government always has enough positions in their org chart to function perfectly at 5% and ok at 10%. 20-30% is more worrying, but manageable if the actings are good.
So for at least 20 years, pretty much everyone in the FP community has agreed that the foreign service is understaffed and that we should fix that, but no one ever has. It’s not a new problem, and frankly the issues at the state department go well beyond staffing. To quote a clinton administration report,
Some of the harshest language I’ve ever seen in a government document, and it was written before the war on terror.
As for a 5% decline, I don’t see that at all. From 2016 to 17, you have 113 fewer FSOs, about 1%, and 6 extra FSSs. The State Department is extremely unusual in that “political” positions such as the the undersecretaries and assistant secretaries are usually filled by FSOs. Counting everyone, the department is down 1/2 of 1%. Now, the 2018 figures will probably show a continued drop, but we’re still not talking about anything like mass exodus or major change.
I think it’s impossible to not like James Mattis. But I voted for Trump because I wanted us to bomb the shit out of ISIS and then leave. The shit has been bombed out of ISIS. They simply no longer exist. We have had no ISIS-inspired terrorist attacks for over two years now. There is no other national interest in Syria worth one drop of American blood or one dollar of American treasure. Mission accomplished and it’s time to go home. And he’s bringing 7,000 home from Afghanistan, too! So I’m very proud of Trump for doing the right thing, keeping his promises, even if it means letting Mattis go and not being intimidated by the histrionics from the media and the War Party.
Between the pullout from Syria and the looming shutdown over the border wall funding, this is shaping up to be a very Merry (Political) Christmas indeed.
I get Syria, but no matter what perspective you’re coming from, how is a shutdown something to be happy about? Do you actually think the Dems will cave and give him 5 billion, or are you just happy in principle about our system grinding to a halt?
I’m hoping they cave and give him the $5B. And I’m glad to see him fighting for it.
Is that because you think this would really be a good use of $5 billion, or just for the symbolism? Some third thing?
It’s funny how people how people act like the wall is this expensive boondoggle when its total cost is a drop in the bucket compared to our average annual spending. The fact that Democrats are freaking out over $5 billion when we spend trillions a year shows how the cost has nothing to do with it.
I’m perfectly aware that it’s a small amount of money relative to the Federal budget, I just refuse to accept that as a justification for casually writing off what is still a gigantic amount of cash in absolute terms without proper justification and accountability. I feel exactly the same way about various chunks of Federal welfare spending, for the record.
On a tangentially-related note, the $5 billion figure was almost certainly rectally extracted and represents a huge underestimate of what the actual cost would be.
Why doesn’t he just get Mexico to pay for it? Why are his fans not reminding him of that promise?
We’d need Congress to act to tax remittances. Good luck with that.
I just want the wall built. If Mexico doesn’t pay for it, you have my permission to gloat.
ETA: Yes, everyone knows the total cost of the wall is more than $5B. But it’ll take many years to build. This just gets it started.
It’s non-obvious to me that doing this will accomplish anything of particular use. My understanding is that the areas that get a lot of traffic are already walled/fenced off, and that the rest of the border turned out to be more efficiently controlled with increased patrols/surveillance when the Bush administration looked at the problem in the mid-2000s. I’d welcome actual data, of course.
Hang on, we need that $5 billion for the Endless Hookers and Blow for Albatross11 Act of 2019! Just 5 billion, a drop in the bucket, nobody should object, right?
Why do people assume that the wall would have no effect on illegal immigration?
I assume “building the wall” is a 100% PR issue. Trump wants to say he’s built the wall when he runs for re-election, as demonstration that he was able to get what he wanted. Democrats don’t want him to manage that, because they don’t want him to be able to campaign on having built the wall.
We’ve discussed this here before. The proposed wall can be trivially defeated by an ordinary ladder of the sort readily available at your local Home Depot. There is value in having a combination of a wall and a border patrol force. But the experience of basically everyone else who has ever tried to do this, including the folks responsible for the actual Berlin Wall, is that the optimal “wall” is an eight- to fifteen-foot fence like we’ve already got, and a much larger border patrol force than anyone is proposing to hire. It doesn’t matter how tall the wall is if you don’t have the men to patrol it – Jon Snow could have told you that much – and if you do have the men a fence is enough.
Also, half the illegal immigrants who enter this country, do so openly with legal visas and then overstay, which a wall will do absolutely nothing to stop.
Complaining about $5 billion in federal spending is absolutely special pleading, and the real reason that a “fence” is okay and a “wall” is not has everything to do with denying Trump a victory for his base, and nothing to do with its effectiveness or lack thereof.
I will make one point on the capability of defeating walls, which is that to a close approximation 99% of people who say “a thirty foot wall will just mean more 31 foot ladders” have never been on a 31 foot ladder, which is not a trivially easy task for a fit young man, and would certainly stop children from crossing.
Why would they do that? Isn’t it reasonably clear that, under current circumstances, a shutdown that can plausibly be blamed on Trump will help the Democrats?
Of course it’s not about the money. I wouldn’t want the wall even if it was free. Remember how Trump supporters on SSC spent a lot of time talking about how stuff like this was a way of extending a giant middle finger towards those who support the current system?
Is it any surprise that people object to building a giant middle finger pointed at them?
Even “middle finger” arguments aside, it’s absolutely antithetical to what I want American values to be. If the wall actually managed to serve a policy purpose, I might change my mind, but since it’s basically all symbolism, I want the symbol of our border to be the Statue of Liberty, not a giant pointless wall.
My batshit crazy idea is that The Wall is atypically small-thinking from Trump, and he should have instead pitched the idea of a canal from the Pacific to the Gulf of Mexico. It would serve the same purpose as a wall but with multiple additional uses, primarily as