Thoughts on Copenhagen II: On Negotiations amidst the Circus

Back in Copenhagen, I attended a briefing for US NGOs. Two things that struck me.

One is I am ambivalent about NGO invovlement. One notable thing was at the meeting, you had Fred Krupp, president of the one of the largest environmental groups (who quite reasonably should be there), but he was sitting next to a couple kids painted and dressed as green aliens carrying placards. On the whole, it was a surprisingly young group.

The other was again, how similar the US government position is in the current administration as it was under the previous. That the US will not concede sovereignity in terms of taxes it must pay. That the US cannot commit to greater cuts than Congress will allow. That the US cannot commit to spending, in such contexts.

And again, on the sovereignity issue, which is not unique to the US (but a big part of why negotiations broke down with China and India), that the idea of a binding carbon price/limit may be futile because it requires a higher extra-governmental power. The WTO did achieve this (somewhat) but that took half a century, and in general, free trade is win-win (countries generally benefit from lower trade barriers, even though they may suffer from political trouble from noisy constituents, overall countries are typically better off). Whereas in climate change, it is by and large a pure public good to constrain carbon, so an even harder sell without a world government. This suggests again that the technology push is key making green technology cheaper than dirty. (This was the position of the Bush administration--I don't mean to be so defensive on that, really--and also what Bjorn Lomborg has been pushing, hopefully that doesn't automatically discredit the idea) I think economists by and large agree that technology is key, though many would then say that a carbon price would be the key the incentivizing new technology, though I think most economists agree that we have little evidence to that effect, only faith.

The best thing I've heard on npr in recent memory...

This story reaffirmed why I still trust NPR.

It echoes the most important thing I learned from psychology classes (see the 1.14.03 entry here)

The real shocking thing of Wilson's "You Lie": the fact that people find it shocking in the US.

One interesting point made in an op-ed today attacking Joe Wilson, was that this type of behavior is normal in Great Britain. I was actually thinking about that while I was in Australia last week, where on tv, there were clips of a member of the opposition calling the climate minister "Legally Blonde" which made me wonder why of all the legislative bodies in the world, why the US seems to be the only civil one (what with fist fights breaking out in places like Taiwan, Russia, Bolivia, Australia, Japan, Korea, Ukraine, Macedonia, Czech Republic, Turkey, Iraq, Germany, all through Africa and regular insults and shouting matches going on everywhere else).

SCOTUS Live!

(Sorry for the hiatus. Was in Australia. Will post photos and recap some day...)

I had never really understood the fascination people have with the surpreme court (nor with the continuing coverage of the space shuttle though that I can explain to historical path dependence) but people seem to love talking about Nina Totenberg (a favorite answer in nytimes crosswords and this comic) and the latest antics of Scalia or Roberts, or that Thomas never talks, or the excitement over Sotomayor.

Though a recent minor change allowing surpreme court proceedings to be taped may change my mind. Flipping on CSPAN as is my habit on the elliptical, I happened on the latest hearing on campaign finance reform.
From the cold logic of propositional calculus and induction based machine learning, to the somewhat rigorous forms of economic proofs, to the styles of academic argumentation, it amuses me to think formally how conversation/debate/dialectic/dialog works. These other forms are easier for me to follow, but it is interesting to see the logics employed by the supreme court. The reliance on analogy and precedent, the backward induction and strategic consequences of various statements, what is allowable as evidence and what is not.

I guess I knew some of this given that I teach it in class and have been working on a model of malpractice, but it is neat to hear it directly. I imagine allowing the voice recordings will help (a bit) get people more involved in the courts; I'm surprised it took so long.

Though one thing that sadly may be lost, is Nina Totenberg's dramatic re-enanctment of surpreme court debates on NPR, now that we have actual recordings.

Damn you Congress for ruining my credit line

I still have the same credit card from 2000 back when credit was cheap and interest rates were low and I got offered a credit card with a 7.99% APR. Not that I use it much, but it's nice to know I have a credit line that's almost cheap enough to finance buying a car, or to borrow money to invest in the stock market. So a couple weeks ago, for no apparent reason, they tell me they are doubling my APR to 17%, and if I don't like it, they will cancel the card.

Thanks Congress. Since Congress made it much harder to increase APR in the event of missed payments, the credit card companies reasonably responded by pre-emptively raising APRs on everybody including me.

Stupid populist policies and stupid populist NY Times who thinks this is a good thing. Last time I checked, price discrimination was welfare enhancing, but I guess it doesn't feel fair.

Political Theory works: Stop blaming Obama

David Brooks echoes the sentiment of many pundits, that Obama is letting Congressional Democrat leaders determine the agenda, and moving policy far left instead of keeping policy near the center.

This is as dumb as the folks who complained about Bush for moving policy to the right.

Basic median voter agenda setting theory (specifically Cox McCubbins) explains why.

I still believe that both Obama and Bush have policy views close to the median voter. Presidential politics pushes presidents in that direction.

Congress looks like this: (you may recall my past such diagrams here)

<----D------m------R---->

With D representing the Democratic median (and thus the Democratic leadership). R the Republican median (and thus the Republican leadership), and m representing the country median (and roughly Obama and Bush).

Under Bush, Congress was mostly under control of R and while the president has some ability to hold policy to the middle through veto threats, in general, R will be able to pull policy to the right. We will denote policy from the Bush years as q.

<----D------m----q-R---->

In this case, Democratic leaders who get to propose the alternative under our system of government, can basically get their way, and propose something far to the left (denoted p), and Obama will go along, even though he might personally prefer something more centrist, he'd still support a far left policy over the current right leaning status quo.

<----D--p---m----q-R---->

Obama may wish for a policy that is more centrist, but our system of government prevents him from achieving it. (And similarly, Bush was forced into more conservative policies than he would have liked, by the same logic)

Of course, there's a lot more theory can say. For a more thorough analysis, see this article, by my classmate, Jonathan Woon.

When politicians argue, what they really believe rarely matters, all that matters is what they want.

Obama announced the intention to raise the requirements for average fuel economy standards.

Note this is much the same as the plan I helped develop for the Bush administration that got pooh poohed by the press. Obama wants 35mpg by 2016 and its get called historic, (we proposed a similar level by 2017, and the compromise with Congress came to 35 mpg by 2020).

The frustrating thing is that part of the defense for the increase that Obama and pundits have been using is that they are merely homogenizing standards since allowing different states to have different standards is highly inefficient.

Of course when Bush used that reasoning to block California from setting their own standards, this was roundly bashed by Obama and the media as impeding progress. The only reason different standards exist is because Obama overturned the Bush ruling.

More reason to abolish the words billion and trillion from policy: Or why Gingrich and Waxman are morons.

I multi-task whenever I can, so at the gym, I normally do the elliptical with something to read, and then have tv on in the background, often c-span. So on a recent house hearing about climate change the following debate came up between Gingrich (uber-Republican) and Waxman (the Democratic sponsor of the climate change bill), I got more evidence why million, billion and trillion should be abolished from policy (see also here and here).

Paraphrased:

Gingrich: Your bill is going to cost Americans, half a trillion dollars over 10 years
Waxman: You are misinformed it is going to cost each person 40 cents per day
Gingrich: No, it's half a trillion!
Waxman: No it is 40 cents!
Gingrich: Poopy face
Waxman: Stupid Head

Ok, so they didn't use those words exactly, but that's what it sounded like. Of course 40 cents per American per day over 10 years is [drumroll please...] half a trillion dollars, but of course.

Already the disillusionment

The Republican Senator who was tapped as Obama's Secretary of Commerce nominee pulled out, citing that he has to come to realize that he has irreconcilable differences with the President. I can see where Gregg's coming from. When Obama was elected, I like most everyone was hopeful and expectant of a new kind of politics. But the process surrounding the stimulus bill has felt a lot more like "more of the same" rather than "change."

Apparently I'm not alone. When both Paul Krugman and David Brooks are both disillusioned, that is a powerful message.

Though unlike those two., I remain sanguine and optimistic about the economy, perhaps Panglossianly so. Still, while I agree the stimulus package is probably far from ideal, I still think that government has minimal effect anyway, and the economy will right itself soon enough, I'm still predicting, in time for Obama to claim credit for an easy re-election. It may be a sucky year or so until then, but 2012 is plenty of time for the economy to recover.

A Portrait of Change - Nation’s Many Faces in Extended First Family - NYTimes

This article about Obama's multi-cultural family reminds me partly of why I identified with Obama since I first learned about him. And indeed exciting.

"Mr. Ng stared at the picture and wondered how much had changed since it was taken. After Tuesday’s ceremony, he said, “folks like me will have a chance to be on the other side.”"

When I thought about it, I did notice that I was almost always the only minority in any white house meeting (plenty of women though), but I rarely thought about it. Though I think that may be cultural, as pursuing policy and politics requires giving up financial security for something less tangible.

Obama Innauguration: Moved by music

Perhaps it was just me, but I was a bit disappointed by Obama's speech. Not that it was bad, but just said nothing new really, and Obama has set a high bar in past speeches.

But I was moved by the John Williams arrangement "Air and Simple Gifts" played a panoply of the pop-stars of classical music, and was touched by the mosaic of colors represented in the simple quartet of musicians, the fact that they demonstrate America still attracts talent from around the world. The theme of the song was nice, with each musician given the chance to express his/her individuality, before coming together in a resounding whole.

I've always liked Simple Gifts especially, we played the Copland arrangement in marching band, and always liked the high drama of the half-time restatement of the theme (which Williams happily stole as he always does), but also portrays a nice essential image of the American spirit, of humility, that the world can be proud of.

So sure, John Williams, blockbuster maestro, did what he is best at, tug at the heartstrings with manipulative music. But it worked for me.

Obama's Economic Miracle

I made this call on my facebook page on election day, but figured I'd elaborate on it here. Obama will get credit for both the inevitable economic recovery and the end of the Iraq war (both of which would have happened regardless of who is President), which should likely guarantee a second term.

It is annoying that president's get credit for just standard movements along a business cycle that are out of their control. Reagan won re-election because of it, Carter lost for largely the same reason.

More broadly, Obama like Clinton will benefit from a large peace dividend. Clinton likes to claim credit for balancing the federal budget, but more credit should go to an intransigent Newt Gingrich led Congress, balanced budget laws passed under his predecessor, and military spending (as % or GDP) that had halved in the past 10 years.

Clinton Foreign Policy = Bush Foreign Policy = Obama Foreign Policy

I have long argued here (and here) that Bush Foreign Policy is not that different from Clinton Foreign Policy. Here is someone else who agrees. I hate Ithaca's NPR station, mostly because they play the most left show (on an already liberal station) I've ever heard on NPR, Democracy Now, which I often wake up to many mornings as my clock radio goes off. It is useful for the different point of view.

In a recent episode, the author is arguing that Bush merely continued the policies of the Clinton administration (extraordinary rendition, unilateral nation building) and it appears that esp with a Clinton under Obama, those policies are likely to continue. Argument again that it is the situation and environment that matters more than president him/herself.

Confronting Prejudice: A message to Obama supporters

The two McCain voters I talked to yesterday both expressed concern that they were uncomfortable revealing their vote to their friends, and probably wouldn’t do so. I know the feeling. I wrote about it in the Stanford Daily in 2004. Back then, I declared that one of my main reasons for voting for Bush was to use it to confront people with their own anti-Republican prejudices.

Voting is 99.9999% symbolic anyway (there is a tiny percent chance you influence the election, but essentially zero). So it is the symbolism that matters most.

This time, I voted for Obama, because ever since I outed myself as a Republican sympathizer (partly by my CEA job, though that really shouldn’t count since most of my colleagues were Democrat), no one could believe that it is possible to be both a Republican sympathizer and an Obama supporter. I’d really like to advocate the position that both sides deserve sympathy and respect. And that it’s awful that people should feel uncomfortable discussing how they feel.

Of course, I’m not saying this is the only form of prejudice out there, or even amongst the more important ones, but it is one that people rarely talk about.

Why I like Bush. Why I like Palin.

In response to comments from elsewhere as to why anyone could like Bush, my answer reposted here: “long 7 year economic expansion (which the president really has minimal control over, but just to counter Clinton's claims to his economic record). no terrorist attacks on American soil for the past 7 years (unlike under Clinton). fundamental reform of US education. expansion of free trade. continued unprecedented growth in productivity. converting two autocratic regimes into democracies. (unlike Clinton's attempts at nation building by unilateral invasion which are largely forgotten), tremendous funding for addressing AIDS and malaria, more spending on alternative energy than the manhattan project, higher emissions standards for cars and trucks (the fruits of both will pay off in the next 8 years, and hence Obama will get the credit). Europe has pretty much elected all pro-US heads of state, so arguably stronger ties to Europe.”

In response to comments on how anyone could like Palin: “she has more executive experience than Obama, is less prone to mistakes than Biden, and has social policy preferences which I don't necessarily agree with but matches the majority of Americans.”

Ha, I'm not the only one who doesn't believe in voting

From the current issue of The Economist's Voice

As the election approaches, please
remember to be kind to any economist
you know. Economists feel
on election day a little like Jews
feel on Christmas. Participating
makes them feel like a traitor to their kind but
boycotting the extravaganza makes them feel
estranged from the rest of society.
Like everyone, economists have a choice on
election day, but to an economist neither option
seems good. We don’t mean the choice of voting
for a Republican or a Democrat. We mean
the choice of whether to vote.
An economist who votes commits an irrational
act, and to an economist irrationality is
a sin. Why bother spending half an hour or
more going to the polls and waiting in line
when the chance is infinitesimal that your vote
will affect the outcome?
Yet, what is the other choice? Not voting.
But, an economist who doesn’t vote must
squirm when others ask that day: “Have you
voted yet?” Any explanation about the irrationality
of voting will be scorned.
There is no winning for an economist on
election day (unless he or she is running for office,
and probably even then).

More evidence that Gore = Bush

I have long noted here that people commit the fundamental attribution error when evaluating the Bush administration. Over attribute outcomes to disposition, and not accounting for situation. Most say that had Gore won, he would not have reacted the same way to 9/11 (though his VP, the wife of the president he served under, and that president's British doppleganger were all strong supporters of the war in Iraq).

In a recent economist book review, they find the following Al Gore quote:

IN 1993, Bill Clinton was pondering whether to authorise what is now called an “extraordinary rendition”, when American agents snatch a suspected terrorist abroad and deliver him to interrogators in a third country. The White House counsel warned that this would be illegal. President Clinton was in two minds until Al Gore walked in, laughed and said: “That’s a no-brainer. Of course it’s a violation of international law, that’s why it’s a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass.”

Obama is one of "us" and indeed "we" are not "real" and "we" are not "pro-American"

A problem I’ve had with this election is that I actually identify with Obama quite a bit. But as I’ve elaborated on at length in this blog that doesn’t mean I’d vote for him (e.g. because I dislike many of his supporters, because I dislike the policy of the median Congressional Democrat).

The media has recently taken a lot of umbrage at the suggestion by the McCain campaign that Obama is not “pro-American” and that he is out of touch with “real” America (e.g. Time magazine). But I think those accusations are fair.

First of all, by “us” I am talking about well-off highly educated coastal elites. Although Obama often evokes the language of unity, when talking about tax policy Obama talks about people like “us“ meaning Obama and McCain and other well off elites, which implicitly creates the “other” of people not like “us."

Pundits are happily making the point that the real “Joe the Plumber” makes well less than $250,000 a year, but the point of the McCain campaign is that that doesn’t matter. Because in his world view Joe and McCain are part of the same “us.”

But Obama’s “us” is different. Saying that we are anti-American is too far, but that’s not what the McCain campaign’s been saying. The most extreme way to see this is the number of my friends who (jokingly, but still) threaten to move to Canada. Or, I bet if you poll my friends and ask them if they had to choose between wearing a Canadian flag or an American flag on their bag while traveling, I bet nearly all would choose Canadian. I bet most people in the pro-American states that Palin is talking about would never do that (admittedly, I’m not sure what I’d pick, but probably I’d still put an American flag). It’s not a bad thing to not be “pro American.” It represents a different cosmopolitan ecumenical humanist world view that I like. But it is different.

This is an old notion of course, the different ways of defining identity. Democrats try to create identity along economic divisions, whereas Republicans do so along social divisions.

I might support Obama but will never be an “Obama supporter”

There are various reasons to describe how people vote given in the political economy literature. A few are:

1. You vote for who you think will be best for you.
   
2. You vote for who you think will be best for the country.
   
3. You vote for symbolic or expressive purposes.
   
4. You vote for who you think is going to win.
   
5. You vote for the candidate you identify with.
   
6. You vote to be affiliated with others who vote for that person.

I’ve already said in this blog that I am largely indifferent between Obama and McCain on the first two points. Points 3 and 4 and 5 are pushing me toward Obama. It would be cool to vote for the first black president (as a fellow political economic thinking friend of mine who is similarly indifferent to voting pointed out), and I have long identified with Obama’s post-partisan rhetoric (though he basically abandons bipartisanship whenever it is expedient, which is basically always).

My problem, is point 6, which is actually the point I focus on in my current research. And on this point, I really really don’t want be associated with Obama supporters. And that is making me not want to vote for Obama. A recent New York Times column is a case in point which has the audacity to blame Republicans alone for being condescending and derisive. They probably are, but I’m rarely exposed to Republicans, or Republican media, so that doesn’t bother me as much. But I’m constantly exposed to the condescension and derision of “Obama supporters” and liberal newspapers (as measured by Groseclose and Milyo) who think that McCain supporters “cling to their guns and religion” or that Palin supporters are “frightening” and “delusional” and don’t give voters in Alaska any credit for overwhelmingly voting her into office, and assume that mistakes she gives during interviews are signs of incompetence, whereas the numerous mistakes and fabrications that Joe Biden makes are merely signs of eccentricity.

I agree that Palin is really bad at handling herself on the national stage. Unlike Obama, she hasn’t had 4 years doing nothing else but campaigning for president. But that doesn’t make her incompetent, and doesn’t make her unfit. Bloomberg gave probably the worst speech I ever heard for his inaugural but has proven to be a very well respected mayor. It’s fine to disagree with Palin’s policies, and it’s fine to disagree with her view on the world, but please, as Obama would advocate, do so with respect.

Another reason to ignore the Issues when picking president

Pretty much exactly 4 years ago, days before the election, I argued in my Stanford Daily column that Americans (myself included) are too stupid/ignorant to pick the President. That really understanding the correct policies a president should take, requires years of study, that people don't really take the time for, but shouldn't, given that in an economy where people specialize, it doesn't make sense for everybody to be a policy wonk.

That is why I advocated basing decisions on character rather than the "issues" journalists and pundits are always blathering on about.

Another reason issues don't matter, is that whatever issues Presidents promise is rarely what they deliver (usually because circumstances change). Bush ran on a campaign for a humble foreign policy and against nation-building, though 9/11 forced him to change all that.

Kinsley, in Time magazine this week made the point "Even more miraculous (though troublesome for democracy), both Lincoln and F.D.R. were elected by promising more or less the opposite of what they did in office. Lincoln said he'd preserve the institution of slavery. F.D.R. said he'd balance the federal budget."

Thus when the fact checkers all bristled and got all indignant at McCain's accusation that Obama would raise taxes, even though Obama's "plan" said he wouldn't. I think pish posh. Since when do campaign promises have any bite. McCain's point that Congress will likely push for higher taxes, and Obama will be more likely to accede is perfectly valid.

A Kristof column I agree with?!

I had this discussion with myself some time last year, even before Obama won the primaries. Obama would have a huge effect on world perception of the US. As a semi old-school Marx style materialist/realist, I am not convinced that perception matters, but it is still nice when it shifts to what I think is a more accurate image of America.

A friend of mine said recently, it'd be nice to tell your grand kids, that you voted for the first Black US President. But otherwise, he like me is still mostly unmotivated to vote.

I also decided, when I had this thought some time last year, the same sentiment Kristof ends with: "Look, Mr. Obama’s skin color is a bad reason to vote for him or against him."

That logic takes away the main reason I have for voting for Obama. So I am still largely indifferent.

(Amusingly, in Kristof's list of countries led by minority presidents, he left out Peru's Fujimori, perhaps because Fujimori fled in ignominy.)

Neel Kashkari: the $700 billion man, and bailout czar

Interesting. This is the guy i used to wrestle with at the white house over the details of the white house energy policy of 2007. I think we were probably the only ones who really saw all the details. and we often clashed on them. He's a smart competent smooth talking guy, though there were times he played things a bit fast and loose.

The stock photo all the news articles are using is kinda funny.

nytimes article

usa today article

Capping CEO Pay - why Golden Parachutes save firms money.

There's been a lot of talk about capping CEO pay--which is included in the last bailout bill--and pretty much all of it has been ideological; no one has asked an economist what it all means.

So yes, from an "optics" view as they say in Washington, paying CEO's huge bonuses when they are forced to leave a failing company looks awful.

But from an economic point of view, the point of Golden Parachutes is to transfer risk from the risk averse potential CEO to the risk neutral firm. It is not something you give to reward a CEO for leaving, it is something to promise at the beginning to get him to join. What basic contract theory says is that by reducing the risk to the CEO for taking the job, you actually have to pay him/her less overall. Thus a ban on Golden Parachutes should lead to increased overall CEO compensation.

Of course a more likely and better outcome is that if a ban is in place, companies will come up with contracts to replicate golden parachutes, but don't look like golden parachutes. Perhaps a loan that is paid out of future wages. (Which I guess is already done and still looks bad, but less bad.)

Political Bias

I have been reading lots of polemical political articles, mostly anti-republican, because I get most of my news from liberal sources like NPR and NYTimes, I hear tons of outrage and condescension dripping from every word. And for each and every fault of the Republicans they list, I automatically can name two or more equivalent faults of the Democrats.

Half of republicans think Obama may be Muslim?
(First, not entirely crazy, by definition, his father is Muslim which makes him Muslim. And he did attend Muslim schools in Indoensia.)
But agreed, it is mostly crazy. But half of democrats hold the crazier idea that Bush may have helped plan 9/11.

Sexual impropriety and potential tit-for-tat at the Dept of Interior?
But wasn't that the same behavior happily overlooked in the Clinton White House. It also annoys me that most of the mistakes that led to billion dollar windfalls for Big Oil occurred in 1998 during the Clinton administration, a fact neglected in every nytimes article on the subject.

Poor grades by Palin and McCain?
But Kerry and and Gore had worse grades than even George W Bush, but nobody cared then. (Gore failed out of grad school twice, getting F's in a majority of his classes the first time)

Anyway, I can go on. But makes me wonder if anyone really can hold an unbiased view. The most important paper I've ever read was by Lord Ross and Lepper which found that people are really good at seeing the flaws in arguments that go against their preconceived beliefs, but tend to overlook the flaws in arguments that support their own. Hence the value of adversarial systems.

So, just as the flaws in the NYTimes are so clear to me, a bit further reflection makes me know that there are probably just as many flaws in my own thinking.

Which I suppose just implies a need for greater humility (and why I think people really aren't qualified to judge candidates). Greater dialog. Greater openness and greater respect.

Krugman out does himself

Sigh, and to think I used to admire Paul Krugman. I read many of his pop books in college, took his graduate class for a while as a junior though it was way over my head. Appreciating his even-handedness in explaining economics.

Politics really does bring the worst out of people. After reading perhaps one of the most contemptuous articles I've seen in a while--an anti-Palin screed by Judith Warner in the NY Times, I come across Krugman's equally contemptuous disdainful resentful anti-Republican screed, which paradoxically complains that Republicans have imagined this contempt from Democrats, when you just have to read anything written by Krugman in the past few years to see it.

See I really do like Obama, because it seems like (at least from his rhetoric) that he's better than that. He really doesn't seem to be contemptuous about the other side and he rightly chastised the McCain campaign for questioning Obama's patriotism. It's just much of his party I can't stand. At least around election time when people seem to make things so personal.

(Of course there are Republicans who are just as contemptuous about liberal elitists I'm sure, but I guess since I mostly read NY Times and NPR I'm never exposed to them)

(And for the record, much has been made about Bush's C average in college, but what is often forgotten is Nobel Prize winner Al Gore had a worse college record)

On Sarah Palin: Tina Fey, David Brooks and Gossip Girl

Watching coverage of Palin's speech today, I couldn't help but think, Sarah Palin looks just like Tina Fey.

More seriously, David Brooks renewed my faith in him with an excellent analysis of the Sarah Palin pick. I too would have preferred someone with better domestic policy experience.

But my own first thought though was that she is more symbol than substance (like Dan Quayle, but also like Obama). I like the fact he picked a woman, but was hoping for maybe Christy Whitman (former NJ Governor) though she is pro-choice, and been out of the picture for some time) so that rules her out. Though as a tactical move, I see it as genius. Though newspapers initially says this ruins the original message, that Obama doesn't have enough experience, in my view, it does the opposite. It has made all the Democrats look ridiculous for attacking Palin's lack of experience (she has more executive experience than Obama and Biden combined), and every time a Democrat decries Palin's lack of experience, it highlights even more for public attention, Obama's own lack. Genius.

As an aside, and without a hint of sarcasm, I really love how pretentious her kids names are (Bristol, Trig, Track, Piper, Willow). They're like the names of the stars of Gossip Girl (Blake, Leighton, Penn, Chace). The new Muffy and Bunny of the current generation. I know these names are snooty and elitist, but I happen to like them.

on obama- the fundamental attribution error, median voter theorem, and my pick for president

Watching the Democratic convention now, reaffirmed my general attitude toward presidential elections. I like Obama, I just don't like the Democrats.

This is consistent with some basic political economy. Downs' median voter theorem argues that in order for a candidate to win, they must position themselves at the center.

I think that has been true in past elections. I think it is true the current one.

The first counterexample people point out is that Gore would not have invaded Iraq. My counter to that assertion is that Tony Blair (a Clinton clone) and Joe Lieberman, Gore's VP were staunch supporters of the war as were 79% of the Senate and an even higher percent of Americans. Not to mention Hillary, a partial proxy for Bill Clinton, also supported the war. It is easier for Al Gore to stand outside and claim he would have done something else, but I disagree.

People commit the fundamental attribution error and assume that a president's actions depends on his disposition rather than the situation he is in.

On the issues, Obama and McCain have predictably converged:

• get out of iraq as expedient
  
• close guantanamo and stop torture
  
• invest in alternative energy
  
• drill off shore
  
• reduce carbon emissions
  
• provide money to expand health insurance
  
• etc.
  

I think by themselves, I would give Obama the slight advantage for the symbolic value.

The problem is that policy depends not just on the president, but also on Congress (and the Judiciary).

Imagine a continuum
(long readers of the blog will recall the same analysis 4 years ago)

<-------------------------->
1      25     50    75      100

• Where 1 is the most left wing policy.
  
• 100 is the most right wing policy.
  
• 25 is the median Democrat.
  
• 75 is the median Republican
  
• 50 is the median American policy

I see Obama and McCain at 50. Which is roughly where I am. So I like both their policies.

My preferences are: 50 > 75 > 25

But the problem is that an Obama presidency coupled with a Democratic Congress would lead to policy outcomes closer to 25 than 50. And that I can't accept.

You saw this during the primaries, as Obama renounced his bipartisan rhetoric in favor of debating Clinton on who thinks Republican ideas are worse. The biggest attack each had on the other was that the other once said that Republicans might have good ideas.

Specifically, I remember when Obama gave into the teacher unions by renouncing his previosu position up on merit pay that best exemplified this move.

So that's where I stand.

More Energy Insanity: this time from Thomas Friedman

Friedman, never one to let facts get in the way of his argument, says in his latest column the US should follow the example of Denmark, who is energy independent, and has high taxes (sometimes a good idea but probably excessive here) and a lot of senseless regulation (no driving on Sundays, at least once upon a time). (He's also easily impressed by the two button toilets, which I've had in my bathroom for the past year or two).

He says we should follow their example, instead of pursuing dumb ideas like drilling for offshore oil.

Of course, what he neglects to mention is that Denmark produces about 5 times more oil per person than the US, nearly all of it from off shore drilling. If the US had the same amount of off shore oil drilling per capita, it could supply the oil needs for roughly half the world.

Similarly, in Brazil, held up by NPR as the model of using biofuels for energy independence, still produces 7 times more oil than ethanol, and has achieved energy independence largely because of new offshore oil discoveries. (The story also mistakingly fails to account for the energy content of ethanol.)

Obama on Energy: Justified hypocrisy?

Ugh. The current Democratic sound byte on Energy is that drilling is bad because drilling takes 3-10 years. Therefore we should invest in Renewables.

While that may well be sound policy. The logic is insane. Drilling may take years, but renewables at any significant scale will take decades.

I'm not saying renewables are bad policy. In fact it is good policy and in fact current policy. Just the sound bytes are obnoxious.

At the end of the day, energy policy is fairly simple, and I have little doubt that regardless of who wins, will look for all intens and purposes identical. Once you drill into it, both politicians propose basically the same thing, and once policies are vetted by the bureaucrats (to take out the stupidities both sides are proposing) and pushed through the Congressional process (who will add in their own stupidities), my current take is that they will basically be identical.