Conversation with a Soldier

Good friend, blogger, and regular commenter, Justin Scott, is a rare combination of brutally honest and lovingly gentle. I'd love to see him interview anyone and today he posted a discussion he had with a young female Sargent on plane ride. The whole post is worth reading, but here's a part that especially caught my eye:

I asked her whether she felt supported as a soldier by the American public and civilians like me. She said she felt very discouraged by claims that the war in Iraq was a "mistake," that it was "wrong" or "unwise." She explained how a few months ago her best friend had been killed in the very area she herself was shipping out to in a few days, and it frustrated and angered her to think that someone would claim her friend had died in service of a "mistake." I offered that those who oppose the war have her well-being in mind; they do not wish to see her and her friends killed in service of something they do not believe in. This did not seem to comfort her. This was probably the most striking part of the whole conversation to me, because I realized (and this is my opinion here) that to her, there was no "disagree with the war but support the troops." She had to believe in the nobility of the mission.

Justin wisely responds:

But if this is what is required for her to feel that the American public supports her, it precludes that the American public never disagree with the military actions of their government—which in light of America's military history (Vietnam being the go-to example) is essentially an indefensible position. I think it would be pretty unwise, even scary if the American public never expressed dissent with any U.S. military action once it had begun, even in the name of supporting our soldiers. Nevertheless if I heard someone calling a mission I believed in and my best friend had died in service to a "mistake," I cannot imagine how angry, disheartened, frustrated, even disgusted I would feel. There is a terrible impasse here.

I'm pretty open with my opposition to US military intervention anywhere. If Iraq doesn't want us there, and  most of them don't, then we shouldn't occupy another sovereign nation. For the loss of life both US and foreign, for the economic cost foreign and domestic, and also for the non-combat deaths after soldiers return home. However, this conversation has convinced me of the value of limiting that conversation around American soldiers. My grandfather, father, and uncle have all served in different capacities, and whether in World War II or the Middle East, they deserve our gratitude for their involvement.

Thanks to my cousin Megan Reynolds for this photo taken at the Ware Shoals Veterans Memorial.

Economics of Celebrity Endorsement

I've never understood why companies pay famous celebrities to be in commercials, when there are much cheaper actors available. Do we really care that Usher uses MasterCard? Apparently, we do:

A new study suggests the answer involves superstar-specific happy memories stored in our cerebral cortex. Using brain-scan technology, researchers found those positive emotions get transferred from the personality to the product, producing a more positive impression of the item in question and, presumably, a greater probability of purchasing it.

Difference Between Humans and Animals, Part VI

Sometimes television can describe can answer this age old question more succinctly (and with more humor). Here's a clip from the show Community:


Here's Part one, two, three, four, and five.

What It Feels Like to Teach Public Schools

As you know, I have a love/hate relationship with public schools. I recently heard this Mother Theresa quote that sums it up nicely:

We, the unwilling, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have done so much, for so long, with so little, we are now qualified to do anything with nothing.

Economic Benefits of Political Apathy

Yesterday I discussed the inherent flaws in democratic votes and how shouting (rioting, protesting, donating) can actually be more efficient. In the past this has convinced me of the benefits of political apathy. Apparently I should have been a little more specific:

there is another critical competitive advantage for America in relation to its other democratic peers. It is the fact that in American presidential and congressional elections, about half of the electorate never turns out to vote. And the unique competitive advantage arises from the fact that unlike in other Western democracies, the people who end up staying away from voting in the U.S. belong overwhelmingly to its poorest, least educated sections.

He goes on to discuss the reasons why the poor don't vote:

Historically, many of the southern states have had a nasty record of officially and unofficially making it more difficult for blacks and poor whites to vote, a position that largely prevailed until the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Other reasons include the disenfranchisement of its prison population, which, at two million, is the largest in the world. Moreover, felony disenfranchisement laws in most states make it difficult for ex-felons to vote. As a result, about 5.4 million offenders and ex-offenders (about 2.5 percent of the electorate) were excluded from the voting rolls in the 2004 presidential election. Also, the fact that Election Day in the U.S. is not a national holiday makes it difficult for those holding low paying jobs (where wages are paid by the hour) to go out and vote.

So why is this good for the American economy? It's something I've already mentioned before on this blog, more educated voters leads to more libertarian voters, which leads to more economic growth:

A critical factor which determines the economic success of a country is how well it strikes a balance between its short term needs and long term requirements. The short term interests veer towards more spending and consumption, while the long term interests lie in greater investment for the future and in shaping an environment conducive to creation of wealth. Essentially, the poor and the disadvantaged within a country would tend to have a short term outlook. Their interest would lie in having the government spend more on generous social security benefits and subsidies and in laws that protect labour. They would be far less enthused by the investments and sacrifice required to further the economic well-being of the country over the long term, or in promoting the entrepreneurial class.

This also supports my graduate school thesis about the correlation between compulsory voting laws and government spending. So here's the question: do the economic benefits of voter disenfranchisement outweigh the social costs? My guess is most people would say no.

Wisdom of the Crowd

Friend and fellow blogger Justin Wehr (recently outed as Justin Landwehr) conducted an interesting survey among his readers to test the wisdom of the crowd theory. In its simplest form, the idea theory suggests that groups of individuals combined opinions are better than a person alone. His results are here. Of the 8 questions asked, none of them had more people right than the rest of the crowd. I've once tested this same theory before in my classes with an informal poll on how much I weigh. The results were similar. This helps explain why Wikipedia is so accurate, why blogging comments are so important, and most of all, why the market's predicting power is so strong. Also, the limits of crowd wisdom show us why voter bias makes democracy a dangerously flawed system.

When Shouting is Better than Voting

A while back I questioned the value of public protesting and suggested handwriting a letter instead. I've also questioned the value of voting, the most traditional way of citizen involvement. I certainly don't think voting is worthless, but I do have a different understanding of why I and others really vote (even for a third party). Not only is the probability of your vote making a difference in national election statistically impossible, voting also has another huge flaw, everybody only gets one. No matter how how passionate/apathetic and educated/uneducated you are, all voices count the same. This is simultaneously democracy's greatest strength and weakness. Luckily, citizens have created other ways to influence government, some better than voting:

"One man one vote" is not always optimal. I reported a few days ago that technocrats can under some conditions take better decisions than a referendum could. The point there was about information and heterogeneity of preferences.

Surajeet Chakravarty and Todd Kaplan use similar arguments to compare simple voting and shouting matches. In the latter, those caring more about the outcome put more effort into shouting. Thus, if there is a lot of variance in opinions, shouting better reflects marginal utility and yields something closer the social optimum.

How is this shouting concretely expressed? It should be a signal that is costly and in some way wasteful. In France, it is demonstrating on the streets. In the United States it is donating to political campaigns. In Thailand it is erecting barricades. Usually seen as major inefficiencies, all these can actually be good.

Greece seems to have their own, less conventional method. This is why I was happy with the Supreme Court case earlier this year that struck down limits to campaign finance. I've done a lot of research on the topic and it seems to be one of the most efficient ways for citizens to show their preferences for government. Criticizing the equality in voting probably makes many very uncomfortable, but that only confirms to me that voting is less about producing an effective government and more about satisfying a citizen's desire for participation.

Economics of Whistle-Blowers

There are some things that it seems only government can do, getting people to pay their taxes seems like an obvious one. Once again, the power of the market is surprising:

Informants who turn in tax cheats have to wait years to get their share of any reward from the I.R.S.’s recently expanded whistle-blower program. So hedge funds, private equity groups and other big investors are offering an alternative. They are essentially agreeing to buy a percentage of those future payouts in exchange for a smaller amount upfront to the whistle-blowers.

Via Marginal Revolution

Revisiting Graduation Speeches

Just recently my younger sister Kelsey graduated from Clemson University. Also this year my younger brother Parker will graduate high school and become the fourth Brookie in a row to go Clemson. Although I can hardly describe how proud I am them, I can't help but remember what I said two years ago about graduation. In one sentence it was that your graduation is not only the result of your hard work, but of the work of the last 150 years of society. Harvard graduate David French puts it bluntly:

Congratulations on your important, though modest, achievement. Your graduation is important because it is — for all too many people in this country — considered a necessary prerequisite for full participation in our nation's economic and cultural life. This belief is misguided for a number of reasons -- we significantly over-value economic advancement, stress education over hard work, and often go deeply into student loan debt which will handcuff us for decades. But it is widespread nonetheless. So your graduation is important.

It's also important for other, more virtuous reasons. Many of you — though not all of you — worked hard during college, and I congratulate you for your hard work. Many of you — though not all of you — made financial sacrifices to afford college, and I congratulate you for your thrift and far-sightedness. A few of you — not many — achieved family dreams by being the first to graduate college, and I congratulate you for honoring the legacy of those who sacrificed and struggled before you. Yes, your graduation is important.

But make no mistake. This achievement is modest. Millions of Americans get a degree. Go ahead and pop those champagne corks, but not for your uniqueness or talent, but rather to commemorate a rite of passage, for your lifelong connection with your college community, and for the satisfaction of a task completed.

How should you think of yourselves on this day of important but modest achievement? I'd propose you shouldn't think much about yourself at all. The richest life is not "about us" – it's about others. It's about service — and not just the obvious service of volunteerism or charitable giving. Some of the most unpleasant and self-righteous people I know give away quite a bit of money and ladle out more than their share of soup at the soup kitchen. The best lives are lived by people who count others as better than themselves and place others' needs above their own. Every day. Including this day.

Who are you here with? A father who worked long hours to afford your tuition check? Honor him on this day. A mother who struggled alone to provide for you and teach you how to live as an adult? Honor her on this day. Start a habit of turning "your" days into days to show kindness and respect for others and choose, day by day, moment by moment, to bless others rather than drain their emotional and sometimes financial resources through your own selfish demands.

This is not a call for perfection but instead a request for a mindset — an attitude of proportionate humility that you carry with you every day of your life.

Hat tip to Justin (Land)Wehr

Grossest Solution to Feeding the World

There are plenty of doomsayers out there predicting the coming global food crisis. They suggest the next six billion will require huge sacrifices to feed. They seem to forget the fact that the previous explosion of population in the last 150 years coincided more selection and less sacrifice. Difficult prediction aside, there have been many interesting suggestions on what changes will be required, from weekday vegetarianism to cap-and-trade for fishing. But here is perhaps the grossest (and most interesting) solution I've heard, eat bugs:

"They can’t give us pandemics. So the mass production of insects—farm insects—really easy. There’s no cricket flu on par with avian flu or swine flu or E. coli."

And then there’s this: "Look, crickets are not better than beef in every category, just most of them."

Gracer says a bowl of grasshoppers has more vitamins than beef and is lower in fat—and uses far fewer resources to produce. Our disgust for insects is just cultural