What do we mean when we say America is resilient and will not lose to terrorists?

On numerous occasions right after 9/11, President Bush said, "the terrorists will not win." Ten years later, President Obama on the 10th anniversary of 9/11 said that American is resilient and "we emerged stronger than before."

I understand that these words and phrases are meant to stoke patriotism at a time of national mourning and are very valuable for that purpose. It is the responsibility of the leader to be strong and inspire strength in difficult times and that is what Presidents Obama and Bush were doing.

But taking a more sober view, what does it mean to say that the "terrorists will not win." The metrics for winning are obvious in sports, politics, and even conventional warfare. What metric can we use to declare if the terrorists have won or lost? Similarly, I understand when we describe a person as resilient. But what does it mean to say that a country is resilient?

Take a minute to think about it yourself before reading my answers to those questions below. In particular, think through what would have to transpire for you to say that a particular country has not been resilient after a significant terrorist attack.

One way to measure is to count the number of terrorist attacks since 9/11. Since there have been 0, that is one way to claim "victory" or "resilience." Though not a perfect metric, because there is definitely much luck involved in having had 0 attacks since then. Also, when there is another attack (and there probably will be one someday), that doesn't immediately make us "losers" or not resilient.

I would define winning and resilience differently. My definition: conditional on protecting our population, have we maintained aspects of what makes American unique (our values, our exceptionalism). I would argue that in several ways we have not satisfied this definition.

First, America has compromised its ethical standing in the world through the use of torture. There is no longer any doubt that America engages in torture during the Bush/Cheney administration, which is against both the Geneva Conventions and our own core values. We have lost a large element of the moral high ground and that is truly tragic. While the Bush/Cheney administration destroyed the soul of America in this regard, Obama also deserves some criticism for white-washed this history instead of healing it. Andrew Sullivan has written prodigiously and passionately about this topic and I highly recommend reading his pieces.

Second, I have been shocked at how easily and quickly the American public has acquiesed to the government's prolific spying and information gathering of ordinary Americans. The American public rails against governmental over-reach in innumerable ways, but in one of the most important ways, incredible information gathering and the loss of privacy, the public has completely capitulated. Even after the Snowden files were released, there was almost no accountability and little public debate on the trade-offs, which still shocks me.

Third, I have been utterly disappointed by America's constant sense of pessimism and fear in the last 13 years. In the past, our attitude of optimism, which in many ways is uniquely American, is inspiring and is something I always valued and cherished. However, that optimism has given way to constant state of anxiety and fear it seems. I think this anxiety started after 9/11 but over the years, the Republican party and the mainstream media, each using its own brand of crazy/stupidity, has stoked these fears and brought out the worst in America. From immigration to ISIS to Ebola, American seems scared about everything right now. This despite the fact that the latter two have led a combined death of five Americans so far.

Even if terrorists don't kill another American, they have fundamentally changed core aspects of American exceptionalism. When a person or country has changed aspects of its core values for the worse, it becomes harder to argue that it has "won" or is "resilient."

My slow disassociation from college sports (in particular the NCAA)

Recent evidence of corruption at the University of North Carolina:

"For 18 years, thousands of students at the prestigious University of North Carolina took fake "paper classes," and advisers funneled athletes into the program to keep them eligible, according to a scathing independent report released Wednesday."

Given that NCAA is brutally tough when athletics programs "lose institutional control" (see USC, Ohio St. etc) because players took some cash on the side, we can expect the hammer on UNC right?

Ummmm. Silence from the NCAA. 

The more complex and generous answer is that that is the problem with imposing draconian laws for something that is arguably not wrong. If you impose bowl bans for players making a little money on the side, what possible punishment would be fair for 18 years of institutional corruption of the charade known as "student athletes." Permanent ban. But of course the NCAA will not do that or anything even remotely close.  

The simpler answer is that the NCAA is a corrupt monopoly where morals, ethics, and consistency are all casualties of maximizing profits for the NCAA. When students take money on the side, it undercuts the NCAA's profits so in their world view, that is the real crime. On the other hand, academic corruption allows "should be professional athletes" to be "student athletes" and make money for the NCAA. Nothing to see here folks, move along. 

In this country that loves free markets, let me count the ways that college football is like Soviet-style communism: 

(i) the NCAA is like the communist party; a monopoly that arbitrarily assigns punishment depending on whether it benefits;

(ii) all workers get the same wage (stipends, scholarships) no matter their relatives capabilities, some well below their market value; 

(iii) the senior members of the party appropriate the rents (coaches, NCAA executives, etc); 

(iv) restrictions on the labor market (players are not eligible to enter the NFL draft for 4 years until the graduate high school!). How else can you get the best players to come to college and earn $0? By not allowing them the opportunity that every other person in the US has: become a professional and earn money for their craft.  Also, "student-athletes" must sit out a year of eligibility when they transfer schools (while coaches have no such restrictions).

I am disgusted by the NCAA and will be avoiding their products.

Lead and crime

One of the most astonishing facts that I learned recently is the steady and incredible fall in all types of crime in the last two decades years. Overall crime and violent crime have fallen 55% and 51%, respectively since they peaked in 1991.  Yes, you read that right. Across the board, crime has fallen over 50% in the last two decades. You would think that such an incredible improvement in one of the most important aspects of life (safety) would be an indelible part of the American experience in the last 20 years. However, Americans think crime is getting worse every year and feel as unsafe as they did in the 90s, when crime was over 90% higher!

The question as to why there is such a significant gap between perception and reality when it comes to crime is an interesting and important question. Why is the American public unaware of this incredibly good news?!?

Crime increased drastically in the 70s and 80s in the US and peaked in the early 90s. Since then, it has been falling precipitously and now is back to the the levels of the halycon days of the 60s. Understanding the causes of the incredible rise and fall of crime has incredible consequences for society. There are numerous explanations for the crime pattern: more and improved policing, economic conditions, the reversal of the crack epidemic, and demographics are a few of the explanations. However, in my reading, the most compelling explanation is one that you have likely never heard of: lead exposure.

The graph above shows the time trends of two variables with a 23 year lag: (1) violent crime per capita; (2) childhood exposure to lead. Incredibly, there is almost perfect correlation - higher/lower exposure to lead as a child is correlated with higher/lower crime committed by those kids 23 years later. The 23 year time lag is important because most crime is committed by adults in their 20s.

But as we all know, correlation is not causation - there may be many other variables with a similar time trend.  In an example of quality journalism, Kevin Jones documents and summarizes the economic and scientific literature linking lead exposure and crime.  Researches have found the same pattern above, not just for the US, but for many other countries as well. Also, they find that variations in lead reduction at the state-level can largely explain difference in crime reduction across the states. They find the same patterns at the local level. In addition to the strong econometric findings, there is also physiological evidence linking lead exposure to cognitive stunting, poor decision making, attention problems, and higher aggression., characteristics of criminals.

While the book is not closed on this debate, I found the evidence of the link between lead exposure and crime truly compelling. What is remarkable is that the EPA's mandate of the phaseout of leaded gasoline in 1973 and the banning of lead-based paint may have been some of the most socially beneficial policies of our time. And the not full understanding the causes of the dramatic rise and fall of crime led to the mistaken belief that the 3 strikes law in California (which is now finally being rolled back) or the broken windows theory of crime punishment, which were originally believed to have helped reduce crime may have not had a huge impact on crime while locking up millions of people behind bars for petty crimes and destroying their lives unnecessarily.

2014 Ryder Cup and leadership

The Europeans put a pretty sound whipping on the Americans this year at the Ryder Cup. Their 6th win in the last 7 Ryder cups. The Americans are often higher ranked but seem to underperform the Europeans in this team competition and this year was no exception. That being said, I thought Tom Watson made some absolutely atrocious decisions. At the post-match conference, Phil Mickelson called out Watson's leadership and was roundly criticized for his disloyalty. As more news comes out, it seems that Watson not only made horrible decisions as captain, he is as terrible leader. 

      Four sources who witnessed the proceedings in the U.S. team room at the Gleneagles Hotel said that Watson took no responsibility for any shortcomings, scoffed at a gift that the U.S. team members gave him, ridiculed several European team players and started the proceedings by denigrating the Americans' play that afternoon. According to all of the sources, he said: "You stink at foursomes.''

It is true that the players play and ultimately are responsible for pointing up points on the board. But Watson has revealed himself to be a very mean-spirited person with zero leadership skills. 

Another incredible graph on inequality

Pictures are worth a thousand words. So are some charts. 

Anyone else notice that ironic timing of "trickle down" economics espoused by the Reagan administration marking the exact opposite...  

If Fabiana Caruana accomplished an unprecedented chess feat a few weeks ago and almost no one saw it, did it happen?

Fabiana Caruana accomplished an unprecedented feat in chess history a few weeks ago. Against the best chess players in the world (considered as possibly the strongest field ever assembled) he won 7 matches, lost 0, and drew 3. In fact, he won 7 in a row, which is unheard of in top chess competitions, where a super-elite players can engineer draws quite reasonably. During his run he beat Magnus (world #1 with the highest chess rating ever recorded) with black. That is virtually impossible. 

However, this feat got such little attention. I understand that chess is not in extremely popular but a feat like this deserves more attention than Lebron's recent weight loss due to cutting sugar out of his diet (which is what is being discussed on ESPN right now). 

Chess requires intense focus and being in the moment, which in the age of smartphones and social media, is probably hurting the popularity of this wonderful game. 

    

Our closest animal relatives - the Great Apes

How "smart" are animals? What do they "feel"? And how much of the differences between us are nature vs nurture?

A fascinating research project demonstrates that chimps are "smarter" than humans in some ways: two chimps beat two humans in a game of memory and strategy. 

Lucy the chimp was raised in a human household, and could make and serve tea. Koko the Bonobo could sign hundreds of words and could take care of pets.

In the US, we still do scientific testing on chimps, though it is increasingly outlawed in other parts of the world...

As we find out more about the intelligence of animals (and the Great Apes in particular), I think we are increasingly moving in the right direction by prohibiting research on these animals. However, I think this is still a difficult question and not as simple as Peter Singer, perhaps the greatest advocate for the Great Apes, makes it seem.

As a utilitarian, Peter cares about actions that maximize total welfare. But in that calculation, how would Peter weigh Great Apes against humans? If testing 1 ape could save 1 human, would he be for it? What about testing 2 apes to save 1 human? What is the exchange rate in his mind and how did he derive said exchange rate?

Peter notes that the mental capabilities of apes can often be superior than that of children and mentally disabled people. But if intelligence and emotive capacity are his point of comparison and not speciesism, then another question arises: if human privileges are extended to apes, should human responsibilities also be extended to apes? What happens if an ape commits a human crime? Should it be treated similar to a mentally disabled person? 

Bastardization of the word pandit/pundit

The word pundit in the American lexicon comes from Sanskrit word pandit. Pandit, in Sanskrit, means an scholar, teacher, and expert. The word ostensibly has the same meaning in the US but in fact means something close to someone who opines a lot without any correlation to expertise. 

In 2012 and 2013, as Bashar al-Assad was terrorizing his own country, John McCain lead the rhetorical charge to arm the Syrian rebels, consistent with his philosophy of fight first, ask questions later. Now we know that one of the rebel groups was ISIS, one of the most evil groups in the world today. In fact, McCain went to visit some Syrian rebels in 2013, who turned out to be part of ISIS. Imagine if he we had followed his advice and armed some rebels, which no doubt would have led to arms to ISIS. What tremendously horrible advice from a supposed "pundit." Being wrong though is not a pass time for John McCain, it is his passion. He is wrong about almost everything he has uttered in the last decade and these are not small matters to be wrong about. For example, in addition to the horribly bad advice on arming Syrian rebels, John McCain was wrong about Iraq in pretty much every way that someone can be wrong about foreign policy. 

Being wrong over and over and over again and not have any shame; that can happen in extremely old age and in fact, if your uncle John was even half as wrong as Senator McCain, you would chalk it up to senility. But McCain is the politician most often brought on Sunday morning talk shows as a "pundit." What is the excuse of the media? Where is the accountability? Why is there least accountability for those who preach accountability for others? Shouldn't being wrong so often and so catastrophically have consequences?

While McCain is too easy a target, he is not the only one who is wrong so often and yet gets valuable space on tv, newsprint to opine as a "pundit." For example, numerous economists and policy makers have been wrong a lot. Michael Boskin of Stanford University has been embarrassingly wrong on numerous economic topics. Others like Charles Prosser and Marty Feldstein, among others, have been wrong over and over again about inflation. And yet they continue to write their next round of opeds in the WSJ predicting that inflation is just around the corner this time. Maybe it will be on what basis do they have any credibility? We know that politicians have no concern for being consistently wrong but it is troubling when academics and policy makers have lost that sense of shame too.

I think we should stop bastardizing the word pundit. We already have a word to describe these charlatans - "derps." 

A assortment of links

Some excellent links: 

Roberto Solow on Hayek and Friedman

Robin Williams on how only Scotsmen could have invented golf

Noah Smith with an old but excellent piece on libertarianism (local bullies dont like being told not to bully) 

Max Schireson on being a dad and a CEO (h/t from Andrew Sullivan)

Poverty is terrible even if you have nice clothes and a flatscreen TV

In the discussion of inequality, one common retort is to argue that the poor are not really poor since they often wear excellent shoes and clothes, have iPhones, flatscreen TVs, XBox, and drive decent cars. This is a terribly bad argument for two reasons. First, it reveals a poor understanding of the economy. Amenities like clothes, tvs, iPhones, and even cars constitute an increasingly small faction of the average American budget. This is because continuous productivity improvements drive down the prices of these types of goods. That is like saying because you eat as much fruit as a billionaire, you must be extremely rich.  Meanwhile, education, healthcare, housing, and childcare constitute an increasingly large fraction of the American budget. These goods and services are susceptible to Baumol's cost disease: productivity improvements are very difficult in certain areas and hence prices continue to rise. And in these very important areas, the poor are indeed falling significantly behind.  

The second point is about risk. The ability to manage risk is one of the most important components of well-being in life, yet often gets overlooked. Shoes, TVs, and Xboxes will not help if you need major medical surgery or need to spend exorbitant amounts of money to defend yourself properly in the legal system. The threat, worry, and concern of becoming bankrupt at any given point in time because of the vagaries of life is something unique for the poor and lower middle class. The ability to completely manage risk by the upper middle class and rich manifests itself in many ways. First, not having to deal with the stress of bankruptcy is an incredible boost to one's quality of life. Second, not having to worry about risk afford freedom in a variety of ways: the freedom to move geographically anywhere, the freedom to leave a job you hate, the freedom to leave a bad relationship, etc. Imagine having to give up these freedoms because of the inability to cope with risk and tell me if that compares to having nice sneakers or a TV. 

Because of the the importance of managing risk, wealth inequality is a better proxy for capturing real inequality. Wealth captures both consumption and the ability to manage risk. And wealth inequality is more extreme than consumption and income inequality in the US and is getting more extreme. And even wealth inequality underestimates the real separation between the poor/lower middle class and everyone else. The upper middle class/rich have not only their own wealth but also access to the wealth and support of their significant social networks (social capital). If they need money in case of an emergency, they have wealthy families. If they lose their jobs, they have connections that will help them get another job soon. 

So next time someone argues that the poor dont have it that badly, remember two things: (1) differences in access to goods and services such as education, healthcare, housing, and childcare; and (2) the ability to deal with risk in life. It really, really sucks to be poor and we shouldn't let disingenuous arguments about the consumption of amenities obscure the reality.