A lot of people are terribly ignorant of even the most basic principles of economics, not to mention the facts that are needed to feed good economic and political decision making. I doubt that people are going to suddenly develop a keen interest any time soon. So, how to improve decision making and understanding?
A good start would be to make economics a little more interesting, give it a little glitz. I like this video - it’s the kind of thing that might help:
This blog entry is very interesting. If Senator X is right, a successful politician needs only to promote one or two popular but simple ideas and otherwise seem like a nice person. Any depth of analysis is a liability not an asset.
The economics behind this is quite simple. Any one vote has very little value, so voters are rational to invest very little in researching and understanding the issues of the day. Why invest the time when the consequences are neglible? On the other hands, lots of us feel a civic duty to vote and we vote on some basis or other. So, focusing on one or two “big issues”, even if we don’t understand them very well, is a tenable compromise for most people.
So, what does that tell us about the presidential candidates?
For starters, it might mean that Joe Biden doesn’t have a chance - he’s too deep and nuanced. We’re looking for candidates that focus on a few simple ideas.
Among the Democrats, there are two simple ideas being pushed:
But likeability is an issue. Hillary has image problems and John Edwards is just too shrill. That makes it easier for Obama. Senator X’s observation argues for Obama as the Democratic candidate. But I wouldn’t make any big bets just yet.
The Republicans are in worse shape. So far, they’ve been short on simple ideas other than “stay the course”. This means that voters who are unhappy about anything will not be impressed. The closest thing to a new “big idea” is Fred Thompson’s proposed tax reform. Personally, I think it’s excellent policy, but tax reform doesn’t get the juices flowing like big promises such as free health care.
In short, I think the Democrats are likely to win. But lots can happen between now and then.
I’m not trying to pick winners or losers - I’m trying to better understand the political process. And a corollary to Caplan’s thesis makes a big difference in understanding: policy positions don’t matter much compared to simple ideas and image. And, as we all know, campaign promises tell you very little about actions once in office. Try not to worry.
Ha!
Ooops! I’ve been trying the Zoho Writer feature which lets me take Zoho documents and publish them into this blog. When I look at my WordPress management page, all seems well, but when I check my actual published page, my new entries are missing. I need to do some investigating to find out what’s going on here!
I am constantly amazed by the information and services provided on the Web. My latest discovery is FoodTube.net, which is full of cooking videos. What’s so special about cooking videos? Some techniques are best learned by watching others, such as flipping an omelet (hint: practice with a slice of bread). I’m not sure how great the content is going to be, but I really like the concept.
I’m adding another public Google Notebook : Iraq, Iran, and the War on Terror. While the reporting has been extensive, I don’t think the media has done a very good job of pointing out what’s important and what isn’t. Granted, it’s like looking for a needle in a haystack, and reporters aren’t trained as analysts, but it still amazes me how much better the information is on the blogosphere than in mainstream media. My sense of it is this: we’ve accomplished most of our objectives, but not in the way we expected, and are now positioning ourselves for a long term presence in the middle east, just as we’ve done in Europe and the Far East. Why must we be the world’s policeman? Whom would you prefer?
An interesting discussion starts with a complaint about how regulation of agriculture is harming small organic farmers and wanders into questions of regulation, libertarian vs progressive philosophies, and the theory of corporate organization. There’s a lot of fodder here, but today I think I’ll address regulation.
Libertarians tend to think that regulation should be minimized, while progressives think regulation can solve a large number of ills. But to me, the practical questions are how well regulations work and what what costs? Let’s face it, no regulation is 100% effective and no regulation is free. Consider the traffic intersection. Adding stop signs may reduce the number of accidents, but it will not eliminate them. The costs involve the cost of the signs themselves, the cost of enforcing the regulation, and the cost in inconvenience to every motorist who must stop. There are trade-offs involved, which is why some intersections have no traffic control, others have stop signs, and still others have traffic signals. It’s all about cost vs benefit … or at least it would be, if there weren’t people who especially benefit from the use of traffic signals. That includes the manufacturers, the installers, the police union (more police needed means more dues), the city manager (bigger budgets mean bigger salaries), etc. Depending upon the extent of the “special benefit”, they can all be expected to favor more traffic control and, to varying degrees, lobby for them.
And then there are the unintended consequences. No one can foresee all of the results of an action . It is quite likely that a regulation that solves one problem creates a new and more serious problem.
The point is not that regulation is bad, but it’s easy to get it wrong. Regulators should proceed with extreme caution and be prepared to back off. This rarely happens because regulators have a strong economic incentive to regulate.
With things improving so fast in Iraq, one has to ask how this happened. The news reports have said little more than that some Sunni sheiks have had a change of heart. But why? So, I was quite pleased to read this more detailed account of one such conversion, which I imagine is pretty typical. All of this change carries its own perils, but I think the overall result seems pretty good (so far).
A lot of “conservatives” think that the stunning progress in Iraq will change people’s outlook on the War. They think that spells trouble for the Democrats. Here’s a good example of their thinking. Have they forgotten the Wisdom of Rove already? As things start looking better in Iraq, Iraq will become a smaller and smaller part of the Democratic message. Successful politicians focus on the issues that concern people. By 2008, Iraq may be just so 2007. Right now, it looks like health care is worth talking about, as are economic issues. But who knows? A big setback in Iraq, another terrorist attack here, or something completely out of left field could change the playing field entirely. In politics, winners care about the future because no one can change the past. Watch the tone and tenor of the debates and the ads change as the country moves Iraq down it’s priority list. A success in Iraq won’t necessarily help the Republicans.
