‘Continued has too many comments. So we are starting fresh. The controversy of the day is “The college cheating scandal”.
Oh. Boy. I read one set of parents paid Singer in excess of $1,000,000 to get their kid in… somewhere. (Yale?) All I can think is the motivation was the parents bragging rights rather than the kid. If I had 1 million burning a whole in my pocket and was willing to just spend “on the kid”, I’d look into setting up a trust making the kid the beneficiary with a rule that the kid can only collect 4% of assets + 0.1%*(age-18) a year. Or something like that. Obviously, I’d have to talk to someone about what’s allowed. But really with that much money, the kid has options and doesn’t really need Yale for anything other than bragging rights. I can’t help but think it’s the parents who wanted to brag more than the kid.
Oh… well..
Open thread.
College Entrance Bribery Scam …
https://www.foxnews.com/us/college-entrance-exam-cheating
.
"Singer would help his clients' children by having another individual take SAT or ACT tests on behalf of the students, officials said. Parents would allegedly pay up to $75,000 for each test and wire money to "charitable accounts."
"A Georgetown tennis coach received bribes between 2012 and 2018 from Singer that amounted to more than $2.7 million, according to the documents."
.
Throw the book at them, especially the parents.
Tom Scharf,
A sordid affair to be sure. But here is the thing that sticks in my craw: Harvard and other elite schools routinely admit dubious students who's parents are fabulously wealthy (and make huge donations!), very famous, and/or politically influential. Yes, the bribery of coaches and administrators is horrific, but the blatant bribery of entire elite schools… completely OK? I don't think so. If anything, it is much worse. Time to pull all Federal funding… no loans, no research grants, nothing.
I'm guessing the cheaters' kids didn't do as well on grades as the other kids. If they did do as well, it makes me wonder about the wisdom of having entrance exams.
Yes, there is a pretty thin line between blatant criminal fraud and exerting "legal" elitist influence. As usual only the dumb wealthy people get caught. Why a college essay has weight is ridiculous.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/12/opinion/college-bribery-admissions.html
.
And I will add, this is the FBI doing their job well. We shall see if McCabe and company have any comment on this.
OK_Max (Comment #173966): "I was looking for an explanation of why the German's weren't up in arms over their high electricity rates"
That makes sense, but you never said that and the rest of us could not read your mind.
.
OK_Max: "Oklahoma where wind power has been growing well, recently moving up to 25% of the electric power generated … and the electricity rates continue to be among the lowest of all States."
Sure. A certain amount of wind power can be accommodated without too much trouble. Wind power is subsidized to the tune of $23/GWh. That is about what is paid to producers in Oklahoma and Texas, so wind can be twice as expensive as other sources without raising prices. Also, cheap gas prices, thanks to fracking, keeps rates down.
But something that works in small doses may not work in large doses.
I've heard the same thing about California. The energy rates are much higher because of carbon taxes, but the bills are low because it's California.
MikeN,
I have heard that those brilliant Californians are building a multi-billion dollar high speed train line which starts and ends without ever passing through a major population center. Which is remarkably consistent with closing a major nuclear plant for no obvious reason, and mandating (AKA forcing) people to install solar panels on their roofs…. along with a multitude of lesser insanities. They do at least have very nice weather along the coast and in the north.
Mike M.:"Wind power is subsidized to the tune of $23/GWh."
Typo? This article (https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/06/wind-energy-subsidies-billions/) claims $23/MWh.
That subsidy pays wind-energy companies $23 for each megawatt-hour of electricity they produce.
That’s an astounding level of subsidy. In 2014 and 2015, according to the Energy Information Administration, during times of peak demand, the average wholesale price of electricity was about $50 per megawatt-hour. Last winter in Texas, peak wholesale electricity prices averaged $21 per megawatt hour. Thus, on the national level, wind-energy subsidies are worth nearly half the cost of wholesale power, and in the Texas market, those subsidies can actually exceed the wholesale price of electricity.
Mike M. (Comment #173967)
March 12th, 2019 at 7:30 pm
OK_Max (Comment #173966): "I was looking for an explanation of why the German's weren't up in arms over their high electricity rates"
That makes sense, but you never said that and the rest of us could not read your mind.
________
True
Harold, Lubos Motl calculated that the subsidies are so high a solar farm could make a profit by shining a light on their collectors. In Europe they busted such a company because they were claiming to produce solar power at night.
Germany has 45GW of "installed" solar capacity. Here is how much power it generated over the last year vs power consumed.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/8GCM1bEPwGpPitiw9
.
It runs at approx. 10% of capacity, but produced less than 1GW during the winter. The drawbacks of solar are well known, even in the summer months there are major dips.
https://www.agora-energiewende.de/service/agorameter/chart/power_generation/13.03.2018/13.03.2019/
.
What most people don't really understand is that if using wind and solar as a major energy source then you need to have backup power capability for the lower than 1 percentile lowest power generation, meaning find the lowest point of combined intermittent power. On Jan 24 of this year wind and solar produced 0.7 GW combined and the grid used 73 GW. This doesn't account for hourly fluctuations.
.
Simple math shows that if you wanted a reliable grid on wind/solar alone as it is today you would need to install at least (73 / 0.7) 100x more capacity. Time to raise those taxes I think, ha ha.
.
Ultimately this means taxpayers pay twice for energy production since they need large amounts of backup power readily available, a bunch of fossil fuel / nuclear plants on standby. This may be an acceptable sacrifice to some, but what they can't do is be math and economic den***lists. The first step to solving these problems is to stop pretending to taxpayers they don't exist.
Why do they keep referring to Singer's "alleged" crimes in the admissions cheating scheme when he has already plead guilty? When does white collar crime no longer become alleged?
.
Interestingly the actual cheating on the private sector SAT / ACT is apparently not a crime. Charges are mail fraud, tax fraud, racketeering, etc. It seems to me that since these tests are such high stakes requirements for public university entrance that it ought to be a crime.
HaroldW (Comment #173970): "That subsidy pays wind-energy companies $23 for each megawatt-hour of electricity they produce. … on the national level, wind-energy subsidies are worth nearly half the cost of wholesale power, and in the Texas market, those subsidies can actually exceed the wholesale price of electricity."
Yes, GWh was a typo; I meant MWh. And the subsidies are indeed huge. One routinely sees claims that wind power is cheaper than other sources, but they never say if that is before or after subsidies. If it is really cheaper, they should not need subsidies.
.
Tom Scharf (Comment #173973): "Simple math shows that if you wanted a reliable grid on wind/solar alone as it is today you would need to install at least (73 / 0.7) 100x more capacity."
It is not nearly that bad, at least not in places like the southern U.S. where demand peaks strongly in summer. Minimum solar production is at night when demand is at a minimum. Maximum solar production is on the days when demand is highest. 100% wind and solar is not possible, but in a favorable place like Texas, 70-80% might be doable. But even that is probably not the best idea.
It gets hot and cloudy sometimes in FL, but generation does at least correlate to usage. I've started to see large scale solar arrays popping up in FL. It is telling that consumer uptake in FL of residential solar is very small (go on Google maps and see how few houses have solar arrays). It's still a major bad economic investment.
.
It's only a 100x for the wind and solar only scheme which has always been unrealistic, it's more like 10x to get a large portion of the total power from renewables most of the time, and to maybe cut the backup requirements to 25% or 50%. It's nonlinear, going from 45% renewable energy to 90% is a huge difference.
.
They know how to solve, or at least mitigate, the intermittency problems. Make really big grids, as the sun is always shining or the wind is always blowing somewhere. Lots of wind farms in the Midwest and lots of solar in south. Trillions of dollars for that.
Energy storage seems to be lagging but if grid size batteries can be invented then that can be done. It's not the end of the world to just have fossil fuel backup, it just makes things expensive and it needs to be an item on the green fantasy spreadsheet.
.
More detail than you ever wanted here:
https://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/renewable-energy/
Tom,
*Interestingly the actual cheating on the private sector SAT / ACT is apparently not a crime. *
I think it may depend on how you do it. The person hired to take the test might be charged with identity theft or forged identiy papers and such.
Here's a 2011 article on a cheating bust:
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44701102/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/students-arrested-sat-cheating-scheme/
The article didn't cite the specific statutes the students were charged under.
lucia (Comment #173977)
"The person hired to take the test might be charged with identity theft or forged identiy papers and such."
_____
Sam Eshaghoff, the paid test taker charged in the 2011 SAT cheating scandal, got off with serving community time free tutoring kids who couldn't afford paid tutoring. Seems fair.
Eshaghoff went on to become a successful in real estate development and sales, fields where a lack of ethics can be an asset. He may have changed along the way, however, and could now be a straight arrow.
The link below is to a videoed interview with Eshaghoff after the 2011 scandal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRTLK4LVrMY
Tom Scharf (Comment #173976)
"They know how to solve, or at least mitigate, the intermittency problems. Make really big grids, as the sun is always shining or the wind is always blowing somewhere. Lots of wind farms in the Midwest and lots of solar in south. Trillions of dollars for that.
Energy storage seems to be lagging but if grid size batteries can be invented then that can be done."
_______
Well put, Tom.
It's always 5 o'clock some where, say Alan Jackson and Jimmy Buffet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPCjC543llU
The winds always blowing some where and the suns always shining some where, and as long as it's no more than 4,000 miles away, renewables are ok.
And electricity storage technology is not stuck. Necessity is the mother of invention.
I just read an article about how batteries can be made from urine (yes, pee). The author couldn't resist saying "the future is golden"
The problem with "the wind is always blowing somewhere" is that transmission lines get ridiculously expensive (or losses get excessively large) for distances much longer than about 2000 km. It is quite possible for wind production to be simultaneously low over distances longer than that.
Of course, the claim that he sun is always shining somewhere is complete nonsense on any reasonable distance scale.
Energy storage can help deal with offsets of hours between production and demand. But wind can be low or high for a week at time. There is no reasonable prospect for cost effective storage on that time scale.
I've been reading a little more on the college admission scandal. I know think Lori Laughlin ("aunt becky") might have seen getting her daughter into a large decent college as a business move. The daughter Olivia Jade's beauty vlog is a money making business and lots of her posts once in college are sort of "college life", "college beauty" and so on. I bet people selling products and instagram followers greatly preferred the young woman in college to a high school grad who did not go to college and just did the vlog.
Of course, by the same token, I suspect the daughter did as little as possible to remain in good enough standing to stay in school and then sell stuff…… (She's a very nice looking woman and I suspect quite engaging. But being in college was likely part of "her brand" for now.)
Most of the schools named in the admission scandal are private, so I do wonder which of their activities are federal crimes. I think funnelling the money as charitable donations has about a 100% chance of being tax fraud, but I have no idea what laws apply to bribing private employees. Hypothetically, if I give a restaurant employee $20 to move my name to the top of a waiting list, am I committing a crime? I'm certainly damaging those ahead of me, and I suppose they could go to small claims to charge me for their lost time (if they knew, though the time spent doing that would be more than they lost).
.
At one point we had an incentive on our house for the buying agent to get a few thousand extra if a sale closed by a certain date — I think that's pretty transparently an attempt to get a real estate agent to look to their own interest instead of their clients.
.
The most curious detail of the admissions scandal was bribing coaches to get some of them in as athletes. I would think that be the most likely way to get caught.
DaleS
This article has a link to the indictment
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/12/us/college-admissions-cheating-scandal.html
Dale S (Comment #173982): "Hypothetically, if I give a restaurant employee $20 to move my name to the top of a waiting list, am I committing a crime?"
Good question. It seems obvious that it should be a crime for an employee to accept a bribe to act against his employer's interest. I suppose that the person who offers the bribe is an accomplice if he knows that is what is happening. But it is not at all clear to me what the rules might actually be.
Dale S,
"I would think that be the most likely way to get caught."
.
Nobody expects the scholarship jocks to be smart enough to be in a competitive school. That may be why they got away with it for so long.
.
Private universities can fend for themselves; if they want corrupted admissions policies (and clearly many do!), then that is OK with me. What is not OK is having federal taxpayers help fund this nonsense. They should receive no Federally underwritten student loans and no Federal research grants…. nothing should go to such corrupt organizations. That is what they most richly deserve. But I think they will continue to suck up to the rich, wealthy, and the famous, just as they always have… and get away with it.
.
BTW, all those corrupt cheaters…. just about 100% Democrats. Tells you something.
Steve, I agree with you something like 95% of the time, maybe more.
.
>>BTW, all those corrupt cheaters…. just about 100% Democrats. Tells you something.
.
I've got to say I disagree with the implication, because my ignoring it could be construed as agreement. But I don't feel a need to argue or try to persuade you or any of that.
lucia: "All I can think is the motivation was the parents bragging rights rather than the kid."
Perhaps. My assumption was that it was about contacts and influence. Increasingly, success in our society is based not on what you know, but on who you know. That seems certainly to be the case if you want any real power or influence. The attraction of the elite colleges is all about who you know. From all evidence, it is certainly not about what you know. So if you want to be part of the inner circle, you pretty much have got to go to one of a couple dozen schools.
Mike M.
Perhaps your right. I'm pretty certain it's not actually education these parents were worried about.
Lucia,
Thanks for the link to the indictment; interesting reading. Parents were not named in the indictment, just sports figures (#1 through #7 plus #9), test administrators (#8, #10), the mastermind's employees (#11 and #12) and the mastermind himself. The racketeering charges are in paragraph 129 and the parentheticals relate them to mail fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering. Elsewhere in the indictment the phrase "in violation of the honest services they owed to [name of employer]" is used.
.
Tax evasion isn't in that particular indictment, but in paragraph #106 a parent's "donation" to the charity received a letter that said "Your generosity will allow us to move forward with our plans to provide educational and self-enrichment programs to disadvantaged youth." Now that's cynical.
.
The Georgetown tennis coach was the biggest winner named among the non-principals. $2.4 million in "consulting fees". The forfeiture asks for just over $2.7 million back *plus* a country club membership, a property, and a Vanguard account. Interest?
.
Some of the bribes were actually funneled through or to the actual universities. At USC, Vavic had $250K donated to the account that funded the water polo team; his personal advantage seems to be having his children's private school tuition directly paid for. Administrator Heinel got $1.3 million for various USC athletic accounts, his personal advantage was $20K/month starting July 2018 in consulting fees. In two examples given, the parents paid the "charity" $200K, then wrote a $50K check to USC athletics. At Wake Forest Ferguson had $10k sent to the school booster club, $40k to the women's volleyball program, and $50k to his private volleyball camp. At Stanford Vandermoer had payments of $660k (two incidents) sent to the Stanford sailing program. In the forfeiture part of the indictment, Heinel is dinged for just $160K, Vavic for just under $200K, Ferguson for $50k and Vandermoer nothing — so clearly the donations to the schools are *not* being touched.
.
Vandermoer's been fired, so Stanford obviously thinks that him getting at least $660K in donations in exchange for non-sailors getting admitted is incompatible with "honest services" — it's clear that if nothing else, he's lowering Stanford admission standards for the benefit of his little piece of Stanford exclusively. But OTOH, that's true of his real sailing recruits as well. The hook on this particular dodge *isn't* that rich people pay a lot of money to get priviledged admissions for their children. Heck, even in D1A (I refused to use "FBS") football I've seen speculation that an iffy recruit listed as a preferred walk-on is there because the parents are big donors. The selling point seems to be a guarantee that doing it under the covers will make it work! Maybe this isn't true at Stanford, but I think it's very likely that a lot of minor sports at less-funded schools would actually benefit more from a large cash infusion attached to a non-playing recruit than to an actual non-scholarship recruit. If a coach did this openly, I think it might be perfectly legal.
SteveF,
"Nobody expects the scholarship jocks to be smart enough to be in a competitive school. That may be why they got away with it for so long."
.
Agree, except these students weren't *really* scholarship jocks. Nobody expects athletic admits to measure up academically, but everybody expects them to be athletic — and these kids weren't. If you tried funnelling the same scam through college football with a non-player you'd get busted in about five seconds, because there's a whole lot of people scrutinizing your recruiting choices. Don't minor sports have superfans? (Maybe they don't) .
.
The scheme lasted from 2011 to 2019. I don't know if that's particularly long or particularly short for this sort of thing.
.
One of the selling points of the scheme seems to be the students were unaware of the cheating done in their behalf so their self-esteem is untouched. But in the UCLA example, a student's athletic admit was conditional on being a student-athlete on a team for a full academic year. Pulling that off without the student ever knowing that he/she was an athletic admit seems iffy to me.
Dale S,
In major sports, yes, the scam would never work. But in water polo? Sure; nobody can pick out the water polo players from how they look in lectures. The coach just says “Jane Smith hurt her shoulder and can’t practice.†Since almost nobody gives a $hit about minor sports, it is unlikely the administration would investigate how the team is doing, or who is actually playing… or not playing.
.
From a bit larger prospective, the issue is what a university exists for. Does Ohio State exist to have a good football program? I think that is difficult to argue. Football at Ohio State probably is a big money maker, of course, and I know some have argued that making money in a major sport supports a bunch of minor sports…. and the scholarships in those sports. But I think that begs the real question: Why have sports scholarships at any university? I don’t have a good answer.
DaleS,
*One of the selling points of the scheme seems to be the students were unaware of the cheating done in their behalf so their self-esteem is untouched.*
In some of the cases, the parents say the kids didn't know. The parents likely even believe this. But a kid who after years NOT getting extra time for tests suddenly gets 100% extra time for the test AND her parents fly the family to Houston to take the SAT there has got to know something is up. Either that or the kid really, truly is dumb as a box of rocks.
I'm betting in a sizeable number of cases, the kids strongly suspected. I bet their classmates did too. They probably didn't know the details, didn't ask and only care slightly. Despite this, it probably doesn't hurt their psyches one bit. They think "everybody" does it. Or they think the only people who don't do it are somehow those benefiting from special programs for the "disadvantaged" so they convince themselves all this help is just leveling for their *own* disadvantage for not being in some sort of "category".
It would be interesting to learn the majors these kids enrolled in. I bet they will be majors where grading is based on lots of *written essays*, *projects* and so on rather than *tests*. That makes it easier to hire someone to do the graded work. (For tests, tutoring helps. But you still need to take your own test!)
SteveF
*I know some have argued that making money in a major sport supports a bunch of minor sports…. and the scholarships in those sports.*
And now we know, parents "donations" to schools to bring in their stupid non-athletic kids also supports minor sports! (And the coaches of these minor sports. 🙂 )
Lucia,
"It would be interesting to learn the majors these kids enrolled in."
.
I think you can safely bet there won't be many math, physics, chemistry, engineering, or computer science majors. Fluff-heads tend to focus on fluff subjects. True morons, especially the politically motivated, trend toward xxxx-studies (fill in the 'xxxx' with whatever the current leftist fashion is) and leftist political 'science'.
MOre cheating scandal suits
*A $500 billion civil lawsuit filed by a parent on Wednesday in San Francisco accused 45 defendants of defrauding and inflicting emotional distress on everyone whose “rights to a fair chance at entrance to college†were stolen through their alleged conspiracy. *! Heh
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-education-cheating/u-s-college-admissions-scandal-sparks-500-billion-lawsuit-idUSKCN1QV20W
The academic scam has really hit a nerve. 12 articles on it in the last couple days at the WSJ, and I read most of them, ha ha. Personally I think all the kids should be kicked out immediately. They got into school under false pretenses. I very much doubt most of them were unaware they had been accepted as academic recruits. The FBI didn't target them to find out.
.
Their parents may have committed the actual fraud but these schools need to demonstrate they have admissions integrity. I don't expect them to do so. I could write a 5000 word rant on academia right now. These schools are not victims, they have gleefully participated in making themselves federally funded gate keepers to the processional class.
.
The entitlement and desperation of the parents only shows how important these credentials are to the increasingly insular elite world. An actual meritocracy threatens their children so they construct an obscure and legal admissions maze only they know the path through. I bet I could sit down at Harvard and identify elite children's admissions forms with 95% success, "here's a nice one from Atticus Kennedy, he played lacrosse and summered in Costa Rica running his foundation to eliminate racism among the poor, his essay reads like Dickens, that's pile #1".
.
The incentives are creating expected behavior. Do any of these schools show any hint at revising their admission systems? No.
SteveF,
The people I'd expect to be most intensely interested in minor sports are the players and their close relations. While you could protect a fake player by claiming injury (that's common enough), I think it would be odd for a player to have no interaction with the team–or for actual players on the team not try to get information on the new recruits joining their team, either of which could expose a fake. With that said, I don't know how these scheme was originally detected (maybe it *didn't* work), and I think it's plausible that minor sports players would be fine with rich do-nothing teammates in the instances where their rich parents are directly subsidizing the team, not just the coach. At least at my alma mater, the number of (football-funded) athletic scholarships for minor sports falls well-short of NCAA allowances, especially for mens sports. The only way to fix the situation is to get targetted donations setting up extra scholarships specifically for minor sports (you need one for each sex). A worthless non-scholarship player who brings in enough money for two athletic scholarships means you can get two actual good recruits (tuition and ride are typically split between two players in minor sports), and that can make a huge difference.
.
Of course, that may apply less to the specific schools named here. Stanford has a huge endowment and probably the best all-around minor sports program in the NCAA; I don't know that their minor sports are as money-starved as less fortunate universities. Still, even there the need was great enough that the sailing coach sold out admissions for his team, not personal profit.
The kids weren't given academic scholarships, they were basically what is known as walk-ons. Assumed athletes who can then try out for and likely make athletic teams. They simply don't show up for practice. At USC a couple times the kids were put under scrutiny and the $20K / month bribed athletic director then covered for them, saying the student had an injury etc.
.
There are lots of honest people in these jobs, the Stanford bribes failed, but the system is becoming a disgrace. It's a wink and nod, shall I utter the word "rigged"? Very motivated smart people are always going to do what is correctly called good parenting and try to open advantages for their kids. Everyone on this board will do it, as you have to play the game with the rules in place. What are the "rules" for Stanford and Harvard? I don't think I know.
I mean athletic scholarships, not academic scholarships.
$500B lawsuit, ha ha. Academic reparations from the privileged!
Tom,
I agree the schools should kick the kids out. That would also set the precedent that if your kid gets in and we found out it was by cheating, they are kicked out.
If necessary, they can refund their tuition. For these parents, that would actually be salt in their self-inflicted wounds.
Tom,
I know the kids didn't get athletic scholarships, but in minor sports a lot of kids on the team don't. There's a big difference between non-scholarship recruits and true walk-ons — the latter get into school on their own merits and then try to get on the team. These kids came as recruited athletes, and coaches don't have an unlimited supply of those to draw upon.
.
In paragraph 98 we find that the applicant 1 to UCLA received provisional student-athlete admittance, and her admission was *contingent* on participating on the team for a full academic year. This was good enough for Singer to pay the *men's* soccer coach $100K and receive $250K from the parents, even though she didn't play competitive soccer. The bribed coach had passed on transcript, test scores, and falsified soccer profile to the women's soccer coach. Unless that coach was also on the take (not named in indictment), how could she participate on the team for a full year?
.
In paragraph 88-89, we find that the Georgetown tennis coach got only three slots he could use for admissions in the name of tennis recruitment — he used all three for fake tennis players.
.
At least as far as the athletic recruitment is concerned, these kids aren't displacing academic students who could have obtained normal entrance, but actual non-scholarship athletes who would have gotten entrance despite not meeting normal standards.
I completely agree every last one of the "favored" students should be kicked out of school (assuming they are still attending), and not allowed back under any circumstances. I very much doubt that will happen at any of the schools. Got to protect those rich kids you know, even if they and their parents are total frauds.
I can't really see a difference between allowing an unqualified student in who's very wealthy parents are willing to make a huge contribution to the "school" (AKA a bribe) and allowing an unqualified student in who's wealthy parents make a more modest contribution (AKA a smaller bribe) to an athletic department or coach. It is identically fraudulent. Same thing for unqualified "legacy" applicants… fraudulent.
SteveF,
Morally, there is no difference. But in terms of kicking them out of school one is *officially* cheating and the other is straight forward go to the top bribery which is considered "not" cheating.
There is also the (remote) possibility that a school will not admit a student with sufficiently low GPA, board scores and no extra-curriculars even if the parents fund a building. In contrast, these kids board scores were given a boost by cheating the test and fake sports extra-curriculars were created. It may be they could not get in with their real credentials even if their parents funded a building.
Anyway: I think the schools should send a message and kick the kids out. Perhaps let them finish the semester and they can be applying elsewhere in the meantime. If their new scores are better, maybe they'll get in somewhere else!
Lucia,
"If their new scores are better, maybe they'll get in somewhere else!"
.
Sure, there may be schools that are much less selective willing to take them. But the chance of much better test scores is really low. To play off of Red Foxx: Beauty may be only skin deep, but dumb goes all the way to the bone.
SteveF (Comment #174003): "I can't really see a difference between allowing an unqualified student in who's very wealthy parents are willing to make a huge contribution to the "school" (AKA a bribe) and allowing an unqualified student in who's wealthy parents make a more modest contribution (AKA a smaller bribe) to an athletic department or coach. It is identically fraudulent. Same thing for unqualified "legacy" applicants… fraudulent."
.
I can't agree with that. A private school should be able to admit whoever it pleases for any reason it likes. Preference for children of alumni? Fine. For children of faculty and staff? Fine. Sell admission spots to the highest bidder? Fine.
.
The problem is that we have created a "meritocracy" that is more like a pseudo-aristocracy. But instead of status being based on titles and bloodlines, it is based on connections and credentials. Certain universities have become the gatekeepers to that pseudo-aristocracy. The *only* solution is to break the power of the aristocracy, then the gatekeepers won't matter so much. Trying to make admission to the aristocracy fairer is a distraction that will not actually fix anything.
.
The real problem is the pseudo-aristocracy, not the fairness of admission to the aristocracy.
Mike M,
The biggest fraud is the school suggesting that entry is based on merit, when it is not.
.
I completely agree that a private club (much like selective schools) can admit anyone they want. What I object to is the combination of deceit ("you gain admission via merit") with the taxpayer funding that private club. If selective schools want to forgo all taxpayer funding including student loans, then I will applaud their honesty. Until then, not so much.
SteveF,
I agree on the taxpayer funding issue for private club issues.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/lori-loughlin-s-daughter-olivia-jade-loses-sephora-partnership-wake-n983331
"Laughlin was fired Thursday from the Hallmark Channel, which she has been a staple on, and beauty retailer Sephora announced hours earlier it has ended its partnership with Giannulli, who is a social media influencer."
.
"In a statement to Fox News on Thursday, a spokesperson for USC said school officials plan to “conduct a case-by-case review for current students and graduates that may be connected to the scheme alleged by the government.â€
.
In world class bad optics Olivia Jade and her friends were on USC's official super yacht in the Bahamas when the scandal broke.
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/lori-loughlins-daughter-was-in-usc-officials-yacht-when-mother-was-charged
Current students and graduates? I can see revoking a degree if you found it they cheated to obtain it, but revoking a legitimately earned degree because they never should've been admitted doesn't seem right to me — especially when the graduate allegedly never knew of the cheating.
Tom Scharf,
Evidently, one of Olivia Jade friend's is the daughter of the ships owner. That owner is on the board at USC. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the *reason* the not-academically inclined Olivia Jade preferred USC to other schools was she had close friends going there– including this one.
But yes…. super bad optics! It could hardly have gotten worse. Heh.
Dale S.
I mean current students. I don't know when the investigation began. Has the child of any of the indicted parents graduated? (Real Q.) I doubt it. I suspect most have attended 2 years or less. I think their credits and transcript should be allowed to remain, but they should be ejected. They should be able to show their transcript, retake admissions test, and transfer credits. All are from wealthy enough families and have parents willing to spend money on them. So they should be able to withstand the cruel fate of being kicked out.
People may actually even admire the ones who transfer and finish a degree elsewhere. They'll be able to write a book about it. 😉
DaleS,
BTW: These kids aren't academic geniuses. They may almost certainly were unmotivated in high school. But honestly, given what the parents had to do, and the way everything worked, I suspect the vast majority of the kids at least strongly suspected something was going on. I mean consider:
Mother: We've rescheduled your SAT to take place in Houston.
Kid: Huh? Why Houston?
Mother: I told the SAT the family is going to be in Houston that week.
Kid: Houston? What the heck are we going Houston for? Couldn't I just stay home like all the other times when you go on trips.
Mother: Your taking the SAT in Houston. Oh… and you've been given 100% extra time to take the test.
Kid: ?! ? Ok. Whatever….
Kid talks to classmates. You think someone doesn't catch on to what the heck is going on? I mean… come on.
Lucia,
I agree kicking out current students seems appropriate, and I agree their current credits/transcript should remain valid. USC said they were investigating graduates, so I wonder what action they have in mind for them. Maybe to check if any are in grad school at USC?
.
The racketeering transcript doesn't name the parents, but said the activities were between 2011 and February 2019, so there probably are a few graduates affected. The specific examples don't go back earlier than 2014 and nearly all are 2016 or later. If the indicted parents are from that pool there may not be any graduates affected.
DaleS,
Yes. That's the indictment I found.
I suspect there are separate ones for each parent. I'm guessing no RICO with the parents. Just individual violations for whatever they specifically did.
SteveF (Comment #174007): "The biggest fraud is the school suggesting that entry is based on merit, when it is not."
Is that true? I don't think so, other than illegal stuff like the current scandal. I thought that colleges were open about favoring jocks, legacies, minorities, etc.
——–
SteveF: "If selective schools want to forgo all taxpayer funding including student loans, then I will applaud their honesty. Until then, not so much."
I do not like the idea that if a dollar can be traced from the government to you, then the government has the right to tell you what to do. Student loans, Pell grants, etc. go to the student; they should not give the government control over the institution the student pays with the money. And a faculty member getting a research grant should not give the government control over admission policies. Such logic leads to all sorts of mischief.
Of course, the direct state funding received by public universities is different matter. And the best thing to do with the indirect government funding is to have a whole lot less of it. But I don't like using funding as a way for the government to seize control.
Mike M,
"Student loans, Pell grants, etc. go to the student; they should not give the government control over the institution the student pays with the money."
.
Well, they go to the student, but they accrue to and support the school. Since the voters (taxpayers) are taking on risk with these loans, and lots of loans are in fact defaulted on, leaving the taxpayer holding the bag, it seems to me quite reasonable to ask if the institution the student is going to attend discriminates against or favors applicants for arbitrary reasons. It is also quite reasonable to ask if the schools are on balance beneficial or harmful to society as *perceived by the voters*, and if harmful should clearly not receive any taxpayer funding. Heck, voters DEMAND non-discrimination of all normal businesses… private employers can't arbitrarily discriminate for or against anyone, whether employee, supplier, or customer.
.
I believe universities that accept taxpayer funding (student loans or research grants) ought to be held to the same standard we demand of all businesses. I don't think it is a big ask.
.
YMMV, and I expect it will.
MikeM,
We already have rules for circumstances when student loans can be obtained. I'm not a student so I can't go out, apply for a student loan and then spend the money to buy a house. Students already need to be enrolled as students at educational institutions that are deemed fit and meritorious. These can include whether the schools are "accredited" and employment prospects for enrolled students. Including reasonable admissions criteria in the criteria to identify which institutions qualify isn't qualitatively different from what we already do.
So if you're against insisting on reasonable admissions criteria I guess that's fine. But then you have to explain why every *other* criterion that limits where students can spend the money ought to be retained kept.
I don't particularly want taxpayer money to fund private schools that admit students to programs merely because parents pay off the tennis coach. If those schools want to exist and students want to go there without loans backed by the government that's fine. Then those students can get money from banks. Or parents. Or working as waitresses and bartenders. No one is preventing them from going on their own nickle.
Student loans are subsidized by the taxpayer and many who receive them are of questionable credit worthiness. You already cannot get loans for unaccredited schools. The private loan market is always available, the feds aren't the only game in town.
lucia (Comment #174017): "Students already need to be enrolled as students at educational institutions that are deemed fit and meritorious."
That is an extremely loose requirement. Basically, that the the school really is an educational institution and not just some scam.
.
lucia: "Including reasonable admissions criteria in the criteria to identify which institutions qualify isn't qualitatively different from what we already do."
Sure. But the key word is *reasonable*. If reasonable means ensuring that it is not just a scam, fine. If reasonable means fitting the government's concept of social justice, not fine.
.
lucia: "So if you're against insisting on reasonable admissions criteria I guess that's fine. But then you have to explain why every *other* criterion that limits where students can spend the money ought to be retained kept."
Either I am not opposed to reasonable criteria (although I have not changed my opinion) or I think I have met the burden you set.
SteveF, in one case, the school is a victim of fraud.
The school should throw the kids out and keep the tuition money. Then in future cases, if they suspect it's happening, they will accept the kid, take the money, then expose it.
MIkeM
I don't think requiring students who are qualified to actually participate in the study and learning we are hoping schools provide is "social justice". I think it is an element of having education *not be a scam*. Also, for other student in the class, not having the class full of unqualified students is important to make the course "not a scam". I think admissions being merit based is a reasonable requirement.
*I think I have met the burden you set.*
I don't because you haven't defined what is a "scam" in an educational context. And I also admissions that intentionally allow unqualified students in makes the program "a scam". (It would be different if it was just a *mistake*.)
MikeM,
Also, btw, I think the idea that unqualified kids can get student loans for whatever cheesy school they want is *itself* "social justice". So I don't see how cutting it off is somehow supporting "social justice".
lucia (Comment #174021): "I don't think requiring students who are qualified to actually participate in the study and learning we are hoping schools provide is "social justice". I think it is an element of having education *not be a scam*. Also, for other student in the class, not having the class full of unqualified students is important to make the course "not a scam". I think admissions being merit based is a reasonable requirement."
It seems we agree. Which makes me wonder what the disagreement was.
I think that I disagreed with someone (SteveF?) who claimed that it was fraudulent for schools to use anything other than a very narrow set of admission criteria and that no students at such schools should be eligible for government assistance. Then you disagreed with me.
Mike M,
"..who claimed that it was fraudulent for schools to use anything other than a very narrow set of admission criteria"
.
There are two parts to my objection:
1) Selective schools are just not honest about their admissions process; they don't say "We may admit you if you meet our standards, but we will give priority (that is, admit before you, even if you are more qualified!): a) the kids of very wealthy parents who purchase entry with a giant "contribution", b) the children of alumni, c) the children of famous/influential people, d) the children of school administration and staff, and e) any athletes we want on our sports teams."
.
2) For applicants which are none of the above "priority candidates", selective schools also explicitly discriminate against certain applicants and give advantages to other applicants based entirely on race.
.
That they are dishonest about their admissions policies is unseemly at best. That they discriminate based on race is simply unlawful… and immoral. Yes, the foolish progressives on the SC gave a pass to racial discrimination in college admissions, even though it is clearly against Federal statutes, but in her opinion allowing this discrimination to go on, Sandra Day O'Connor suggested it must be a temporary situation. It now looks like elite schools intend to make racial discrimination a permanent part of their admissions policies. Only the SC can fix this.
.
IMO, the taxpayers should not be in any way supporting schools which are blatantly dishonest in their description of their admissions policies, or which practice racial discrimination in admissions.
.
Would you support Federally backed student loans and Federally funded research grants for a private college which practiced an admission policy of never allowing in more than 1% African American candidates, even if they were clearly more academically qualified than other candidates who were admitted? (Not rhetorical.)
SteveF (Comment #174024): "Selective schools are just not honest about their admissions process; they don't say "We may admit you if you meet our standards, but we will give priority (that is, admit before you, even if you are more qualified!): a) the kids of very wealthy parents who purchase entry with a giant "contribution", b) the children of alumni, c) the children of famous/influential people, d) the children of school administration and staff, and e) any athletes we want on our sports teams."
How is it that you know they do that? How is it that I know that, and have known it forever? How is it that most people seem to know that? I think the answer must be that the schools admit they do that, or at least don't hide it. So I see no fraud.
The NZ shooter's manifesto is causing chaos in the media. It is so blatantly extreme right wing and racist they are wondering if it was specifically designed to troll them. He even writes that the goal is to get them to overreact and cause a civil war among races and religions. They can't figure out what is sarcasm, parody, memes and what is real. He effectively showed them a cartoonish caricature of a right wing nut and invited them to believe it. Maybe he is. It seems they are starting to believe it is just an epic sh**post.
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/03/the-shooters-manifesto-was-designed-to-troll/585058/
.
A groan worthy excerpt from above:
"While this (the MSM) system of gatekeeping itself was undoubtedly problematic, since many of the gatekeepers upheld norms and power structures built on privilege, technology has upended our media environment so quickly that many people are ill-equipped to handle their new information environment."
And the conspiracy theorists are just going to love this, he visited Pakistan in October.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/15/world/asia/new-zealand-gunman-christchurch.html
MikeM
*that no students at such schools should be eligible for government assistance*
I think schools that admit students because their parents donated a building should not be eligible for government subsidize including students using federal loans. Basically: Schools that are allowing people to buy slots in the program are acting "scam like". I think this puts me in agreement with SteveF. I think you were suggesting that you thought kids at those schools should be able to get loans because otherwise we are enforcing some sort of "social justice" idea.
Making a donation for an admission is actually against the rules of a university as I understand it. People who do this right before their kid applies are considered unsophisticated. You are supposed to donate the money years ahead of time to avoid an obvious quid pro quo. Obviously this wink and nod system fools absolutely nobody.
.
A possibly unconvincing argument can be made that this is good for everyone. Suppose your $50M donation allowed 10 poor kids to attend school at the price of one rich kid? You say no?
.
Even public schools keep a careful eye on how many people admitted are paying full tuition. They do have a budget. They know the out of state acceptance rates and know how many offers will result in how much money. In theory they use full pay out of state kids to finance in-state poor kids. This leaves a hole for the middle class kids. UF gives almost no merit scholarships, everything is need based. They can dial in their budget and I would be amazed if they didn't do this explicitly, perhaps unspoken.
*Suppose your $50M donation allowed 10 poor kids to attend school at the price of one rich kid? You say no?*
Suppose it doesn't?
And: even if it does, I do say no. If the donor wants to send poor kids to school, the donor can set up a scholarship trust and grant scholarships out of that. They don't need to use the money to get their own kid into the school.
Among other things, while people say the donation could be used to allow poor kids in, I think the donation rarely allows poor kids to attend because the schools want to use it for other things. The schools know truly poor kids can get government aid, so they avoid doing anything that cuts into the government aid the kid is going to get.
I think most schools give need based aid. The WSJ also ran an article that some schools would reduce your need based aid if they noticed you got other aid money. So if you needed $5K and got $1K merit, your need aid went from $5K to $4K. In some schools, they even reduced the "grant" part of the $5K the school gave you and you left with the splendid "loan aid"! Some others had the policy that at least they took away your "loan" aid and you were left with the better grant aid.
M ike M,
"How is it that you know they do that?"
.
From observation of reality, not from explicit explanation from selective schools. Selective schools don't explain their admission policies, and it was only under court order that Harvard provided enough information to map out the details of their particular prejudices.
.
The injustice of the admissions process first dawned on me in high school, when a half African American student in my HS class, a nice kid who was on one of the teams I captained (track and field), and who had passable grades (mostly B's), passable SAT scores (~350 points below mine) and no athletic aptitude to speak of (a consistent bench warmer) was offered a free ride to multiple selective schools, including Ivy's, that I would NEVER have been admitted to…. even if I could have paid the tuition and housing expenses (which I couldn't).
Lucia,
"They don't need to use the money to get their own kid into the school."
.
Ouch…. but yes, that is really the issue.
The money in college sports is so high that a number of universities are just football teams with a faculty on the side.
Conferences are forming their own cable networks, getting a dollar or two from every cable subscription in their region. The 'in their region' is why conferences are expanding. They automatically get more money if they get a team in a new state.
When the SEC contract with CBS comes up for renewal in five years, the new deal will be at least $500 million a year. That is $35 million a year for each SEC school just from this package.
MikeN,
It is a mystery to me why schools would give such huge preferences to athletes on the minor sports.
I understand how the football and basketball players make them money. I suspect one of the reasons Singer did NOT have parents try to make the kids look like football or basketball standouts is those teams are visible to others and winning or loosing affects donations from alumni and boosters. But the other teams aren't very visible. To some extent at most schools almost no one cares if the sailing team, crew team or water polo team wins. So Singer could "hide" his purported atheletes there and the coaches could risk pretending a student was a potential athelete for the sailing team.
But what I don't understand is: since these teams are so stupendously invisible, why the heck do these schools give kids admissions preferences? Oddly, I don't mind *scholarship* contingent on actually playing (or possibly showing a proven injury) but I don't understand *admissions preferences*.
I suspect that the lesser sports team are a necessary part of the overall athletic program. The NCAA has requirements for how many sports programs a college must have depending upon which division they compete in.
At least that's how it was when I was a student at the University of Alaska. In the 80s every program but hockey was competing in Division II or III (edit to add, Hockey was Division I). UAF was under an edict from the NCAA to increase the number of sports teams or have hockey drop back to Div II, so they added swimming. I was fortunate to be a walk-on (we all were) and swam for three or four years.
In addition to meeting my wife, one of the other perks was travel out of state to compete in meets where we were severely outmatched. During a meet in Berkeley I had the pleasure of being blown out of the water by Matt Biondi.
Why people are so unhappy about blatant unfairness in college admissions: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=exxxXMQSLUc
.
I showed this video to my youngest daughter when she was 9 years old, and I thought she would pee herself laughing…. perhaps it was particularly funny because we feed a wild monkey troop bananas behind her home in Brazil.
.
Hilarious, yes. But the anger of those who are denied university entrance while less qualified candidates are admitted is real, righteous, and enduring…. and not funny at all. The left embraces blatant unfairness at their elective and peril.
Tom Scharf (Comment #174028)
"And the conspiracy theorists are just going to love this, he visited Pakistan in October."
________
Not a conspiracy theory, but here's a simple explanation: The NZ shooter was an evil attention-seeker who wanted to make a name for himself by slaughtering a lot of innocent people.
It's too bad, but he did accomplish his objective, made a name for himself.
BTW, hadn't heard of the slang term "shitposting." Looked it up, now know. Sometimes wonder if social media is on-balance a good thing.
SteveF….
Don't know quite what to say…. but… oh…..
Some day I will tell the story of Mom, the kids and dandelion pulling. But I've had wine and guiness… so not today…
lucia (Comment #174039)
But I've had wine and guiness…
______
In that order? Do you have a cast iron stomach?
Lucia,
For some of the minor sports, I think admissions preferences may be as valuable as scholarships — you don't have enough scholarships, even split, to cover all your players, but getting someone into your school who couldn't otherwise get in is a powerful inducement, and the better the reputation it has the more powerful it is.
.
That's not just the case for the minor sports, actually. Ivy league schools don't offer any athletic scholarships, but the value of the degree is sufficient that they do attract football and basketball players that could have earned a scholarship (those two sports are counters in D1A, so all scholarships are full-ride) to other schools. The service academies don't have tuition, but admission is tough, so admissions preference is their sole recruiting tool.
.
Why schools care when the crowds are sparse is a different issue. To an extent there's some scholarship forcing, at least on the women's side — because of Title IX you have to balance out male/female scholarships, so the 85 football scholarships (D1A, the only level where profitable football programs exist), have to be balanced out by 85 scholarships at unprofitable female sports. Still, male minor sports get scholarships too, if less of them. It doesn't have to be that way — even at D1A you are just required to field a certain number of teams, the scholarship counts allowed are maximums, not minimums. But if you're going to compete at something, you're going to want to win, and that's going to be difficult if you aren't offering scholarships and your opposition is. And for minor sports, where the scholarships aren't adequate, it's also going to be difficult if you give no help with admissions and your opponents do help. (It's also frequently that case that scholarship players, especially in football and men's basketball, won't get in without help on admissions.)
.
But it's not confined to athletic admissions — I know of people who received preferential admissions based on talent as a musician, artist, or dancer. Even in the case of generic admissions, being a "well-rounded" high school student who has done something besides get grades and test score can be viewed favorably. Both admissions and scholarships can be subjective even without a sports coach's involvement (I won every scholarship I applied for that didn't require an essay, and didn't make finalist on the ones that did). Now as we've seen with Harvard, this subjective criteria can provide good cover for providing the "right" racial mix. But I have to say I'm sympathetic to the idea that having talents besides academics are useful to have in the student body, and to also be on display to the student body. If some of the minor sports draw paltry crowds (and they do — I've attended a half dozen different minor sports as an undergrad, and in tennis and swimming the fans could be counted in dozens), so do some of the arts.
.
The vast majority of student-athletes on scholarship labor for unprofitable teams, and they are accompanied by a vast majority of student-athletes on the same teams by those who play for pride and enjoyment, and those are accompanied by a huge body of intramural athletes who play for just exercise and bragging rights. I hear coaches and athletes alike say how sports makes them a better person and teaches valuable life skills, and I think that's plausible.
.
However, with athletic admissions as well as racial preferences, there's always the possibility that by admitting students who would not have qualified through ordinary means, that you are setting them up for eventual failure. The highly visible revenue sports certainly have scholarship recruits who can't stay eligible because (even with hand-holding from the tutors provided by the athletic department) they can't hack the coursework. Sometimes they transfer somewhere easier and manage to finish there. Sometimes they never get a degree at all. Part of the problem is that for many sports anyone who dreams of playing at the highest level has to go through college as the de factor minor league, whether they have any aptitude or interest in academics at all.
Max_OK,
Yes. In that order. The hot milk with vanilla and sugar while watching a moooooovie. I'll go to bed soon. I'm fine because it was a small amount of wine (only the bottom of the bottle left) and a 1/2 a guinness….
DaleS
*getting someone into your school who couldn't otherwise get in is a powerful inducement,*
No one pays attention to these sports. So I don't see what real benefit this admit is to the school! I mean… what? Reputation is improved in the group of 3 people who give a rats tuckus about sailing?! I don't get it.
*but the value of the degree is sufficient that they do attract football and basketball players that could have earned a scholarship*
Yes. I see how the *students* are attracted to the school. What I don't see is why the *school* is attracted to the students.
Honestly, I don't believe it's Title IX requiring students to have more women. Because if it was BOYs in minor sports wouldn't get preferences for minor sports. Yet BOYS in minor sports do get admission preferences.
And the thing that puzzles me aren't *scholarships*, it's preferences *without* scholarships. Ok… give scholarships. I have no problem with that. But in this scandal we are seeing admission preferences for kids *not offered scholarships*. I'm not getting that. Of course you want to win if you compete. That's why you might offer *scholarships*. But these are *not scholarships*. So it's kids who are not good enough for the coach to think they'll make you win. That's why the coaches ended up "selling" those slots to the highest winner. Those admits did not displace a potential athelete who would help them win. So the coach figured… welll….. we can use the $$.
**I hear coaches and athletes alike say how sports makes them a better person and teaches valuable life skills, and I think that's plausible.***
Yada…. yada….. It's usually coaches and athletes who say this. It's not physics, engineering, history, law or any other professors who say this. It's coaches and athletes– which is rather self serving I should say.
I could just as well say knitting made me a better person and taught me life skills. Maybe it did. The claim it did is *certainly* just as plausible as sports did so.
Or maybe working a minimum wage job in high school made me a better person and taught me better life skills. Or doing almost anything I liked doing or had to do made me a better and taught me life skills. But for some mysterious reason "sports" (including water polo) is seen as doing it, despite there being ZERO evidence it teaches any life skills not taught by doing any number of other things including flipping burgers at McDonalds to put together money to pay for lunch!
*The vast majority of student-athletes on scholarship labor for unprofitable teams, *
LABOR? Really?! I'd say "play on" or "participate on" or some such. Leave the word LABOR for actual work– like picking up garbage, waiting tables, flipping burgers or doing any number of other drudge tasks for people who want those done. "Working" to do something no one watches or pays for is not actually labor.
I'm taking ballroom dance and actually competing at a low level. I expend "effort" but it's hardly "labor" because it's not for anyone other than ME. No one is paying me to do this. No one else's life has a negative outcome if I do it. I might sweat and expend mental energy doing this. But it's still not "labor".
lucia (Comment #174042)
" I'm fine because it was a small amount of wine (only the bottom of the bottle left) and a 1/2 a guinness…."
_____
I forget why beer after wine isn't a good idea, but you had so little it shouldn't matter.
Yeah…. When I drink a whole bottle of wine…. I pass out. So no beer after.
Well, actually I would pass out after 1/2 a bottle. But if I'm anywhere near 1/2 a bottle (3 glasses) I certainly don't need beer after! (I generally fall asleep honestly!)
We had St. Pats. So I drank a glass of wine from a bottle opened sometime earlier this week. Then I drank beer with my corned beef.
Alcohol dehydrates. I try to drink lots of water when drinking wine.
OK_Max,
I always drink a lot of water. My mother in law marveled. I would almost think it was a symptom of diabetes…. but I've had blood tests and nope.
lucia (Comment #174043): "No one pays attention to these sports. So I don't see what real benefit this admit is to the school! I mean… what? Reputation is improved in the group of 3 people who give a rats tuckus about sailing?! I don't get it."
.
Part of education is the other students. Especially at a residential college. So many schools seek a diverse student body (in the real sense, not the SJW sense). Musicians, jocks, nerds. Rich, poor, middle class. Northerners, southerners, westerners. Black, white, yellow. Etc.
.
Some people want the government to impose the exact same admission rules on every college, since they disapprove of the way some colleges handle their admissions. The problem with that is the rules that you think are "fair" might be very different from the ones I think are fair.
.
I don't want every college to be required to admit a minimum quota of blacks are a maximum quota of east Asians. And I don't want federal aid to students to turn into a power struggle over whose version of justice wins.
.
IMO, the best policy is that government support to students should have rules to ensure that it is spent on tuition at a legitimate educational institution and let the students and colleges take it from there. Second best is no funding at all. Government micromanagement never ends well.
Mike M,
“The problem with that is the rules that you think are "fair" might be very different from the ones I think are fair.â€
.
Maybe, but I figure if monkeys can easily see unfairness (and human todlers as well!), most people can.
.
And to be clear: I don’t give a rat’s a$$ if selective schools want to discriminate based on race…. or anything else their twisted SJW sensibilities can come up with. I just don’t want that sort of thing funded by taxpayers.
Hi Lucia,
I wanted to send an email to you but your email associated with this blog is not working.
I emailed myself and received it. But I've sent you another email to try.
MikeM,
*at a legitimate educational institution *
Define legitimate. I think allowing parents to buy slots to admissions makes the school a scam. You haven't addressed the aspect of people buying admission.
lucia (Comment #174053): "Define legitimate. I think allowing parents to buy slots to admissions makes the school a scam. You haven't addressed the aspect of people buying admission."
I am not certain that actually happens and if it does, so what? If 1% of students by their way in, and they pay far more than the rest, I don't see how that constitutes a scam.
MIkeM,
Well, your changing to subject to how often it happens rather than to whether or not it's a scam.
If it doesn't happen at a school, then it doesn't happen. When it does: it's a scam. Obviously what we need to do about it, and how much trouble we need to take is affected by the numbers that do it. But when it happens, it's a scam.
For example: The kids in the current college scandal bought their way in through back channels. It was an admissions scam involving "side channels" but still a scam. At least for now, likely only a small fraction that did this– likely less than 1% at any school. But I'm certainly glad "operation varsity blues" caught it and is shutting it down because it did constitute a scam.
Schools that do this directly are also participating in scammy behavior. Those that turn a blind eye to do it indirectly are also exhibiting scammy behavior. I don't know how you can not call this behavior a 'scam'.
lucia,
I don't think I understand you. Some coach at Georgetown was dishonest, so every student at Georgetown should lose their federal financial aid? I can't believe you are saying that. But then I don't know what you are saying.
MikeM.
I didn't say that. For now, let's stick with whether buying admission is or is not a scam.
It sounds like you sound like you are saying people buying admission is not "scam" like. Or you seem to be saying that for *some reason* if the scam happens at a small enough rate, then buying admission is no longer a scam. I disagree with this.
I said *the fact* of letting people buy admissions is scam like. I think buying admission is still a scam if only 1% of student of students do it.
After we figure out our position on whether or not buying admission is a scam, then we can proceed onto what level of scam by schools would merit them losing federal subsidize.
So: Do you think the fact of having students buy admission to a program is, in and of itself, scammy behavior? Or not. For get about the loan issue first.
lucia (Comment #174057): "Do you think the fact of having students buy admission to a program is, in and of itself, scammy behavior?"
No, I don't. I think the recent scandal is akin to theft.
From Wordnik:
scam n. A fraudulent business scheme; a swindle.
OK, there is also:
scam v. deprive of by deceit
So one could say that the people charged were scamming the universities. I don't see where that is relevant to federal aid for the other students.
—-
lucia: "After we figure out our position on whether or not buying admission is a scam, then we can proceed onto what level of scam by schools would merit them losing federal subsidize."
I don't see any scamming by the schools.
Mike M. (Comment #174058): "I don't see any scamming by the schools."
One could argue that the entirety of higher education is becoming a scam. But the issue I have been discussing with lucia implicitely assumes that is not the case.
To illustrate my position, I will use as an example an extreme case of selling admission spots. For simplicity, I ignore the fact that some accepted students will go elsewhere.
A university has 600 spots for its next freshman class. After weeding out unqualified applicants, there are 800 qualified applicants left. 500 hundred of those are clearly better than the rest, so they get acceptance letters. The other 300 get letters saying that the remaining spots go to the 100 highest bidders.
Personally, I would not care to be associated with a university that did that. Obviously, the 100 winners of the bidding war should not be eligible for federal financial aid. But I see no legal or public policy reason why the other 500 students should be denied aid.
Mike M,
“Personally, I would not care to be associated with a university that did that.â€
.
Personally, being up front about their admissions (highest bidder) that would be fine, if it were all out in the open…. it’s not. Then there is the rampant racial prejudice. IMO, they are corrupt organizations, with practices which are contrary to both decent morality and law, and should not receive public support.
Lucia, you write:
"But in this scandal we are seeing admission preferences for kids *not offered scholarships*. I'm not getting that. Of course you want to win if you compete. That's why you might offer *scholarships*. But these are *not scholarships*. So it's kids who are not good enough for the coach to think they'll make you win. That's why the coaches ended up "selling" those slots to the highest winner. Those admits did not displace a potential athelete who would help them win. So the coach figured… welll….. we can use the $$."
.
In basketball the number of full-ride scholarships available should be sufficient to stock your team, but in minor sports that's not always the case. Looking at the specific sports in the indictment I can guess how important it might be. Volleyball gets a maximum of 4.5 scholarships for men and 12 for women with an average roster size of 12. Tennis gets 4.5 for men and 8 for women (counter sport for them), with an average roster size of 10. Men's soccer has 9.9 scholarships allowed, but an average roster size of 29. Woman's soccer allows 14, so they're in better shape. In water polo the number of scholarships allowed is 4.5 for men and 8 for women, with an average roster size of 20. Rowing allows 20 scholarships (female) with an average roster size of 50. And these are scholarships allowed, not necessarily alloted. Depending on the sport, non-scholarship players can be absolutely required to compete.
.
The indictment also mentions athletic admission to Yale. Yale, like other Ivy schools, offers no athletic scholarships. There's also two students who were admitted to Stanford for Sailing — sailing isn't an official NCAA sport, the governing body allows no scholarships. In those two cases, favorable admissions is a primary recruiting inducement.
.
Now I think you're certainly correct that the marginal value of recruits is going to factor into their calculations, both for exposure and for keeping his job. The most venal coach in the indictment actually lost his job *before* the feds tumbled onto it, he generally had poor results and Georgetown wasn't pleased with his recruiting. At the other end of the spectrum, Stanford's sailing coach directed the bribe money into donations for the program, so from a competitive POV likely came out ahead. USC's Vavic, the most storied coach in the lot, also funnelled money to his program.
.
I make no apology for using the word "labor" in connection with student-athletes. I connect labor with effort, not with whether it happens to be unpleasant or happens to be appreciated. It's quite possible to labor hard at something that no one else will ever see, let alone appreciate. I think it's even possible at something like dance that's often done for pure enjoyment. Four of my children competed (low level) in Irish Dance — they didn't spend a whole lot of time outside of lessons and I would not say they labored at it. A friend had a son who danced well enough to compete at the World Championship for his age range — he labored hard at it. But I think there are those who labor hard without the success, my neighbor as a freshman was trying to walk on the competitive ballroom dance team, and he was gone hours every day. He enjoyed it, but it was still hard work and deserved the word labor, even though (at least that year) he never did well enough to officially dance in a competition.
.
I'm no jock, but I freely acknowledge that the scholarship athletes worked a *lot* harder to keep their athletic scholarship than I did to keep my academic scholarship. (I had a chance to tutor a scholarship athlete in my field, and I think there's a reasonable chance he had to work a lot harder to not flunk than I did to keep my scholarship–this is where I see the *real* cost to student-athletes. Not in the guys who received preference and make the most of it, but those who come for sports and leave without anything to show for it. I don't think college sports is doing them a favor.)
The recognized top flight schools that potential students and their parents seek and covet admission into is, I think, based on a brand value that is not necessarily earned in the current time frame by the scholarly environment or successes of the school. The brand was develop based on the success of past students and that in turn might well have depended at least in part on the fact that they attended the brand name school. The more the brand name schools deviate from enrolling the highest level scholars the more they will be forced to depend on their brand to entice at least some excellent scholars to attend their school. At what point that brand losses its marketing value is an interesting question. Corporations that depend on brand can slowly but surely lose its marketing value.
It occurs to me that colleges/universities with merit-based admissions are a bit of an oddity in the educational world. Not only because there are other college/universities that take any high school graduate willing & able to pay the tuition, but also because there's a whole lot of educational courses outside of colleges that are essentially first-come, first-served.
.
When I think of a "scam" university I think of diploma mills, where the payment of a large sum of money gives you a (worthless) degree in something. You too can have a doctorate based on life experiences and a few thousand dollars. The more blatant the scam, the higher likelihood that participants aren't victims, but explicitly wanting an enabler for their own scam, claiming credentials they haven't earned. But what about schools where the credential has value, but the admission process is unfair?
.
I imagine a hypothetical University, where (perhaps unlike real universities), a superior education is a result of the quality of the teaching rather than the quality of the sutdents. They hire the best teaching instructors in the business, but have minimal academic requirements to apply and low tuition — and make up for it by auctioning off spots in this university to the highest bidder. This would certainly be a different model, but is it a scam? Certainly not when done openly. It's effectively the same as any number of private schools with sufficiently high tuition and sufficiently low reputation that their admissions aren't selective. (Though I'm not sure auctioned admissions would be subsidized by government loans in the same way tuition currently is, so it may be fatally flawed as a business model.)
.
Part of the problem as I see it is that the reputation of a school can be explicitly based on how selective it is, rather than on the much more difficult (impossible?) task of evaluating how much they improve the student that passes through their program. Besides, if you're sufficiently selective, you can get the reputation of very smart graduates by the simple expedient of admitting only very smart freshmen. At that point, the quality of the education itself becomes secondary, and what you're *really* selling is the idea that you happened to collect brilliant people for a few years — and selling off spots to "less deserving" will damage the reputation of graduates without actually affecting the quality of education at all.
Kenneth Fritsch,
"…based on a brand value that is not necessarily earned in the current time frame by the scholarly environment or successes of the school."
.
Absolutely correct. Consider Michelle Obama: Princeton undergrad, Harvard Law. Then listen to her talk for a few minutes. Devaluation of the brand value of very selective colleges and universities, at least in the long term, is pretty much a given. Until then, there are bound to be many disappointed employers.
MikeM
*No, I don't. I think the recent scandal is akin to theft.*
Merriam Webster (a rather better known dictionary than wordnick" gives us this
Definition of scam
(Entry 1 of 2)
: a fraudulent or deceptive act or operation an insurance scam
to obtain (something, such as money) by a scam
"
I certainly think the college scandal involved fraudulent and deceptive acts and were an "operation". I certainly think it was a scam.
Now moving on the issue of access to federal loans.
If a university, unknowingly got itself involved in a scam and was simply the victim of a scam, I don't think we should prohibit its students access to federal loans. However, if it turns a blind eye to this sort of thing knowing it's programs, staff or bottom line benefit from this sort of operation, I think the University has become scammy. In that case, its students should not be granted loans. The University who allows kids to buy their way in should then have those students bear the cost of their education without the benefit of federal aid.
Right now, with regard to the current scandal, it looks like by and large the Universities did not know what was going on. They had rogue personel. But if that turn out not to be the case, and this is their MO, then their students should get federal loans.
MikeM
*Obviously, the 100 winners of the bidding war should not be eligible for federal financial aid. But I see no legal or public policy reason why the other 500 students should be denied aid.*
I see a very good reasons.
Among other things, in your scenario, there is no "objective" standards for qualified. There is no external party unaffiliated with the university who decided that 800 met some sort of qualification. The university got to *decide* what the "acceptable" level of qualifications are. So they could very well have and almost certainly simply "decided" the top 800 candictes were qualified with the top 500 "super qualified". That left the bottom 300 "marginal". But these numbers are based on a whim about what constitutes "qualified" and it lets them to pretty much decide for themselves how many seats to sell. The entire practice is pretty much a sham.
I think if a Universities practice is to make money by "selling seats", they should use that money to give the stellar 500 in your hypothetical discount educations, relieving the federal government and taxpayers of that burden.
lucia (Comment #174067): "in your scenario, there is no "objective" standards for qualified. There is no external party … The university got to *decide* what the "acceptable" level of qualifications are. … The entire practice is pretty much a sham."
OK. Admissions at all universities are pretty much a sham and therefore there should be no financial aid for higher education. Got it.
MIkeM
I didn't say admissions were a sham.
However, if your method is the method by which they are allowed to sell spaces admissions would certainly *become* a sham IF it was a secret and IF it was subsidized by the unwitting taxpayer.
The fact is, schools decide what the cut-off for qualified is to some extent based on who applies. If a school is popular with applicants, it can decide the "cutoff" for "qualified" is an SAT score of 700. If it is less popular, it can decide the "cuttoff" is 600. And so on.
The school can then design the rigor of their program to meet their admission pool to some extent. Schools do this to some extent.
If schools could do what you suggest, they could see that if they make the cuttoff "700" for "qualified" and admit those, they fill up. So instead, the decree that the cutoff for "qualified" is 650. Then they have "too many" students to fit, they admit those with scores over 720 and sell the remaining seats. This is a very profitable notion and if some law says it's allowed, schools that can get people to buy seats are going to decided to sell them.
This certainly hurts the kids with scores between 700-720 relative to rich kids with scores between 650-720.
IF this method of admission was public, the public wouldn't want to know the deserving students with scores between 700-720 were not admitted in order to allow the school to make money. If, moreover, the method was disguised by the type of pr language you gave, it would be a sham.
On the other hand: if the system was entirely public, and the school just said that's what it does– even publishing scores and providing accounting, it's not a sham.
BUT if the school is going to fund itself this way, I think, well, ok. NO federal funds. Tell the university to use the money they raised from by selling seats to pay create their own university funded government loans and grants. Students who were admitted could still go– it's just the smarter ones could be the beneficiary of the wealthy ones. It would be done directly, not subsidized by the tax papery.
I don't think we should insist the loans for the higher scoring student need to come from the tax payer just because you think this is necessary for the "social justice" of allowing students to go where they want to go and some how think this justice need to be achieved by tax payers. We can achieve the same thing through a free market effect. The school could just let people know it's done this way. The taxpaying public wouldn't need to worry about the less wealthy kids with scores in the 700-720 range. They don't get to go– but then, the school is just totally private and unsubsidized. Those kids can go somewhere else.
I don't think it's what schools currently run admissions the way I described above– that is to maximize who buys in. But under your system they would. I think this is a very good reason not to permit your system. Or at least, not permit it to institutions that get federal funds.
lucia,
I'd guess that the SAT score cutoff would be pretty much the same in both the strong candidates and marginal groups. I don't think you realize just how competitive it can get and how little difference there is between the students who get in and those who don't.
I could imagine that the bidding war winners would do better than a selected group from the same marginal cohort. Very similar qualifications, but perhaps more motivated.
.
lucia: "Tell the university to use the money they raised from by selling seats to pay create their own university funded government loans and grants."
That would likely only work if the seats that were sold greatly out numbered the ones that weren't.
.
lucia: "Or at least, not permit it to institutions that get federal funds."
I think that something quite similar is permitted, except that even the buy-in students qualify for federal funds. What you could do is to set the tuition really high, then give discounts to the better students while having the more marginal ones pay full fair. Then all the students qualify for federal backed student loans for whatever part of the tuition they are paying themselves.
But then, the universities would never do that.
.
p.s. – It seems that once again I can't resist testing Poe's Law.
Lucia writes:
"The school can then design the rigor of their program to meet their admission pool to some extent. Schools do this to some extent."
They can, but they aren't required to do so. Fairly or not, Stanford had the reputation back in my college years of being impossible to flunk out of — they assumed that since you got into Stanford you were smart, and graded accordingly. In my own school I took honors courses whenever possible, because they had (IMO) better teachers and *also* because it was easier to get an A — the teachers expected their students to be smart, and graded accordingly. The only downside was a much larger proportion of obnoxious classmates. I found the classes more interesting, but not necessarily more rigorous.
.
Taking a step back a level, the highest ranked (by far) high school in my school district is Gwinnett School of Math, Science and Technology. It is, in fact, very rigorous. They start out the school year with suicide counseling. But the only admissions requirement is willingness to go, the applicants are randomly selected. This is definitely a selection effect, but the student body is disproportionately minority and not just with asians. The blacks/hispanics in the district are concentrated in lower performing high schools and have the most to gain by going to GSMST.
.
The dirty little secret of GSMST's high rankings is that the highly-sought-after graduates are the survivors of the rigorous curriculum. A lot of kids transfer out after their freshman year, with a bunch of low grades to mar their transcripts. If the school instead had merit-based admissions, perhaps this would be less of a problem (I'm not sure this is legal for charters schools to do in Georgia). And perhaps not — my son was among those who ditched GSMST after a single year, but it wasn't the intellectual capacity that sunk him, it was unwillingness to put in the necessary work. To that point in his career substantial work actually *wasn't* necessary to get good grades and high test scores; and some blame can be fairly fixed on my failure as a parent to install a strong work ethic. Still, the point is that what was actually needed for a superior education IMO wasn't necessarily intelligence, but work.
.
It also makes a contrast between the publicly-paid-for high schools, where admission explicitly rejects merit as a criteria, and the publicly-paid-for colleges, which absolutely use merit as a criteria. If Georgia Tech admitted Georgia students by lot instead of by merit, I doubt they would reduce their rigor — I think they would fail more students out. And I suspect some of those lot-selected Georgia residents who didn't qualify on merit who did make it through the culling would make worthy Georgia Tech graduates, if they were willing to work hard enough. I'm saying that would be necessarily better or more fair, as space is limited, but the contrast between high school and college in the same state is remarkable. I can't rationalize them as *both* being fair.
.
At high-reputation public schools, merit-based admissions have their own built-in financial advantage. Out-of-state applicants skew higher, and happen to be much more lucrative. I believe the same effect applies to international students in graduate school.
MikeM
*I don't think you realize just how competitive it can get and how little difference there is between the students who get in and those who don't.*
I absolutely do get how competitive it is. The competitive nature of admissions is *precisely* why your system would result in schools deciding to make a lower cut off and sell seats. Instead of making hard choices, the bail and then make $$ off the 'hard' cases. Win-win for them if the can use the money for what they generally want (nice buildings, salary for admins.) But there is no reason for the taxpayer to subsidize that.
I know social justice warriors like to insist all students should have access to federal funding for access to what they want. But I don't see it that way. I would rather say that if schools decide to fund themselve by selling seats to admission, the schools should use that money to fund their own federal loans and so on. I don't think we should allow ideas of "social justice" to run amok.
I don't know what point you think you are making with GSMST's. A school exists that has random admissions and does a good job. This doesn't support the theory that we should subsidize schools that sell admissions to their seats.
*Still, the point is that what was actually needed for a superior education IMO wasn't necessarily intelligence, but work.*
Of course. But selling seats cuts against this. Kids buy their way in– so the get in without as much work. Once those kids are the paying students, the school will tend to want to keep them there– thus being tempted to allow less work of the $$ paying students. This doesn't happen in your example school.
*If Georgia Tech admitted Georgia students by lot instead of by merit, I doubt they would reduce their rigor — I think they would fail more students out. *
Huh? That all depends what they decided to do. If the admitted by lot and OVER admitted, they could keep the class large, make money and maintain rigor of graduates.
Ohio State used to do that (without the money part because tuition was cheap to students) — then they flunk kids out freshman year. (Perhaps they still do it.) This is costly to the taxpayer and the students who spend money on freshman year.
Or they could decide to admit the right number, fail lots of kids out get less tuition money (possibly go out of business), and have a small elite gradating class. Perhaps they could get people to donate. I have no problem with this, but unless they could get people to donate, they would probably cease to exist. So, as a private school,what they would do instead, is either over-admit, make $$ on their freshman class, fail kids who spent $$. Or go out of business.
They ought to be allowed to do that. But it's not an argument for allowing them to SELL seats and continue being subsidized.
*At high-reputation public schools, merit-based admissions have their own built-in financial advantage. Out-of-state applicants skew higher, and happen to be much more lucrative*
Perhaps. It's known. But as far as I am aware, the admission standards are the same for instate and out of state. (Or at least the schools try to do this– and the taxpayers get grumpy otherwise.) The students are more profitable and the schools try to recruit more or the high $$ value applicants.
When the standards are different– that's a known policy. The taxpayers (who want to know) aren't left in the dark.
There is no "industry" more ripe for disruptive innovation than education. Imagine a world where there was a massive network with everyone having a portal that they could communicate with. People would be able to take as rigorous a program as they could muster and costs would be minimal, credentials would no longer have a wealth limitation. There would be no need for a wink and nod admissions systems followed by having to ship biomass to a specific location to hear barely qualified graduate students drone on to bored students. Imagine there are federal employment laws based on educational accomplishment and against wealth bias (probably a bad idea but I'll throw it out there). Imagine not having to learn about RF fields and power systems when you want to design digital electronics.
.
We have discussed this before and there are problems, but compare this proposal to what we have now … which one would financially struggling parents prefer for their smart kids?
.
More importantly, who are the people that are putting up roadblocks preventing this from happening? Is it not the exact same people who profess to care the most about education? There are too many busybody parents misusing this system and creating an artificial barrier to entry to the upper class. "Big Education" has become fat and lazy. Most of their energy is devoted to keeping their bloated existing system afloat and sucking the financial blood from our economy at the maximum rate.
.
Technical disruption has come to many industries and it has been a painful transition to most of them. Think robotic assembly. It's 2019 and if I walk into my local high school a mile from my house, I'm going to see basically the exact same thing I saw in 1981. Maybe the teachers use PowerPoint now.
.
The education sector needs disruption.
Tom Scharf (Comment #174074): "People would be able to take as rigorous a program as they could muster and costs would be minimal, credentials would no longer have a wealth limitation."
Education and credentials are different things.
There are MOOC's. There are places like Southern New Hampshire University and Western Governors University. They have had considerable success, but have not yet disrupted the status quo. Maybe it is just early in the exponential growth process. But I suspect that online education is more valuable for learning than for credentialing and traditional colleges are now more about credentialing than learning. So they are not really in direct competition.
I probably used the word credentials wrong. The point is to get rid of * brand * credentialism as much as possible. SNHU is not MIT on a resume. There is no possible way to evaluate how those compare, most people just assume MIT >> SNHU. Google and Apple aren't recruiting at SNHU.
.
But that is the model. MIT has released online classes as well as Stanford and others. Using their materials and learning the same things doesn't mean Apple comes knocking on your door, and that is the problem. Your butt needs to learn those things in Cambridge, MA.
.
I downloaded class notes from a MIT course in my technical area. It was pretty obvious a graduate student created them for his own class and they were rather unimpressive. (Why are there an army of people recreating the same things over and over?). Those notes were not worthy of the MIT brand respect.
.
Educational institutions have value, but that value has been blown way out of proportion, and it's getting worse. If a potential employer has a reliable metric to compare MIT and SNHU grads that will be one step forward.
MIkeM
*Western Governors University. They have had considerable success, but have not yet disrupted the status quo.*
Oh… I get Wester Governors does very well with *education* degrees. They are "crendentialing" teachers whose union negotiated contracts dictate raises follow a "step and lane" path. Plenty of teachers are motivated to take classes for the purpose of getting the credential that puts them in a path to larger salary. Greater convenience, speed, less effort and less risk of failure to pass a class are probably all attractive features.
(Their program discussed here:
https://www.wgu.edu/online-teaching-degrees/becoming-licensed-teacher-accredited.html )
Whether the degree really results in much learning, I can't say. It might be terrific– or not.
But one thing they are *certainly* doing is "credentialling*.
I'd be very careful about assuming a college or universities main product isn't "credentialing" just because a school isn't Harvard or MIT. There's a lot of "credentialling" going on at less prestegeous schools.
lucia (Comment #174077): "I'd be very careful about assuming a college or universities main product isn't "credentialing" just because a school isn't Harvard or MIT. There's a lot of "credentialling" going on at less prestegeous schools."
Good point. There are different kinds of credentialing. So maybe the success of SNHU and WGU is not education, it is discount credentialing.
In other news:
USC won't let students involved in the scandal register for classes until investigation complete. Shot over the bow, we invite you to leave.
.
WSJ: "Florida prosecutors have offered to drop charges against New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft and a number of other men charged with soliciting prostitution. The unusual proposal calls for admitting they would have been proven guilty at trial."
We really should let the Smollett thing go. And I don't want to talk about Smollett, but I thought this was funny.
From https://wgntv.com/2019/03/14/cameras-allowed-in-jussie-smollett-arraignment-today/
"State's Attorney Kim Foxx has asked Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson to turn the case over to the FBI. A spokesperson for Foxx says the request was made over concerns about leaks to the media."
Can she really believe that the FBI doesn't leak to the media?
MIkeM,
I took an "American Modeling Teachers Association" training class (to better understand a particular practice currently popular in teaching high school physics around here. The teachers there talked about what they were each doing to get ahead on their "step and lane" requirements. One (who was very good at physics) had gotten his TWO masters which gets you your extra lane. His first BS was from U of Ill urbana. His first MS was from U of I at Illinois. His second was from some online entity. I asked him what he thought of the program and he pretty much admitted that the second masters was for the "credential". The UofI MS and BS were much stronger, taught him more physics and more teaching. The second was…. for the step and lane.
The teachers individually discussed cost, fitting into a schedule, difficulty and so on. I *assure* you, they definitely see low cost, easy to schedule, not tooooo hard "features" especially for the 2nd masters.
When you consider that by the time they are working on the *2nd* freakin' masters, they tend to have families (or be pregnant) trying to fit things in with their job and so on…. Well it's hardly surprising they care about the "prestige" of their degree. Often their first MS has some prestige. Nor even how much more they will learn. Often, they've learned a lot already and are learning other practical things on the job. They care about whether (a) the program will "count" and (b) whether they can be certain to pass and get their second degree so they can get a raise.
I'm not going to say the programs teach nothing and so on…. But I can say that at that point, the *main* product the teachers want is "the credential".
BTW: My brother-in-law is an attorney and he says ongoing education requirements for attorneys can have the same dynamic. Say he actually does need to take a course for some reason to prove "on going refreshment in something."
But he's busy…. Or maybe his wife is pregnant. Or his kid is sick. Or something. Does he take the course in Topic X that would help him most? But is given in a "not vacation destination city" in MAss (where he doesn't live), in person, for a lot of money and blay… blah…. Or does he pick a less useful to him Topic Y because he can take it in Chicago where he lives at some less prestigious university or online? Say both courses "count". There is a very strong temptation to take Topic Y.
He really gets very little "prestige" from the "on going education" class he takes. It's just a check box as far as "prestige" goes. And he really can't be sure the class will be *all that* helpful. So, often, it's topic Y.
Tom Scharf,
Is "admitting they would have been found guilty" different from pleading guilty? And different from "no contest". Real questions!
Lucia,
Kraft’s two ‘victims’ were apparently 48 and 56, long term florida residents, one the owner of the establishment and the other a licenced masseuse, long employed there. The claims of sexual slavery do not appear to apply to Kraft at all (at least not what they can prove/document). It is unclear to me that he will take the offered deal. He may well hold out for a nolo contendre plea and hope for minimal punishment from the judge. There may be much stronger cases among the hundred + charges made against other met, but Kraft looks to be a rather uninteresting target for prosecutors, save for his wealth and being (slightly) famous.
SteveF,
Nope. Those don't sound like sex slaves!
HaroldW, she asked this case be handed over at the request of Michelle Obama's chief of staff. I think they were hoping to politicize it like they did TrayVon Martin.
MikeN,
Yep. I don't know the motives for the request the Smollet case be handed over to the FBI. Good thing Eddie Johnson didn't do it.
Smollett is not OJ. I think you would be advised to stay away from that. Trayvon Martin appeared to pick the wrong guy to assault. Activists need to pick their martyrs with more care, so many of these have blown up in their face. "Just buying skittles" and "gentle giant" are now infamous upon further review. They talk about fear of not being believed after activist mistakes, and that is exactly what happens. Credibility is lost a lot faster than it is gained. It is now very reasonable to be skeptical when the media goes into level 10 hype with very few known facts.
I suspect they are offering to "withhold adjudication" in the Kraft case, but JD Ohio would know better.
https://www.valcarcellaw.com/pros-cons-withholding-adjudication-florida/
Talk of prestigious schools brings to mind a family disagreement that occurred years ago between my father and brother. My father for some reason, that I never determined, wanted my brother to go to law school at the University of Illinois where he had graduated with a BA. My brother was intent on going to Harvard Law school and indeed had a full scholarship to attend there. My father continued to favor the U of I for reasons unknown to me.
Many years later when my father, brother and I were reminiscing I ask the question to my brother how he thought his career would have been different had he graduated from the U of I law school instead of Harvard Law. His reply was "as it turned out probably not at all or very much". My brother was thinking of a political career in his youth and if he had not come to his senses and given up that career choice attending Harvard instead of U of I could well have made a large difference.
NZ's Chief Censor (real title) has declared the shooting video objectionable and several people who shared the video have been arrested. One person is being held * without bail *. Apparently the sharing was done before the declaration of objectionable was made. With that designation watching it could carry a 10 year jail term. No word yet on whether the shooter will be charged with recording or watching the crime.
.
"Enforcement around objectionable material is a primary responsibility of Internal Affairs and I have discussed with them the need for a balanced approach to enforcement in this case," he said."
.
If one needed a reason to support free speech laws:
"Nor does a video or other publication first need to be classified by any authority as "objectionable" in order for there to be an offence.
Ignorance of the law – for example, ignorance in this case that a video of the Christchurch shooting is objectionable – is not an excuse."
.
He's from the government, he's here to help. Obviously what is wanted is differential enforcement of a thought crime decided by bureaucrats.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/christchurch-shooting/111434154/common-sense-to-apply-on-shooting-video–but-dont-go-looking-for-it
Tom Scharf (#174706),
I'm not surprised the MIT class notes were obviously a graduate student product. Graduate school rankings are driven (at least in my field) by research money and professors are rewarded for their skill in attracting research funds. There's no reward for having professors teach undergraduates and few do so. I've heard at Stanford you can graduate without ever taking a class from a non-graduate student, and it certainly seems plausible to me.
.
With that said, anywhere professors are not rewarded for teaching nor trained to do so, it's not a given that they would be an improvement on one of the graduate students. Anecodotally, my favorite class in my field in grad school was taught by a fellow student.
Lucia (#174703)
My point in bringing up GSMST isn't a defense of selling admissions, just in contrasting the different admissions approaches between GSMST and Georgia Tech, both government run in the same state and only about 25 miles apart (run by different governing bodies though). Both admission processes are "fair" from a certain point of view, and unfair from a different point of view. I think, assuming merit-based admissions do a better job of screening out students who will fail a rigorous program than random chance, that Georgia Tech's strategy is more efficient and will lead to less bad outcomes. How many less? Don't know — it might not be many at all.
.
This scandal was about under-the-table admission selling without the knowledge (and against the interest) of the host institution. But leaving federal student loans out of the equation, I don't believe that auctioning off admission spots is *inherently* unfair. The fundamental premise behind a market economy is that allocating scarce resources to those willing to pay the most creates the most efficient distribution of resources. I don't think education is necessarily an exception. Consider two hypothetical liberal arts colleges of equal quality-of-teaching:
.
School A has a standard for admissions that could be met by many students. They have very high tuition, so the end result is that all qualifying students who wish to attend can attend — price discrimination keeps out those who can't afford to go.
.
School B has reasonable tuition and the exact same base standard for admissions. But out of the large contingent of people who qualify to attend, they hold a dutch auction until the applicants are winnowed to capacity. Once again, price discrimination keeps out those who can't afford to go, but this time it's up front and the price is set by demand rather than administrator guesses.
.
To my knowledge, there are no actual schools like B, and I believe there's a *lot* of schools like A. I think both approaches are equally fair. However, federally subsidized student loans will cover the high tuition of school A and not cover the high admissions of school B. (Which I think helps explain why schools like B don't exist in practice.) The idea that government loans should apply to school A, but the students at school B can't get loans to cover the reasonable tuition doesn't make sense to me.
.
Whether subsidized government loans should be so widely available is a separate policy question. I can understand the reasoning that educated citizens will pay it back and then some with increased productivity, but that same reasoning would apply to more than schools — and doesn't seem to apply to high-tuition schools where a degree is earned in something ending in "Studies".
DaleS
* I don't believe that auctioning off admission spots is *inherently* unfair. *
If a school wants to sell admission, fine.It's all well and good to say this is a market model. But the free market model where people who are willing to pay more get the Ferraris and those who don't don't get the Ferrari doesn't involve the tax payers then subsidizing Ferrari to manufacture and well Ferraris.
I don't think the taxpayers should subsidize schools that are selling admission to the highest bidder. The school will have chosen a different method of funding their program.
I think B should not get federal funding. It's selling seats. BTW: you have no idea whether B or A would charge more for tuition. If Harvard did B, it's not unlikely it would charge more by having a dutch auction. So I would suggest that, in fact,if "B" is highly regarded, "B" is the one that is going to end up charging more (especially if those students could get government loans and so be willing to bid more to enter.)
If B has a low reputation, then yes, it will charge less. But it would do so even if it used the tuition model A uses — where presumably A sets their price to fill to "capacity" as well. So the difference in price won't be because of the model for setting tuition. It's based on the quality of the school.
* B can't get loans to cover the reasonable tuition doesn't make sense to me.*
You don't know that B would have "reasonable" tuition. Or at least you don't know it would be any lower than A (which you seem to suggest might be "unreasonable".) As far as I can see, the only reason B would have lower tuition is that it was perceived as lower quality. That's not a good argument for why it should be allowed to sell seats *and* have the student's purchase be subsidized.
Lucia,
I *can* know that school B charges reasonable tuition, because I described it that way. It's not a real-world school, it's a hypothetical school constructed as a thought experiment to be as close as possible to the way some real world schools do work, but with the money extracted via admissions instead of tuition.
.
In fact, for the point of the thought experiment, I'll modify it further. School B refunds admissions for those who leave the school on a prorated basis, and by chance the cost of these two schools works out to be *exactly the same* on a per semester basis, given the combined cost of admissions plus ongoing tuition. So you have two schools that provide equivalent education at equivalent cost, and both discriminate by price. There's lots of School A out there, they are eligible for subsidized student loans, how are they not "selling seats"?
.
Now *in practice* would there be any reason that a real-world school B could have lower tuition than school A? Certainly. Both schools are equivalent products educationally, both schools are attempting to set their prices to what the market can bear. Lowering tuition increases the value of admission to the school. In an alternate universe where tuition is not subsidized, it's possible the most efficient mechanism would be to set tuition to zero and rely entirely on the admissions auction. But *because* tuition is subsidized by government loans (and paying on installment instead of up-front is easier to bear) adopting that model doesn't make economic sense. And that's part of the reason that School B doesn't exist. If School A also adopted a dutch auction for admissions, it'd raise no revenue from it — it's already taking in all the people willing to pay its high tuition. You can't get extra revenue from a dutch auction *unless* you have more bidders than products.
.
That's obviously not true of selective schools like Harvard, who could make a *ton* of money in the short-term by auctioning off spots. But since their academic reputation rests heavily on their selectivity, I think that would be a poor long-term strategy.
.
If we re-cast the admissions auction not as an up-front cost, but instead a dutch auction for per-semester tuition at a school, would it then qualify for government subsidies? It would at least provide hard information we don't currently have — how much education at school X is *actually worth* to the buyers. That'd be fascinating information, though it's certainly at odds with merit-based admissions.
Lucia,
"The free market model where people who are willing to pay more get the Ferraris and those who don't don't get the Ferrari doesn't involve the tax payers then subsidizing Ferrari to manufacture and sell Ferraris."
.
The government is perfectly willing (unfortunately) to subsidize both purchasers and manufacturers of cars, even very expensive cars, that they think serve some social goal. I don't think the purpose of subsdized grants and loans is to reward higher education for avoiding market-driven behaviors; I think it's primarily driven by the social goal of having more students receive a college education. Perhaps I'm wrong.
That those people with college degrees are substantially more successful in later life than those without degrees, at least financially, is shown to be true in many statistical analyses. That those who graduate from the elite schools are more successful than those graduating from not elite schools is in some doubt given recent studies.
In today's WSJ Greg Ip (with whom I often disagree) has an article on the elite versus non elite school outcomes. He makes some good points and backs it up with a recent study.
"And yet from an economic standpoint, this makes no sense. The evidence shows that a college degree delivers a large and sustained income premium over a high school diploma, but a selective college doesn’t make the premium bigger. There are exceptions, but most people who prosper after graduating from such a college would likely have prospered if they had attended a less prestigious institution as well. After all, the children whose parents were charged last week were born with wealth, connections, and devoted parents willing to do almost anything for them, a recipe for success no matter where they graduate from."
"Like an exclusive country club, admission to a top college is proof of status, not the source of it. A child bumped by another’s wealth has lost a trophy, not a future."
About the study he comments:
"The fact that smart, ambitious children who attend elite colleges also do well in life doesn’t mean the first caused the second. This was most clearly demonstrated in a pair of now famous papers by Stacy Dale of Mathematica Policy Research and Alan Krueger of Princeton University.
He[Mr. Krueger] and Ms. Dale linked the college application choices drawn from a survey of graduates with their earnings results from the Social Security Administration over the next two to three decades. What they found was that two students with similar backgrounds, grades and test scores who applied to the same mix of selective and nonselective schools earned about the same later on, even if the first attended a selective school and the second didn’t. The choice of schools applied to was indicative of ambition which, they argue, is a more powerful driver of success than the school they attend. “The return to college selectivity [is] indistinguishable from zero,†they wrote in 2011."
I would also wonder what the results would be for a study of success of high school versus college graduates for which ambition and innate abilities were controlled. Obviously the study would have to be confined to outcomes where government regulations do not prohibit entry like doctors and lawyers.
I have always been wary of a commercial frequently seen on TV where a law group is making a pitch for father's rights in divorce cases by quoting statistics of bad outcomes for children in a fatherless family. I have to ask the question about what that outcome would be if the father, who could be an additional negative influence on the children in the family and even dysfunctional, were connected to the family. In other words are there environmental issues that are present that lead to both a fatherless family and bad outcomes for the children.
I don't have any issues with a private school auctioning off seats in the abstract. Taxpayer funding of any kind (loans, research funds, etc.) become an issue. A second very important point is that they transparently do so. What we have now is a wink and nod auction system (rich students outnumber poor students 23 to 1 at Harvard) that * also * claims to be meritocratic.
.
There are many legitimate reasons why rich kids do better (genetics, better schools, better parenting, etc.) and a few illegitimate reasons (legacy, obscure rich sports, knowing the system, etc.). We need to address the illegitimate ones before any blunt policies are attempted that may make things worse for everyone.
.
BTW, nothing prevents Harvard from doubling their size or building alternate campuses in Nebraska. They are first and foremost obsessed with their status, which is the product they are actually selling.
At the high level one goal of education is to improve the well being of all citizens through better economic outcomes and more informed government policy. If we toss aside the usual examinations of the current flaws in the system it has been spectacularly successful. This is a very good investment for government to make. It gives everyone a free ride K-12 and selectively invests in further education for those who qualify. The system is good and proven at the high level.
.
Anywhere there is a huge pile of money there will be corruption, rent seekers, and all sorts of legal grift. I worked for a guy of questionable business ethics who told me of an idea he had of buying a distressed university that had accreditation, then run a business where the tuition was very high and a building full of employees helped the less gifted get federal loans. Ten years later that is exactly what he did. I saw an interview with him on a national news program at his multi-million dollar mansion overlooking the CA coast. They were berating him for his for profit school and he said all the super smooth con man things I would expect him to say. He is helping poor students, etc.
.
$28K / year, 35% graduation rate. It started with 1,000 students. Now has 70K on line students, 20K on campus. The best part? It's a Christian school, ha ha.
Kenneth Fritsch,
I am a bit suspicious of these studies. I think it matters how you define selective schools and outcomes. If the outcome was became a SC justice, landed a hugely paying Wall Street job right out of college, or became a full time researcher at the same prestigious universities then those numbers change a lot. I believe outcomes don't change a lot once you get below the HYPSM schools, but if you want to reach the pinnacle of certain careers you better start there.
.
A bunch of these articles have appeared recently, yet every elite still passionately wants their child in one of these schools. Perhaps its just status but I think there is more.
DaleS
*I *can* know that school B charges reasonable tuition, because I described it that way. It's not a real-world school, it's a hypothetical school constructed as a thought experiment to be as close as possible to the way some real world schools do work, but with the money extracted via admissions instead of tuition.*
I can speculate about what would happen if pigs could fly and what that would tell me about physics. But it wouldn't be stupendously meaningful.
* Both schools are equivalent products educationally, both schools are attempting to set their prices to what the market can bear. *
Currently, schools don't necessarily set their prices to what the market can bear. This is because many schools think they are providing a *benefit* as their mission. The differ from automanufacturers in this regard. The public thinks so too– and the differences both explain why we do subsidize education and also why we (and I specifically) don't think it's best for them to behave like automanufacterers. However, if they do behave like auto manufacturers, fine. They just lose the subsidy.
*Lowering tuition increases the value of admission to the school.*
Nonesense. It lowers the *cost*. The value is not the same as the cost. Some valuable things are free– like a mother's love, friendship or sunshine and rain.
*You can't get extra revenue from a dutch auction *unless* you have more bidders than products.*
You never have more bidders than product in education, because the product isn't something like left over unsold dresses that are already produced. Education is a product that is only created after the auction. So in that sense, your dutch auction doesn't even make sense. It wouldn't make sense for Ferrari to have a "dutch auction" for cars to be manufactured in the future. Also, no one is going to commit to making things for a loss– and a dutch auction puts them in a position of potentially committing to "selling" things they haven't yet made for a price below the manufacturers cost. So these are used for excess items that could not be sold at the initial price. That's why Ferrari doesn't do it and you don't see dutch auctions for items to be made in the future.
It makes no sense for a school (unless possibly school A FIRST admits people who will pay $high price, doesn't fill as many seats as they currently have, and then dutch auctions off the rest so they make more than $zero for otherwise empty seats.) But it makes no sense for school B to do it. This has nothing to do with student loans!
All in all, I am pretty sure you are wrong about what would happen to the tutions at A and B in practice.
My view remains: If a school sells admission, fine. But in that case, the taxpayers should not subsidize this choice with state funded support. The school should use the money they raised selling seats to pay for the program. This is exactly the same market standard we apply to Ferrari, Volkswagon, Kia.
*The government is perfectly willing (unfortunately) to subsidize both purchasers and manufacturers of cars, even very expensive cars, *
Yes. I think they are wrong to do so, which makes my standard consistent.
Tom Scharf (Comment #174101)
Tom has presented a common case for public education that lacks a counterfactual analysis. We are talking about a state imposed, or at least supported, monopoly here. State politicians are very much influenced by public school teacher unions and in turn favor the demands of those unions. The irresponsible politicians have allowed but not fully funded in most cases the generous pensions for the public school teachers and are, like in the case of Illinois, merely waiting for an excuse/crisis to raise taxes to fund those pensions. Is that a system that is working?
The supporters of the Cuban communist government applaud its public education system that gives a "free" (as Tom uses that term without reference to whom really is paying the bills) education to all without noting that such regimes often use that system in attempts to indoctrinate its citizens to the exploits of that regime.
It is a bit of a scam for the government to dole out student loans that those students later find are difficult to impossible to repay because the job the education was to provide does not allow a substantial repayment of those loans? Who benefits in reality is the colleges.
I like the idea that schools should co-sign the loans of their students, so if the students default, the school is on the hook for at least a large part of the loan.
Mike M. (Comment #174105)
That might work better for private schools but would not public schools merely come running to the state government for higher taxes to fund the bad loans. It might be easier for the state to deny private schools a bail out with taxpayers money but I would not count on it.
Good point. Maybe make the school responsible for loans over a certain amount per year. That could let public universities largely off the hook and put some downward pressure on tuition.
Kenneth
*would not public schools merely come running to the state government for higher taxes to fund the bad loans*
Yes. But in which case, the legislators would be see that the need for the extra funding was that students did not get jobs after going to university. Since a significant reason why many people think university attendance should be subsidized is that it helps students get jobs, Universities admitting some programs did not result in jobs could have a good feedback effect on decision making about loans.
Kenneth, MIT generally has professors teaching courses, at least when I went there. One undergrad professor was IBM's chief witness in the government's antitrust case, who later flipped and argued against Microsoft who then hired one of his former students to make the case. Also had an algorithms class with one of RSA.
lucia (Comment #174108)
"Since a significant reason why many people think university attendance should be subsidized is that it helps students get jobs, Universities admitting some programs did not result in jobs could have a good feedback effect on decision making about loans."
That would certainly be the case if the loaning body were truly liable for the bad loans, but if the government makes the loans or guarantees the loans it is not some government agency that is eventually liable but rather the taxpayer.
Who better to make the loans without government guarantees or too-big-to-fail government bailouts than the university itself. It would be in the best position to determine the risk of the loan based on the students intended curriculum and entrance exams. It would certainly be motivated to educate the student for success and ending quickly student enrollments that were likely to fail and become a larger loan loss. Maybe the loan business would afford the universities to get out of the major sport business and back into educating and promoting education through the loan process.
MikeN (Comment #174109)
So was the professor confused about anti-trust law or did the other side pay larger fees.
Kenneth,
Yes. The way it is structured currently, is the taxpayer is liable. But the policy notion is that we (tax payers) are willing to subsidize this because we also think members of subsequent generation supporting themselves and paying taxes is beneficial (to current tax payers.)
If it becomes obvious that is not true, then support for federal subsidies for university degrees will diminish.
I also think it would be good policy for universities and colleges to be on the hook to repay a portion of loans when students default. It's the most direct way to give the universities and colleges an incentive to run programs that result in well paying jobs and dump ones that don't help students be employed.
*Maybe the loan business would afford the universities to get out of the major sport business and back into educating and promoting education through the loan process.*
Perhaps. And that would be a good thing.
Kenneth, I assume Microsoft would be capable of paying larger fees than the government. I wish I had kept the test question and answer which were about the case. I answered based on the materials he handed out which included his arguments on behalf of IBM as well as US v Matsushita. I don't know if this was counted as right as the time, or he was already arguing the government side.
I think there should be a set loan limit, say $15K / year, and maybe the university will be on the hook for any further loan. As it sits now the universities are incentivized to continue to raise tuition and fees because the Feds will just have the taxpayer foot the bill. The cost of education has gone bonkers and there is no doubt in my mind this payment structure is a big part of the problem (as my previous client's scam demonstrates).
.
There are too many unsophisticated students and parents who will accept loans for marginal schools and majors that are not in demand. They literally never do a search for "best major for a good paying job". The biggest losers here are people who take large loans and don't graduate.
.
"Follow your heart" is bad advice for college in my view, yes I'm prepared for the avalanche of tut-tuts in response. College is time to put on your big boy pants and make intelligent compromises between what you like, what jobs are in demand, and what your capabilities are. This decision has lifetime ramifications. It's a compromise, not a hard rule, the other side is I've seen plenty of engineers leave the field because they don't like the work.
Tom Scharf
*"Follow your heart" is bad advice for college in my view, *
It's fine for trustfund babies or people whose parents are willing to support them during college and sometime after. It's not so great for others.
It's terrible advice for people who need to support themselves as young adults.
With respect to college aid, the public policy issue is: what is the tax payers goal when providing aid? I think their goal isn't to give people the opportunity to "follow their heart". It's to allow people to become self supporting.
Mind you, I think people should follow their heart *to some extent*. There are many possible reasonably remunarative paths. No one should go into engineering if their avocatoin is law, economics, business, teaching, nursing and so on.
But if there are programs at some schools that result in many graduates not getting jobs, well…. the tax payer shouldn't subsidize those.
A rundown of what the kids knew was happening in the admission scandal
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/03/college-admissions-scandal-what-every-kid-knew.html
lucia (Comment #174115)
"With respect to college aid, the public policy issue is: what is the tax payers goal when providing aid? I think their goal isn't to give people the opportunity to "follow their heart". It's to allow people to become self supporting."
Like a lot of government programs loan aids for college students might sound like a great idea to voters and tax payers when presented initially, but once the unintended consequences start to kick in that view might well change. Unfortunately at that time the program is too big to fail and any attempted remedy will probably mean doubling down on the existing government program.
Also a goodly percentage of voters in the US do not pay federal taxes and are thus less likely to even care about such program problems.
"Also a goodly percentage of voters in the US do not pay federal taxes and are thus less likely to even care about such program problems."
Maybe that's a root cause (or at least a contributor) to several problems. Skin in the game and all that.
.
[Edit: Bofill for 2020! No representation without taxation!]
Mueller has submitted his report? I have heard but not yet verified (I'm out).
Kenneth,
Even non-taxpayers night care if it means we can less afford programs they do benefit from. (Snap, medicare, child tax credits….
Mark bofill,
I have heard the Mueller report is submitted.
If you ignore the time value of money, I believe student loans are running at a net profit for the federal government. If you don't ignore it (and I think we shouldn't) they're running at a loss, but it still means that axing student loans completely won't make a lot of room in the budget for other items.
Dale S (Comment #174122)
Dale, can you show how you came up with those profits and loses? What is the counterfactual?
DaleS,
Gravity and the time value of money exist whether one believes in them or not. They aren't like the tooth fairy or Santa.
The government has to pay interest on bonds when it borrows. So clearly the government also knows there is a time value of money.
lucia (Comment #174120)
They might have figured out that those programs that they favor are also too big to fail and in addition had a few clues that increased funding for their programs can be passed on to future generations by way of the federal debt.
A compromise a year or so back in the Trump administration was the Democrats get to increase domestic spending and the Republicans get to increase military spending. That was not the first time such a spending compromised was accomplished.
There's a CBO report here:
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files?file=2018-06/53736-postsecondarystudentaid.pdf
One section addresses the motivation for student aid, though they attribute it to "some economists" instead of lawmakers:
—
One, some students would be unable to finance higher education without federal aid. Two, some students would forgo the education because the prospective financial benefits, net of costs, are too uncertain. By mitigating that risk, federal support can encourage students to pursue higher education who otherwise would not do so. And three, some students may deem an education not worth the cost, even if society also stands to gain by that education.
—
Lots of discussion of possible changes in the document, and also some numbers. Originated loans in 2017 were $94 billion, grants were $30 billion, tax preferences were $30 billion. After repayment FCRA estimate was +$34 billion between 2018 and 2028 and -$211 billion for Fair Value estimate. (For deficit reduction purposes FCRA is used, so eliminating loans would actually show up as a cost rather than benefit under that system.)
I haven't been able to find figures yet on how much the government *actually took in* this year from student loan, but since the amount of loans issued has steadily risen I will guess it's lower than the outlay.
Thanks lucia.
Dale S (Comment #174126)
I did not see any hard data in that CBO report, but rather a lot of hypothetical statements.
There would have to be consideration for the opportunity losses for that money not being spent somewhere else. That is the unseen stuff that Frederic Bastiat and Friedrich August von Hayek talked about and is often forgotten to be mentioned with government programs.
lucia (Comment #174124)
Ah, but there is a tooth fairy, or at least one that a lot of Keyensians believe in, and it is called the Federal Reserve. It can and has kept interest rates artificially low. Some nations central banks have kept, at least short term rates, at zero or negative. If interest rates were allowed to go significantly higher nations which have large debts – and that is most nations – would have their portion of expenditures as interest payments become much larger than the current situation with artificially low rates. I seriously believe that most voters are clueless about this situation and could care less about it. Certainly the politicians are not talking about it.
Kenneth Fritsch,
I would regard the figures for loans/grants as hard figures, not sure about the tax preferences, definitely not the 2018-2028 estimates. I certainly don't disagree with you about the opportunity costs with money spent by the government, especially the opportunity cost that comes with not letting someone *not* in the government spend the money they used to have before the government took it. However, it was the most relevant recent government document I could find with a short google search, and it does have the virtue of discussing impacts of some of the changes proposed in this thread. If you're aware of a more interesting and/or useful document that's relevant, please provide the link, I'd love to check it out.
.
My opinion of CBO forecasts in general is that they're probably less accurate than Global Climate Models. Unfortunately, I believe CBO scoring sometimes has real-world consequences in the highly artificial budgeting process. Which is why I think the Democrats eliminated Dynamic Scoring at the beginning of this year, so they can pretend that nothing they do to taxes/spending will affect the underlying economy.
Dale S (Comment #174126): "Originated loans in 2017 were $94 billion, grants were $30 billion, tax preferences were $30 billion. After repayment FCRA estimate was +$34 billion between 2018 and 2028 and -$211 billion for Fair Value estimate. (For deficit reduction purposes FCRA is used, so eliminating loans would actually show up as a cost rather than benefit under that system.)"
Well, duh. If you assume that defaulted loans don't cost anything, then the loans make money. I'd love to go into the banking business on that basis. $94 billion per year in loans, $21 billion per year in net cost. That seems significant to me.
There are significant social benefits to education. There are also significant social costs due to student loans. Tucker Carlson:
"Apart from mortgages, student loans are the biggest source of personal debt in this country, more than car loans and credit card bills. That's a staggering amount of debt. It's enough to distort and cripple the U.S. economy. It's enough to stunt the life prospects of an entire generation of young people.
"If you're wondering why the majority of Americans under 30 say they prefer socialism, debt is a major reason. Student loans are killing them, and they never go away. Thanks to extensive lobbying efforts here in Washington, student loans, unlike other forms of debt, cannot be erased by bankruptcy."
What do people take as the meaning of this sentence:
"The order from the Russian government closes the school, which serves children of US, British and Canadian embassy personnel, to US and foreign nationals."
Mike M,
If I were to go into business with the intention of making money loaning money to students, the ability to write the laws governing my loans and use force to collect them if necessary would be an asset. Part of the reason student loans can be so crushing is that they aren't normally dischargeable in bankruptcy, and this is a result of government passing a law that makes it so.
.
If I understand it correctly (and I might not–I have no training in accounting at all), the essential difference between FCRA and fair value accounting isn't that FCRA ignores the time value of money, or that it ignores the possibility of defaults. The essential difference is that FCRA's opportunity cost is compared to the rate of return on government bonds and fair value attempts to use a private sector opportunity cost. It seems to me that FCRA is appropriate for answering the question of "how much will this cost the government, giving that they're borrowing the money to do this", and fair value is appropriate for answering the question of "how much will this cost taxpayers, giving that the government is stealing money from the private sector to do this." As a taxpayer, I'm more interesting in the second question, but if Fair Value is showing negatives where FCRA is showing positives, it doesn't mean that the *government* is worse off for the exercise. It just means that we, the long-suffering taxpayers, are worse off for the exercise.
.
There's a GAO report from January 2016 that concludes (surprise!) that FCRA is more appropriate as a method for government accounting. It can be found here:
https://www.gao.gov/assets/680/674905.pdf
.
Their argument seems to be that FCRA is more appropriate for government budgeting because it deals with government cash flows; fair value introduces a subjective non-cash discount. But the report also does re-estimates of 2001-2014 FCRA estimate for loans to see how accurate they were in retrospect; they found both overestimates and underestimates from year to year, but overall it underestimated costs by $3.1 billion in direct loans and $39.0 billion in loan guarantees, so off by less than 1% of disbursement. This is *all* loans, not just education — HUD was the main driver of loan guarantee underestimate. In figure 6 we see a breakdown of overestimates and underestimates over 2001-2014 collected. Direct student loans were the largest upward revision, off $23.1 billion, while student loan guarantees were the second largest downward revision, off $5.1 billion. If we assume the same level of inaccuracy ($1.28B per year misestimate) to the estimated FCRA for 2018-2028, we'd get a net FCRA benefit from student loans of +$1.81B per year. So even after considering defaults and the cost of borrowing and assuming future estimates are as off as they were in 2001-2014, it's a net positive for the government, if perhaps not an impressive return on a $90B investment.
.
To follow on my rant about getting rid of Dynamic Scoring, surely one of the points of making student loans in the first place is to make those future taxpayers generate more tax revenue in the future. Neither FCRA nor Fair Value addresses that when considering benefit/cost of student loans, but if it's *not* producing an unseen benefit to the government, the entire premise of the program is in question.
Dale S,
* if it's *not* producing an unseen benefit to the government, the entire premise of the program is in question.*
The purpose is to create a benefit to the public (not "the government"). The benefit is supposed to be access to university which results in a more educated population. One big benefit is people who can be employed in jobs that add more value than digging ditches. (There are other intangible benefits.)
One of the negatives currently is crushing burden for young people. Non-loan aid avoids this crushing burden. (But there are issues with having it all be non-loan aid too.)
What none of these accounting methods considers is the somewhat predictable consequence if and when the prevailing sentiment becomes: We as nation have duped these students into taking on loans that were not fully explained or understood by the students with regards to how difficult the loans might be to repay and that the loans provide no relief from bankruptcy. We should thus start forgiving these loans on a priority basis and in some cases by inducting the borrower into public service.
There has already been talk about such a process by Democrat party members in its abrupt shift to the left. It would fly with youth vote that is drifting to socialism.
You might also want to include as a reason to have government student loans and educational subsidies is that it keeps a large group of people dependent on the government. If you do not believe that a number of politicians have this reason in their minds with such government programs, I would suggest you get beyond what you read in Civics 101 and get in touch with the reality of politics as it is currently practiced.
Dale S,
There are two ways to look at what something costs. One requires expertise in accounting, which neither you or I have. Then there is the common sense method: Compare money going out with money coming in.
Money going out in new loans issued should be roughly balanced by money coming in from those repaying their loans. The net balance should reach a near steady state in which it rises only in response to inflation and population size. It looks like the net balance has been rising by about $100 billion per year:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Student_loan_debt.png
So it looks to me like the program is costing the government a ton of money.
Dale, you made a comment that the federal student loan program was running a profit, but the CBO report you linked does not provide data to substantiate that conjecture one way or another. The fact that you have searched for these hard data without success says something about the accounting for the costs of these government programs.
Lucia #174316,
I agree the purpose of the bill is to help students, not the government. But the way it helps students should, and has, produced higher-paying jobs for those students, which causes them to pay more taxes. That's an indirect benefit *to the government* which is not captured in either accounting method.
.
The same is true of non-loan grants. While from a government budgeting perspective that's straight money spent with no return, in reality the grants to students helps them earn more money and pay more taxes. That's an indirect benefit *to the government* which is not captured in either accounting method. In both cases dynamic scoring could at least attempt to capture it (2015-2018).
.
I'm not particulary interested in benefiting the government at the expense of society, but if the government does something that indirectly causes tax revenues to rise (or fall), I think that should be accounted for.
Kenneth,
I agree with your assessment. I wrote that in #174122 because that's what I remembered from what I had read online, and included the qualifier "I believe" to indicate it wasn't a fact — "IIRC" would have been better. However, unless I've missed something important I think my characterization of FCRA vs Fair Value is correct in #174315–using FCRA the feds *expect* student loans to be slightly positive, given current default rates and a discount rate based on the cost of government borrowing. This contradicts my claim that it was a money-loser if the time value of money is accounted for, but the Fair Value estimates makes clear that using a different discount rate makes it big money loser. I don't think it's *possible* to have a FCRA that's net positive if student loans weren't expected to be much more positive with no time discount, so at least that part of my original statement likely holds up.
.
But what's frustratingly elusive is hard information on how much the government is taking in from loan payments *right now*, to see the effect on current cash-flow. Loan payments are coming in, but the amount loaned has steadily increased, so I don't even know whether cash flow is positive or negative.
.
For federal budgeting purposes FCRA is what is used, so eliminating student loans entirely, even though it would clearly be cash-flow positive (money still coming in, no longer going out), would be counted as an expense, and under reconciliation would have to be balanced with cuts elsewhere. Meanwhile, expanding student loans counts as revenue, and under reconcilition could be balanced with increased spending elsewhere. There's a possibility this may not drive prudent behavior, to put it mildly.
DaleS,
I guess what you mean by "benefit to the government" is a "net positive entry in the balance sheet showing cash flow to 'the government' ".
Of course, if a tiny net positive entry for this year is offset by an huge increase in debt, one would normally not consider this a "benefit" to whoever is required to pay that off and is getting the cash. So I don't think that "a net positive entry in the…." is the same as a "benefit to the government" since "the government" then assumes a debt.
Of course it's interesting to know cashflow is positive. But I think it's misleading to call a positive annual cashflow balance in and of itself a "benefit" without considering other things that accompany that balance. That cashflow is a *contribution* to the calculation of "the benefit". It is not "the benefit" itself.
Mike M,
Thanks for the link, that seems like a good common-sense approach. However, because these are interest-bearing loans, if the money coming in matched the money coming out the net debt would steadily rise. Current interest rates are as follows:
5.05% for undergraduate loans (subsidized or unsubsidized)
6.6% for graduate loans (unsubsidized)
7.6% for PLUS loans (unsubsidized)
"Subsidized" means that interest doesn't accrue while they're in school, all three kinds of loans are subsidized in the sense that they are lower rates than are easily available in the private sector. You don't have to pay interest while in school with the unsubsidized, but failing to do so will cause the principal to increase (and thus the total student debt to increase) without any further outlay for the government. Loans also have an origination fee, so the actual outlay of funds even at the starting point is smaller than the debt increase.
.
5% of the $1.4T in debt at 2016 amounts to 70 billion in payments just to keep the principal constant — some portion of that total debt is subsidized students still in school, but some portion is at higher rates. New (direct) student loans were $94B in 2017 per the CBO document I linked above. Private loans add a small fraction, but it implies that the existing student loan isn't be reduced *at all*, repayment being balanced out by increases in principal on unsubsidized loans not yet in payment, or by loan delinquincy. That's terrifying. Maybe I'm missing something.
.
Or maybe not. According to this site:
https://www.thesimpledollar.com/loans/student/true-cost-of-student-loans/
46% of all student loan borrowers (2015) are current on their loans, but not in repayment yet. That's an awful lot of principal not being paid down and possibly accumulating.
Tom Scharf (Comment #174114): "I think there should be a set loan limit, say $15K / year,"
It seems that there are limits and they are lower than what Tom suggests: "The aggregate loan limit for undergraduate students for all years is $57,500 with no more than $23,000 in subsidized loans; graduate and professional students may borrow up to $138,500 including undergraduate loans, with no more than $65,500 in subsidized loans."
https://studentloans.net/federal-student-loans/
But it seems there are multiple types of loans and the above does not make it clear if there are overall limits.
​​​​​
Dale S (Comment #174143): "5% of the $1.4T in debt at 2016 amounts to 70 billion in payments just to keep the principal constant"
That is an important point. It does not change my argument about steady state, but it does suggest that the actual annual cash flow out is more like $30B than $100B. As you point out, it does suggest a different problem: Most of the payments being made are just covering interest.
Lucia,
What I mean by "net benefit to government" is that the return on their "investment" is greater than the cost of borrowing the money to spend it, and that includes interest *and* principal. If the government borrows at 2%, loans that money out and gets the equivalent of a 3% return by the time it's repaid, they come out ahead and the operation is a net benefit to the government. According to DCRA accounting, the government *will* come out ahead of the costs of borrowing with student loans, though not by much. If their estimates are correct (and they certainly might not be), the benefit is $34B over 2018-2028. Unless I'm radically misinterpreting the government document, this is *not* cash flow compared to interest payments on the money borrowed, it's actual return *beyond* paying back the debt. I haven't yet found information on actual cash flows expected, though I think that would be useful information.
Dale S,
The problem I have with the CBO numbers it that I *think* they are treating the $1.4 trillion in outstanding loans as a government asset. That would be reasonable if we could assume that all of that debt will be repaid. But I think that is a fantasy assumption. Given how many loans are in default, it is clear that a good chunk of the outstanding $1.4 trillion will never be repaid. That results in a large net cost to the government.
It is not unexpected, but still notable and a bit humorous how disappointed the bulk of the media is that Mueller did not take out Trump. It's so sad to learn that the Russians didn't collude with a major Presidential nominee. Woe is us.
.
There is slim knowledge what is actually in the report so far but they went out of their way to state no recommendations for indictments are forthcoming. If they aren't charging anyone in Trump's orbit with collusion and didn't even interview Trump, it is quite unlikely Trump will be going down on that charge.
.
It may be hard to remember, but that is what this whole affair was allegedly about.
.
The obstruction charge is also unlikely to go anywhere, both because it is difficult to obstruct a non-crime and proving intent without interviewing Trump will be a bit difficult.
.
The media will hysterically attach to something, anything, in the report to try to bolster their narrative but it will be a half effort and they will give up soon enough as they did with Kavanaugh. If they can't find anything notable they will just pretend either Mueller was corrupt or that there are super secret things that are being covered up and can only be found with endless investigations. OJ will continue searching for the "real" killer.
.
Trump will declare vindication Michael Mann style, but I very much doubt anyone is coming out of this affair without major scar tissue.
.
If their hysterical and continuous narrative is not fulfilled then the media and establishment will likely suffer a huge embarrassment that they will pretend never happened. In the run up to the 2020 election they will continue to cluelessly ponder why nobody trusts them.
Here are a couple of links that put the current and future profit/loss of the federal student loan program in better perspective. Loan forgiveness coming to your house soon.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/prestoncooper2/2016/04/10/federal-student-loans-will-cost-taxpayers-170-billion/#3729327362a9
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/student-loans-will-cost-taxpayers-36-billion-thanks-obama/
The more onerous student loan payments become on the ex-students, the more politically popular loan forgiveness or abatement will be, and that certainly may cause true costs to rise. But it's worth remembering that the government has tools to get money back that private lenders don't have. They've already protected their loans from dischargement in bankruptcy, and they have the ability to garnish wages and even social security payments (up to 15%). Defaulting on a student loan doesn't make it go away.
.
IDR plans do have the potential for loan forgiveness, but you can't enter the program unless you're current, the payments are 10-20% of "discretionary income" (income – 1.5x poverty level), and you have to make those payments for 20-25 years before forgiveness (which then becomes taxable income). I'm unsure how much principal will be lost in practice, and getting to that point will take a whole lot of payment on interest. Paying a loan back over a longer period of time will result in lower payments, but generally benefits the lender more than the borrower.
.
Large scale and instant forgiveness will be politically attractive to lots of people, but would devastate the cost estimates. In a fiscally sane world it would force the end of the direct student loan program. I don't think we live in a fiscally sane world.
Mike M,
The $1.4T in student loans principal *is* a government asset. And all the money the government borrowed to loan out that $1.4T is a government liability. The government will pay back its bonds at a lower interest rate than the students. But some of the students will certainly default. The CBO DCRA assume that the current rate of default will continue, and I agree that certainly could be a bad assumption, given the continual expansion of how much is loaned. At a minimum it's optimistic.
The important point here is like how many other government programs are sold, the federal government student loan program was going to make money for the government. The Feds can borrow at artifically low rates thanks to the Federal Reserve and loan it to students at a significantly higher rate. It is like magic – except when the unintended and maybe not so unintended consequences start showing their ugly faces.
Dales
*What I mean by "net benefit to government" is that the return on their "investment" is greater than the cost of borrowing the money to spend it,*
Have you shown this? I'm pretty sure the answer is no. YOu gave number for something else (i.e. cash flow.) This isn't the right quantity to look at to find whether th government benefited nor to figure out if the gain to the government from lending is grater than the loss from borring to get the money to lend out.
Bear in mind: We ALWAYS expect the interest rate for "risky" loans or investments to be greater than for "not risky" loans for investments. That investing 101. So… to show that the government benefited, you need to account for risk factors. (But I think you haven't shown a benefit even without considering relative risk.)
It's fine for you to provide "caveats"– but you need to show that the numbers even remotely mean what you claim. (I doubt they do.)
* it's actual return *beyond* paying back the debt. I haven't yet found information on actual cash flows expected, though I think that would be useful information.*
Yeah…. well go find that useful information. Otherwise, what you are posting is non-informative.
Dale S (Comment #174151): "The $1.4T in student loans principal *is* a government asset. And all the money the government borrowed to loan out that $1.4T is a government liability."
Yes, all of the money the government borrowed is a liability, but the money owed to the government is only an asset to the extent it can be paid back. A big chunk, possibly as high as 30% of the principle, will never be paid back. And probably an even bigger fraction of the interest will never be paid, since that is surely accumulating mainly on the bad loans.
The larger problem with subsidized Federal student loans is the disconnect between cost (real) and benefit, or lack thereof…. **#**###-studies degrees are worthless economically, and so loans to enable such studies are at higher risk. So much higher interest rates are warranted for rubbish courses of studies, while the rate of interest is in fact the same.
SteveF,
Equally important, the injustice of loans aspect of loans is some, when quite young, often don't quite grasp the consequence of assuming a heavy debt they will find it very difficult to pay off. They also sometimes don't grasp that they might not graduate merely because they say "I'll work really, really hard". Will power and resolve at the beginning are great. But, as dieters know, one can still fail.
The burden is NOT a such big problem for those who go into fields where (at least if they graduate) they get jobs. But for those who naively (or whatever) made poor decisions, the life pressure is ridiculous. And really, young people should NOT be encouraged to make very poor economic decisions.
While politicians like to pose self righteously when questioning others about deception, the student loan program could very easily be categorized as a huge scam -as it has turned out. You do not hear any politicians admitting that maybe their good intentions initially have turned into a scamming of young people. And ironically a majority of those young people will no doubt vote for those same politicians and maybe for some of them having hopes that some of their loan debt will be forgiven by those politicians. Next in line after forgiveness then to feel the major brunt of the scam will be the taxpayer or future generations that have to deal with the Federal debt.
Lucia,
“…young people should NOT be encouraged to make very poor economic decisions.â€
.
Of course, but universities are actually encouraging young people to take on substantial debt to study non-sense that will never help get them a job that pays enough to justify the debt burden…. IMO the behavior of universities in student loans is nothing short of immoral (as is that of politicians!). After all, the university gets their professors of **##**#-studies nonsense funded, at the expense of naive students who will be ill prepared to get a job that pays well. Torment naive young people when they can’t pay, then ultimately stick it to the taxpayer… who ends up funding economically useless ‘education’ of social justice warriors.
The other part of this is the offshoring of low cognitive ability jobs and the influx of low skill labor with immigration that is applauded by different sectors of the knowledge class. The higher cognitive ability scam is to tell the others they must graduate their expensive colleges which will somehow magically turn them into high cognitive ability employees. This is basically a Jedi mind trick.
.
There is about zero empathy from the knowledge class for the peril this gives others, and they ironically pour heaping helpings of adulation upon themselves while they do this. Let them eat cake, or more accurately Let them mow my lawn.
Mueller: No conspiracy, no collusion, no obstruction (actually the AG had to make this last call).
.
Trump is dancing and high fiving everyone in FL. Newsrooms across the country are in mourning. Not a complete win, but enough that he can claim vindication. The media over-promised and the facts under-delivered.
There's a clip of Rachel Maddow virtually in tears because Mueller turned up empty handed! Incredible!
Yep. Here
https://www.dailywire.com/news/45022/watch-rachel-maddow-nearly-breaks-down-tears-over-amanda-prestigiacomo
Barr wrote "the president was not exonerated." You might hold off on the bubbly for a bit.
Thomas,
I don't see much significance to "not exonerated". That sounds a little bit like "we haven't proven there is no teapot orbiting the sun".
TW Fuller: "Barr wrote "the president was not exonerated." You might hold off on the bubbly for a bit."
Eric Holder played the no exoneration game with the Michael Brown case. The evidence showed Brown's dna in the police car (confirming that he was attacking the police officer), and numerous witnesses, including minority witnesses stated that Brown attacked the police officer. Yet Holder & the DOJ said that the police officer was not cleared — they just didn't have enough evidence to charge him with a crime.
You can always say a decision not to indict is not an exoneration because you can fall back on the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. However, in some cases, like Browns, the decision not to indict is in fact based upon an exoneration.
JD Ohio
My guess is Mueller's team had a lot of internal conflict with the obstruction charge so they punted, but they also knew how the AG was going to rule on that one. It does not appear there was anything in that debate that wasn't already known and likely no surprises forthcoming.
.
Pardon my French but the left really bl** th*** w** on this one. All the other investigations now have a much higher bar to make them * politically * viable. Every other sentence in liberal media today distracts with the NY porn star payoff charges and so forth, I have no idea how threatening these really are, but I do know that this a very tough uphill climb now. A very very blue city in a very blue state investigating Trump on legal technicalities won't move the meter much, except maybe at the WP and CNN.
.
Trump's chances of winning in 2020 just got much better and everyone knows it (I prefer he loses in the primary). This was always a misguided effort fueled by resentment from the Clinton loss. It just blew up in their face, best to just move on. Trump Jr: "Hey Dad, me and Flynn just had Russian agents contact us and we think it is a good idea to cooperate with them, what could go wrong?". Anything is possible but this always sounded a bit like a third grader spy story.
The 'no exoneration' is in a section on obstruction of justice, and appears to only be talking about that. Also says found no evidence linking Trump to a crime with regards to Russian election interference. Perhaps next Democrats will argue it says, "the President" so Mueller has cleared Obama of colluding with Russians.
How did Rolling Stone run the fake UVa frat rape story with this guy there?
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/russiagate-is-wmd-times-a-million
He was castigating liberal media for their reporting on this two years ago.
If there is going to be anything good that comes of this, it will depend on William Barr actually cleaning house at DOJ and the FBI. There was plenty of political influence and real conspiracy to subvert Trump's election in both organizations, and many people in both organizations should be looking for a new job (may I suggest a 'consultant' at CNN?). It is not yet clear if Barr will do that, but I fear he will not…. when he finds the rot goes too deep. A few prosecutions and jailings of the most obviously criminal might at least send a signal to the rest.
lucia (Comment #174173): "I don't see much significance to "not exonerated". That sounds a little bit like "we haven't proven there is no teapot orbiting the sun"."
Yep.
The "not exonerated" applies only to obstruction of justice. Saying that just seems mean spirited. There can have been no obstruction since:
(1) There was nothing to obstruct since there was no criminal activity.
(2) Trump never actually did anything to obstruct the investigation.
(3) The President can not obstruct justice.
Mike M,
"Saying that just seems mean spirited."
.
I think it is fair to say the entire investigation, starting in 2016, was and is nothing more than mean spirited politics. Which is the only kind of politics I have seen practiced on the left since Bush the second won his first election.
MikeM,
Your point (1) seems to be what Barr is hanging his hat on. The issue is to be obstruction, there needs to be a corrupt motive. So, for example: Trump fires Comey. Ok. He's allowed to do that. But *why* did he fire him? Logically it can't have been to prevent Comey from proving Trump colluded with Russia because Trump did not collude with Rusia. Trump Jr. also did not collude with Russia. And as icky as some Trump associates are, they also did not collude with Russia.
So, to make the firing "obstruction of justice" we need to find a crime that Comey might have been investigating that Trump wanted to cover up for some reason and which Trump thought he could cover up by firing Comey specifically. (And it has to be Comey investigating that. Firing Comey isn't going to become obstruction of "Joe Sixpack" in some other agency somewhere is investigating a crime. )
Yeah… maybe Trump is not "cleared" of obstructing. Perhaps, deep in his heart of hearts he was worried Trump Jr. did do something that was going to show up and protecting his son was the reason. Or… more likely… not. Trump strikes me as more the kid who would honestly believe his *family*.
Comey deserved to be fired; Trump fired him. Trump also didn't like him at that poitn… yada… yada… Drama. Strum and Drang. No obstruction.
The reaction from the usual suspects is the usual suspected things. "This is just the beginning", "Barr is biased", "I hate Trump and this doesn't matter", "This is what happens with white supremacy (I kid you not, see Charles Blow)", long itemized lists of Trump's greatest hits, "We were wrong on this all along and we need to take a hard look at our own behavior".
.
I made up that last one, although the Taibbi article linked above does make a good case for why that might be a good idea.
.
People stopped paying attention to the Mueller Report a year ago, and this will be barely noted by most of them as it was the expected result all along. The AG will drag his feet releasing the report citing legal technicalities, there will be lawsuits, it will be months or years.
.
Meanwhile a full level 10 temper tantrum will be shamelessly shown in the short term, and then back to the usual programming, albeit with a less enthusiastic audience. Investigation fatigue has set in for everyone but OCD political junkies.
.
I have a feeling the 2020 bumper sticker will be "No Collusion", he isn't going to let anyone forget about this. The dynamic here where Trump lashes out and his opponents overplay their hand trying to take him down makes everyone look bad. Only one side claims to have the moral high ground, and they couldn't be more wrong to an outside observer.
There is also the further fact that justice was never actually obstructed. Mueller wasn't fired, he completed his report, he will no doubt claim that he finished without any meaningful interference. Comey may have been fired but he proceeded to (shamefully) write tell-all books and tell anyone everything he knew and everything he suspected on cable news and Twitter. Jailing Comey might have been obstruction. So the charge should be "incompetent attempted obstruction of justice".
.
This charge will go nowhere.
.
The only person who looks good coming out of this is Mueller, just wait until the sycophantic media turns on him. They are probably searching his high school yearbooks as we speak.
Tom,
That justice was not obstructed will make some difference to public opinion. (Possibly not much since we have the whole "usual suspects" thinking.) But it doesn't make much of a difference legally. The attempt at obstruction is the crime.
Mind you, it's sort of easier to establish that an attempt was made when the act actually results in obstruction. As it stands one can ask: *Could* firing Comey have actually thrown any inconvenience or difficulty in the way of Mueller's investigation?
Mueller says he didn't experience interference, so it would seem the answer to that is firing Comey wasn't an act that *could* obstruct justice. It may have made Comey and friends of Comey grumpy or unhappy, but that's not obstructing justice.
If the act *can't* possibly result in obstructing justice, it's hard to see how it's motive was obstructing justice. (Well.. unless we go with "naivtee" or "stupidity" on the part of the person attempting to obstruct.)
Tom Scharf,
" They are probably searching his high school yearbooks as we speak."
.
IIRC, Mueller has a history of being far *too* aggressive in his prosecutions, and ended up charging people who were plainly innocent. He has a reputation as a prosecutorial hard-a$$. Short of finding a woman who will swear Mueller raped her, multiple times (at undisclosed locations!) when both were in high school, bringing up Mueller's history seems not a smart move. Then there is his hiring of all attack-dog democrats for his staff… hard to see how anyone can claim those folks rolled over for Trump or anyone associated with Trump.
.
What I think will happen is Democrats in the House will quickly forget the Mueller investigation ever happened, and demand Trumps tax returns for the last 30 years. When he refuses, they will say "Ha! Just as we said, he is a criminal!", then carry on about him being a criminal until the 2020 election.
Right, but we are officially past the legal interpretation. There is lots of talk about how impeachment standards are different than legal standards, but in this case attempted impeachment on a non-obstruction of a non-crime works in Trumps favor politically.
.
One can also ask "If a sane person wanted to obstruct justice, how would they do it?". The answer is fire Mueller and shut down the witch hunt. No doubt Trump considered this about a 1000 times, but that wasn't politically viable. Ironically this was probably because he had faith Mueller would not find anything.
Lucia, DOJ does not list FBI investigations as something that can be obstructed.
Besides that, it would be hard for firing Comey to obstruct the Mueller investigation, because Mueller was appointed as a result of firing Comey and his subsequent memo release.
MikeM, what do you mean by "The President can not obstruct justice." Bill Clinton was impeached for obstruction of justice, and Nixon was about to be before he resigned.
This is kind of strange, here we have CBS interviewing one of Trump's personal lawyers. I am so used to the media parading the biggest clowns on the right they can find or brain dead panels yelling at each other that this was shocking. This guy is obviously competent and understands the issues. Where did he come from? Better not ask him back on the air, ha ha.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=habnT4ZVP88
MikeN (Comment #174187): "what do you mean by "The President can not obstruct justice." Bill Clinton was impeached for obstruction of justice, and Nixon was about to be before he resigned"
I am taking Alan Dershowitz's word on that (as well as other legal experts). I think I misstated that. The President can not obstruct justice by executing his proper powers; e.g, firing Comey. I suppose that if he destroyed evidence or hired thugs to threaten prosecutors, then that would be obstruction.
Of course, that which never happened with regard to Nixon is irrelevant, as is the blatantly political action against Clinton
MikeN,
Whoops on timeline for Mueller appointment…. 🙁
MikeM
*The President can not obstruct justice by executing his proper powers; e.g, firing Comey. *
Yes. I think that's the claim. The argument in favor has some merit. Whether or not it's true… dunno.
Lucia, #174153,
I have not given any number for actual cash flows, because I haven't *found* any numbers for actual cash flows. I agree that would be useful information, but I disagree that without that information the numbers we do have are valueless. The cost of loans made in 2019 is determined by how much they bring back (and when) in future years, not how much *past* loans bring in during 2019. That's the heart of the debate between FCRA and Fair Value approach, and if you're interested in that issue, I urge you to read the link I gave above to the GAO report contrasting the two approaches:
https://www.gao.gov/assets/680/674905.pdf
.
This is literally in the first paragraph of the report: "The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (FCRA) requires agencies to estimate the cost to the government of extending or guaranteeing credit. This cost, referred to as subsidy cost, equals the net present value of estimated cash flows from the government (e.g., loan disbursements and claim payments to lenders) minus estimated cash flows to the government (e.g., loan repayments, interest payments, fees, and recoveries on defaulted loans) over the life of the loan, excluding administrative costs. Discount rates that reflect the federal government’s cost of financing are used to determine the net present value of estimated cash flows. Agencies generally update—or reestimate—subsidy costs annually to reflect both actual loan performance and changes in expected future loan performance."
.
It's all there — present value, discount rates, defaulted loans. There's no evidence at all that the government forgot something that would make their numbers meaningless. The FCRA numbers are not, in any sense, my numbers. They are the government's numbers, and it represents *their* best attempt to estimate the present value of the profit they expect to make, given the cost of borrowing the money they loaned out. If their estimate is correct (and I'll certainly agree that it may not be) then the government will "make money" off the student loans they are disbursing. I don't think describing that outcome, if it happens as projected, as a "benefit to government" is unsupported.
.
The fair value approach doesn't actually change the expected cash flows at all. Instead its claim is that the downside risk's existence (not its expected value) demands a larger discount rate — this would certainly be true in the real world, where it's not just the expected return on investment that matters, but also what return you *could* have gotten on the investment elsewhere with less risk. Private lenders handing out as much capital as the government does would never be content with such a modest expected return, it might return an accounting profit but not an economic profit.
.
That is, as you said, Investing 101. But the government doesn't have money of its own, only money it seizes or borrows from the people. Even if the government made an economic profit off an "investment", that would not justify it — I'd rather that money be left in the private sector for it to generate profits where the market directs it, not politicians. For budgeting purposes, just estimating the present value of the expected cash flows based on the cost of borrowing seems reasonable, because that's the rate the government will *actually pay* on those bonds.
I fully agree with all of you that the government giving direct loans for worthless (in the market) degrees is a terrible, terrible idea. It's bad for government (taxpayers) when they don't get the loan paid back, it's bad for the debtor who even under debt-forgiveness programs can have a crushing burden. The only one it's good for is the colleges and universities, who have collectively increased their tuition as the funds available have risen. If the educational establishment was shouldering some of the risk instead of just reaping the benefits, perhaps they would do more to keep students from wasting their money.
.
I also see social danger in a system where the educational establishment is utterly dependent on a single source to keep the money tree alive, this gives the government a huge whip hand to enforce whatever behavior they want, and I don't trust them with it. What happens when the choice is between going out of business, or adopting the administration-of-the-day's view on what constitutes due process for students?
MikeM: "MikeN (Comment #174187): "what do you mean by "The President can not obstruct justice." Bill Clinton was impeached for obstruction of justice, and Nixon was about to be before he resigned"
JD Response: Congress impeached (charged) Clinton with obstruction of justice. However, Congress' opinion has no legal substance or credence and is just an action by Congress that may or may not be legal. (Just as laws passed by Congress are sometimes found to be unconstitutional)
MikeM: "I am taking Alan Dershowitz's word on that (as well as other legal experts). I think I misstated that. The President can not obstruct justice by executing his proper powers; e.g, firing Comey. I suppose that if he destroyed evidence or hired thugs to threaten prosecutors, then that would be obstruction."
…..
I believe Dershowitz is right and that there is no serious reason to even be discussing potential obstruction of justice by Trump.
Here is what a former law clerk to liberal Justice Blackmun (and now a professor, Vikram Amar) had to say during Obama presidency:
"The power to prosecute or not does not rest with the FBI, or the "career prosecutors" in the DOJ …, or even the attorney general of the United States. It rests with the president and the president only. He is the one in whom Article II of the Constitution vests "the executive authority" (of which criminal prosecution is a key component). He is the one the Constitution charges to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." He is the one who can render moot any pending or future federal prosecutions (even prior to indictment—more on that later) by pardoning individuals. And he is also the one who can declassify documents (in a world of overclassification that tends to sweep in things already in the public domain), essentially rendering innocent conduct that may before have been criminal. He controls both classification and criminal prosecution, the two powers central to the Clinton email incident." https://verdict.justia.com/2016/07/15/three-important-constitutional-lessons-take-fbi-director-comeys-statements-hillary-clintons-email-management
….
This makes perfect sense to me. Also, if Obama, under the guise of prosecutorial discretion can totally up end immigration law for so-called dreamers, Trump has a very good argument that he, as a matter of policy, can prevent prosecutions which he considers to be bad policy. On the other hand, if Trump is truly being corrupt, the remedy is impeachment, not obstruction of justice charges for using the well-known power not to prosecute.
JD Ohio
Trump must be having a good old time. Michael Avenatti, who represented Stormy Daniels and appeared on CNN / MSNBC over a 100 times just got arrested for trying to extort $20M from Nike. His co-conspirator Mark Geragos, a longtime CNN analyst and who currently represents Smollett, was just fired by CNN.
.
I'm sure we can all expect Trump to handle this with grace and class.
DaleS,
Bear in mind: not all of the rise in university costs is due to their raising costs merely because they can. Regulatory burdens for universities (and businesses) have increased. So… cost.
Lucia, (#174196)
Agreed. I've also heard but have not verified that states take advantage of federal largesse by cutting back on their own funding. Tuition has increased more at public universities than private ones in percentage terms. But as you note regulatory burdens have increased over time for all business, not just universities, and tuition increases have been well beyond inflation. Has there been an unusual amount of regulatory cost directed at education?
.
There's an interesting chart from National Center for Education Statistics that combines annual tuition, fees, room and board costs, both in current dollars and adjusted for inflation, showing 85-86, 95-96, and all years between 00-01 and 15-16 inclusive:
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=76
.
Breaking it down (with 2015-6 dollars) here's the increases since 85-86:
Public 2 year: $6527 to $9,939
Public 4 year: $8449 to $19,189
Private 2 year: $14,259 to $24,637
Private 4 year: $20,207 to $39,256
.
From that it looks like the public schools haven't been *that* different for all costs in percentage terms, and increased far less in absolute terms. More striking to me is the huge difference in increase between the 2-year schools and the 4 year schools. In real terms it costs over $3000 more for a public JC to educate a student, but costs over $10000 more for a public 4-year to educate a student. In the private sector the (much fewer) 2-year schools went up a bit over $10K while the 4-year went up $19K. I wonder which actual costs or incentives are driving this disparity.
.
Maybe online training will be disruptive. One tiny portion of college costs has already been disrupted by online textbooks; the full cost of brand new textbooks I think might be a little higher in real terms than it was a generation ago, but my kids in college are able to get used books off Amazon more frequently and cheaper (in real terms and sometimes even absolute terms) than I was able to in my day.
Trump vs:
WP, NYT (won the Pulitzer Prize for their Russia coverage)
James Comey
John Brennan (today says he may have had bad info)
Michael Hayden
Andrew McCabe
Leon Panetta
CNN, MSNBC
FBI, CIA, NSA
The Clinton Machine
Access Hollywood
The Dossier
The Washington Establishment
Hollywood
Late Night Television, et. al.
Every politician in the western hemisphere
and countless others.
Are any of these opposing forces better off now for taking on Trump? It's shocking how impotent and incompetent these forces have turned out to be. I lost confidence in the establishment about 10 years ago, but this just reinforces that feeling. For those who voted for Trump just to annoy the establishment he has delivered in that aspect.
This is like a low budget Rodney Dangerfield goes to Washington movie. What is the common theme? Everyone (1) disrespects him and (2) underestimates him. #1 is understandable, but #2 is the Achilles Heel of his opponents.
Nobody is better off for this experience. The politics of personal destruction has gone nuclear, time to disarm.
All charges dropped in Smollett case, that is an interesting development. Unclear what this means.
.
"The 36-year-old reached a deferred prosecution deal that will wipe out the charges, though he will forfeit the $10,000 he posted for bond."
Tom Scharf, I saw a claim the video of meeting with Kim in Vietnam shows Trump can speak Korean.
There is an ongoing argument between the Spygate bloggers of whether Mueller and Rosenstein are black hats or white hats.
White hat argument is that Trump knows what he is up against, and appointed Rosenstein to put a stop to it. Rosenstein started by firing Comey, and when he saw that McCabe was talking about 25th Amendment and had started an investigation into Trump, he appointed Mueller to take the investigation away from McCabe. Mueller and Rosenstein met with Trump the day before the appointment, publicly stated to be an interview for head of the FBI, even though Mueller had already exceeded the 10 year term limit.
Black hat argument is that Rosenstein is conspiring against Trump with Mueller, timing indictments to do damage, and Mueller is just keeping up a cloud and searching for anything with which to impeach Trump.
After charges were dropped, Smollett vowed to "find the real perpetrators."
Attorney General Barr noted that Smollett was "not exonerated".
OK, those were both tongue-in-cheek. Seriously, I can understand not prosecuting — I think he is unlikely to repeat such a crime. But I don't understand not putting even a misdemeanor on his record, nor a fine beyond the $10K bail forfeiture. Nor allowing him to claim his innocence and victimhood. [Unless, of course, there really is evidence that he was attacked.]
From his attorneys: “Today, all criminal charges against Jussie Smollett were dropped and his record has been wiped clean of the filing of this tragic complaint against him. Jussie was attacked by two people he was unable to identify on January 29th. He was a victim who was vilified and made to appear as a perpetrator as a result of false and inappropriate remarks made to the public causing an inappropriate rush to judgment. Jussie and many others were hurt by these unfair and unwarranted actions.
“This entire situation is a reminder that there should never be an attempt to prove a case in the court of public opinion. That is wrong. It is a reminder that a victim, in this case Jussie, deserves dignity and respect. Dismissal of charges against the victim in this case was the only result. Jussie is relieved to have this situation behind him and is very much looking forward to getting back to focusing on his family, friends and career.â€
Are the feds looking into the letter sent to him?
Deferred prosecution is not an "exoneration", ha ha.
"A deferred prosecution agreement (DPA), which is very similar to a non-prosecution agreement (NPA), is a voluntary alternative to adjudication in which a prosecutor agrees to grant amnesty in exchange for the defendant agreeing to fulfill certain requirements."
.
Smollett's lawyer got him a good deal which might be what they normally do in those type of cases that aren't highly publicized. If this is the case it would be proper I think. The optics are not good. Faking hate crimes ought to be on the same level as actual hate crimes. I think if I was the prosecutor I would have set a condition that Smollett can't go out and proclaim his innocence and pretend he is the victim.
His lawyers say, "A victim, in this case Jussie, deserves dignity and respect". But apparently does not deserve his $10K bail back. (Though that's money well spent for getting the record sealed, I think.)
.
The Chicago PD complained about the prosecutor's office before this happened, wonder how well they'll take this development.
https://abc7chicago.com/police-union-accuses-kim-foxx-of-interfering-in-jussie-smollett-investigation/5203862/
It is sort of interesting.
Here:https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/26/entertainment/jussie-smollett-charges-dropped/index.html
"Smollett's attorney: We believe the brothers attacked him
On Tuesday, Smollett attorney Patricia Brown Holmes said it's her position that the brothers — who she said were Smollett's fitness trainers — were Smollett's attackers.
"The two brothers have said that they attacked him," she said. "(But) we don't want to try them in the press any more than" Smollett wanted to be, she said."
.
It doesn't look like the basic facts of what went down were or are disputed.
Hah! Nothing to see here.
https://chicago.suntimes.com/entertainment/empire-jussie-smollett-emergency-court-hearing/
.
Magats, who became the final decision maker on the case after State’s Attorney Kim Foxx recused herself in mid-February, said prosecutors made the decision to drop the charges against Smollett under the same criteria they would any other defendant.
“It’s a nonviolent crime. He has no felony criminal background. If you start looking at the disposition in the case, in every case you need to look at the facts and circumstances of the case, and the defendant’s background.â€
Magats noted that while there was no court-ordered community service, Smollett had been active in the community even after he was charged. Sealing records as part of deferred prosecution is common, Magats said.
"
" Unclear what this means."
.
It means he got away with it, with very little negative consequences. I am sure he will never admit he made up the whole story.
.
It also means the politicians and prosecutors in Chicago are more worried about protecting their sorry butts from unhappy voters than prosecuting criminals.
I would think that in typical cases, instead of dropping charges, prosecutors would have the defendant plead guilty.
Mueller specified that he was not exonerating Trump on obstruction of justice. As pointed out, prosecutors don't exonerate, they either think they have enough evidence or find the evidence insufficient.
By saying that he was not exonerating Trump on obstruction of justice, he is essentially exonerating on collusion.
mark,
From the article you linked: “There is no deferred prosecution . . . The state dismissed the charges,†[Smollett's lawyer] Holmes said.
On the other hand, Magats said (or least implied) there was deferred prosecution. Perhaps the state was too eager to let him off.
By contrast, the deal offered to Bob Kraft in Florida was a deferred prosecution, including the requirement that Kraft stipulate that he would have been found guilty at trial. (To my knowledge, Kraft has not accepted.)
Harold,
Yep, here:
Magats noted that while there was no court-ordered community service, Smollett had been active in the community even after he was charged. Sealing records as part of deferred prosecution is common, Magats said.
.
Rahm Emmanuel said this?!?:
“This is without a doubt a whitewash of justice, and sends a clear message that if you’re in a position of influence and power, you’ll get treated one way, other people will be treated another way,†Emanuel said. “There is no accountability in the system. It is wrong, full stop.â€"
Lord. He was relatively high up on my list of suspects for causing the prosecutor to drop the case. He still might be high on that list, actually, I gotta think about it. I wouldn't put it past him.
I'm curious what Smollett had been doing that was taken as being "active in the community". And maybe it's just me, but I don't see being active in a community as the same as serving a community.
DaleS
* Has there been an unusual amount of regulatory cost directed at education?*
I don't know the relative increase in regulatory burdens. I'm pretty sure Obama's interpretation of Title IX created more administrative tasks. (And now. to correct that may create even more! Depends on how they do that.)
*Maybe online training will be disruptive.*
So far it seems no. People all thought it would be a decade a go, but if it will be it's panning out s_l_o_w_l_y.
There are all sorts of reasons why online may be no more promising than old by-mail correspondence course learning used to be. These could have to do with human motivation and also students needed to actually clear space in their schedules. The fact of "convenience" as in 'you can fit it into your busy schedule while still working and having a family', in and of itself means people who try will often discover their boss still heaped work on them…. and… well things just slipped.
Off the top of my head added expenses over the last few decades ago would be Title IX , Clery , increased financial aid reporting, accessibility, and technology.
Rahm Emmanuel isn't running for reelection, obviously. No way those words leave his mouth if he was.
I don't think this will end up being a win for Smollett, his overriding concern is his career, and this just makes him persona non grata for even longer. Perhaps he can weasel out of not being fired contractually, and the word weasel seems to apply here in more ways than one.
Tom Scharf,
Smollett may end up smelling like a rose. From https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/26/entertainment/jussie-smollett-charges-dropped/index.html :
The studio and network behind the television drama "Empire" said it was "gratified" that the charges against the actor have been dropped.
"Jussie Smollett has always maintained his innocence and we are gratified that all charges against him have been dismissed," Chris Alexander, a spokesperson for 20th Century Fox Television and the Fox network, said in a statement to CNN on Tuesday.
Tom,
The two Dem mayoral candidates in the runnoff are asking questions….
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/elections/ct-met-chicago-mayors-race-jussie-smollett-20190326-story.html
Lightfoot seems to be a bit more vocal than Preckwinkle.
“I think the public has to have answers as to why these charges were dismissed, what the underlying basis was, particularly in light of the allegations that were made by the state’s attorney at the time the charges were first announced that looked like they had a very airtight case against Smollett for faking a hate crime,†Lightfoot said during a Fox 32 mayoral debate taping.
Preckwinkle said she doesn’t know specifics on the prosecutors’ decision.
Dems largely vote 'present' on GND.
.
In my view, no clearer statement could have been made regarding the lack of resolve, commitment, dedication and courage with respect to this issue.
.
Honestly, it set my mind at ease.
Not that I would infer that Chicago is corrupt, but the fix appeared to be in here. The prosecutor's office was pretty vague about the entire affair, when they obviously should have anticipated a firestorm. This looks pretty bad, and it might get worse if they weren't careful covering their tracks. Another embarrassment to Chicago and the entire Hate Crime Industrial Complex.
Mark,
It looks like so far the MSM isn't even covering the GND vote beside Fox (of course). The vote is a political stunt but so was the bill itself. If the MSM is going to produce a bunch of fawning coverage of the GND, they should also cover the "minor" issue that not a single Democrat voted for it when the bill was put up for a vote.
Re Smollet, it sounds like the police are furious. The union is trying to get the feds to pick up the case
My husband's theory is Foxx did something that is a problem. She recused… but maybe not soon enough. They are protecting her.
This is rampant speculation. . .
What type of punishment were people expecting prosecutors to seek for Jussie?
There was speculation that the Smollett case was tied in to Democrat presidential candidates putting legislation on race hatred through. Very coincidental.
Perhaps pressure from higher up brought to bear.
While foolish and ill conceived I did hope that he might have been found guilty but given a caution only. This will be better for him down the track of course having no charge laid.
Mitch McConnell tweeted an amusing video, picked up by twitchy. It shows prominent senators speaking about GND/climate and puts up a graphic about their "present" vote. Chuck Schumer and Kamala Harris are shown referring to it as an "existential threat". I'd like to see climate scientists spend some time correcting these anti-science deniers, the impact literature doesn't support that at all.
.
The vote only worked as a stunt because Democratic senators didn't really support the GND. If they were serious about the GND, and thought it was a winning campaign issue, they'd be more than happy about putting the stark division between parties on display. I'm sure the Republicans in the house would be more than happy to see the GND put up for a vote in the house as well.
angech (#174225)
If Smollett got off without jail time, but clearly acknowledged his guilt and paid for ALL investigatory expenses, that'd be a lot easier to take. Getting off for $10k and 16 hours of work for Jesse Jackson, while still being allowed to lie about his innocence, is outrageous. He deliberately tried to stoke hatred and intolerance for his own benefit, and he's *still* doing it.
.
Of course, his claim of innocence amounts to a claim that the brothers beat him up without his consent. I hope they sue for big money.
Smollett is *still* behaving stupidly. If he'd stuck to some variant of 'no comment' after being let off the hook, that would have flown a little better. Loudly proclaiming his innocence when the DA believes it has a strong case is rather rubbing everybody's nose in it.
MikeN,
I wanted him to be convicted and given *some* punishment.
DaleS: "If Smollett got off without jail time, but clearly acknowledged his guilt and paid for ALL investigatory expenses, that'd be a lot easier to take."
Exactly. I wonder how much the investigation cost, perhaps $100K? [Wild stab based on $100/hour, 1000 hours. I think the police narrowed it down rather quickly.] But there really should have been an admission of guilt. Felony conviction seems a bit much to me, as does jail time.
Plead it down to a misdemeanor with a suspended sentence and a fine. That seems appropriate to me.
Dale S (Comment #174228): "If Smollett got off without jail time, but clearly acknowledged his guilt and paid for ALL investigatory expenses, that'd be a lot easier to take. Getting off for $10k and 16 hours of work for Jesse Jackson, while still being allowed to lie about his innocence, is outrageous. He deliberately tried to stoke hatred and intolerance for his own benefit, and he's *still* doing it."
Right. Smollett told a hideous lie that is very damaging to society. That lie is being allowed to stand. I think that the people behind letting Smollett off *want* the lie to stand. Disgraceful.
The big issue here is not the penalty for the lie; it is the lie itself.
That said, I'd be perfectly happy to see Smollett go to prison. What he did is 100 times worse than anything that Manafort or Kelly or Stone did.
.
Dale S: "Of course, his claim of innocence amounts to a claim that the brothers beat him up without his consent. I hope they sue for big money."
🙂
I'm also bothered by his employers. According to Vox:
“Jussie Smollett has always maintained his innocence,†read the statement, issued by 20th Century Fox Television and Fox Entertainment, “and we are gratified on his behalf that all charges against him have been dismissed.â€
.
Shouldn't they be outraged that poor innocent Jussie got his $10K bond stolen? I can understand them being *privately* pleased by this turn of events, lots of free publicity for their show without any consequences for their star. But surely they aren't stupid enough to believe that Jussie's claims of innocence and the charges being dismissed are actually related.
This wasn't a "go to jail" type of crime. It was an "offer no deal and go to trial unless he pleads guilty" crime though. The entire dropped charges affair really reeks of something, I'm just not sure what. This deal was made and completed 18 days after indictment which is beyond light speed in the justice system. The prosecutor's words are confusing. Nobody knew it was happening until Smollett's publicist notified the media the hearing was already happening.
.
This might end up being another Michael Mann incident, somebody is clearly in the wrong but avoids punishment, declares themselves vindicated, and is then treated as a hero. If I was Smollett I wouldn't walk down any dark alleys alone in real MAGA country anytime soon, ha ha.
I think this may end up with an FBI corruption charge against the prosecutor.
The judge agreed to have the case sealed. Chicago Police responded by publishing their investigative file, which I thought was illegal.
https://www.cwbchicago.com/2019/03/exclusive-chicago-police-departments.html
FOIA request — but dated yesterday, so I'm not sure how it gets around the whole sealed thing. Prompt service.
lucia (Comment #174223)
It might be more than rampant speculation.
https://pagesix.com/2019/03/27/kim-foxx-did-not-formally-recuse-herself-from-jussie-smollett-case-prosecutors/
"Top aide Robert Foley released a separate statement, saying Foxx “had conversations with a family member of Jussie Smollett about the incident and their concerns and facilitated a connection to the Chicago Police Department, who were investigating the incident.â€
But Ellis clarified that Foxx’s recusal “was a colloquial use of the term rather than in its legal sense.â€
“Instead, in an abundance of caution, Fox informally separated herself from the decision-making over the case and left it to her Assistants, as happens in 99.9% of all cases handled by the Office,†Ellis said.
The case was then passed over to First Assistant State’s Attorney Joe Magats."
https://www.tmz.com/2019/03/26/kim-foxx-jussie-smollett-case-recuse-charges-dropped/
"The initial correspondence started when Michelle Obama's former chief of staff, Tina Tchen, emailed Foxx to say that she was reaching out on behalf of Jussie's family to express "concerns" they had with how the investigation at that point was being handled.
Jussie had not been charged with a crime yet, but it's believed Chicago PD was already doubting his story and leaking info to the press pushing that narrative.
Foxx responded to Tchen on Feb. 1, saying … "Spoke to Superintendent Johnson. I convinced him to Reach out to FBI to ask that they take over the investigation. He is reaching out now and will get back to me shortly."
The same day, an unnamed relative of Jussie's texted Foxx herself, as well, and Foxx said she was working on getting the case sent over to the FBI. The relative replied, "Omg this would a huge victory." Foxx then responded, "I make no guarantees, but I'm trying."
The way the situation has developed this gets the political machine in Chicago off the hook and at the same time allows those that need to look offended by these machine politics to play out that act.
Justice not so much. Politics as always a lot.
Why would getting the case transferred to the FBI be a big win?
Perhaps they were hoping that agent Mulder would find his story plausible. Seriously, I have no idea, other than CPD was obviously already Jussie-skeptical. I wonder when Supt. Johnson reached out to the FBI, if he asked them to take over, or for them to check out the hate mail.
Maybe they thought the FBI would lose interest?
Tom,
I'm speculating wildly; don't really know. The wikipedia article on the 'New Black Panthers voter intimidation case of 2008' seemed to suggest that there are those at the federal level who do not believe laws originally intended to protect minorities should be used to prosecute minorities. It might be that.
It doesn't quite logically follow, because hoaxing a hate crime isn't really the same as committing a hate crime. Still, maybe the thinking was that the feds would go easy on an intersectional minority like Smollett.
Has the crisis on the border been in the news where you guys are? It has been regular front page news in Albuquerque.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/southern-poverty-declares-war-on-trump-with-michelle-obama-aides-help
"The Southern Poverty Law Center is fundraising for a wide-ranging war on President Trump, and has enlisted a top aide to former first lady Michelle Obama who played a key role in the dropping of felony charges against “Empire†actor Jussie Smollett.
Trump’s name was used five times in a fundraising memo from Bryan Fair, chairman of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s board of directors.
“Given the rising tide of hate and given the callousness of the Trump administration, our work is as critical as ever. I can assure you that we will continue to work as hard as we can to combatthe forces of hate and bigotry and to seek justice for the most marginalized people in our country,†he wrote in the memo provided to Secrets and subsequently posted on the center’s webpage."
“We’ve just launched an initiative with Tina Tchen — a former chief of staff for Michelle Obama and one of the leading voices behind the Times UP Legal Defense Fund — to advise us on workplace culture issues."
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) was started some years ago by suing KKK organizations out of existence (and that was a good thing) but has become over the years a left wing association that has drawn in many donations by attempting to show a growing existence and threat of rightwing hate groups. It appears that the SPLC might well be motivated to exaggerate that effect in order to keep donations coming in. SPLC designated the organization that defended the baker who would not bake a wedding cake for a gay couple as a hate group. Of course, making the Trump connection would be an excellent strategy on their part in obtaining donations from Trump haters.
The SPLC might well want to make the Smollett case go away as fast as possible since it might call attention to cases where a rightwing hate crime was staged.
Mike,
Nope.
SPLC has had a history of internal racism and sexual harassment complaints that until recently have been swept under the rug. Those are the internal workplace culture issues Chen was hired to address.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/25/us/morris-dees-leaves-splc.html
The SPLC is indistinguishable from the DNC lately. They have $475M in the bank and their headquarters is now called "The Poverty Palace", ha ha. Dees was accused of "touching someone's shoulder" and overheard saying "I like chocolate" (which he denies!). Hopefully there was more to the story than that.
.
The SPLC is going down the road of knowing who their customers are and monetizing it. But for their organization just because politicizing it might help revenue doesn't mean it is the proper thing to do for their long term viability. They are losing credibility pretty quickly.
.
The NAACP is under the same pressure, they are full of social justice warriors who demand that no help be given to people who aren't openly progressive.
.
This is where the CEO's and boards of these organizations have to step in and read the riot act to everyone what their organizations are for.
East Texas is where all the patent trolls like to have their trials. After looking at this map, where would one want to have trials against Monsanto and Roundup?
https://www.ecowatch.com/organic-farming-per-acre-2076239213.html
.
Two SF juries have handed out $80M verdicts on the "fact" that Roundup causes cancer. I have not looked at the data but just color me very skeptical that this conclusion can be made by a jury of our peers. Monsanto got bought by Bayer and the current estimate is this is going cost them at least $5B before it is over. Another legal gold rush reminiscent of the cancer clusters of the 1970's. I have nothing against organic food, people can eat what they want, but the story that it is more healthy is dubious at best. Keep your morals away from my food.
A national chain moved a location a few miles just to avoid being sued in that jurisdiction. I forget which one it was.
Jussie Smollett has been nominated for an NAACP Image award:
https://variety.com/2019/scene/news/naacp-image-awards-host-anthony-anderson-hopes-jussie-smollett-wins-1203174190/
I'd like to note that I don't really have a problem with Smollett exactly. I think he's probably guilty, and in his shoes I'd have held my tongue [instead of] proclaiming my innocence, but really my problem is with the people who let him off the hook without condition.
.
I'd have had a minimum condition that he admit to the crime and express some remorse or regret for his actions. Without an element of contrition I see no value in leniency, on the contrary; the unrepentant criminal has confirmed he can get away with it. That's not showing Smollett mercy, that's showing him weakness.
.
Kim Foxx is a fool at best, as far as I'm concerned.
Mark–
Yes. It's the people who let Smollett off who are the problem.
Apparently, Smollett’s lawyer is claiming the reason Smollett thought his attacker’s were white is that they could have been using whiteface. Really scraping the bottom of the barrel now.
The police have Jussie on camera dropping off the brothers to buy their mugging supplies, and on camera driving them to Irving Park & Lake Shore prior to the mugging.
They also have some text messages, but these were not released, as the judge ruled that the police are covered by his order sealing the case, and nothing more can be released.
I think he was nominated for the NAACP award before he was arrested. Some people were trying to get it withdrawn. Let's just say if he wins it, that would have a lot more to say about the people giving the award than Smollett.
Tom Scharf,
I'm sure you're correct about the timing. Still, that there are persons hoping he'll win, obviously still holding him in high regard, baffles me.
In other news, Chicago is asking Smollett for $130K reimbursement. Smollett's lawyer is asking for an apology from the mayor and police chief.
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/jussie-smollets-attorney-demands-apology-from-mayor-police-chief-jussie-has-paid-enough
Pass the popcorn, please.
This prediction is as certain as a catastrophic climate impact prediction is to a climate activist:
.
When the report is released there will be hyperventilating hysteria (the double hy) from the usual suspects as they run to the fainting couches because of X,Y, and Z. It is irrelevant which points are selected, they will be the 3 "worst" ones regardless of actual importance. Barr's conclusion was not just biased, it was criminal and he should be impeached. Mueller should never have been trusted and probably has dementia. We need to have all supporting documents for the 400 page report or else there is obviously a cover-up. NY will open up a state criminal investigation into the findings Mueller didn't follow up on for reasons that that can only be attributed to another Russian fix. It is reported Mueller once watched a movie with Russians in it, so …. The redactions are obviously hiding a smoking gun, a team of academics will use image analysis to get the actual text and it reads "I DJT am a Russian spy". A footnote will say this reading of a black blob was a partial judgment call but is supported by a signed letter from 10,000 professors who think the judgment is definitely true. A new special counsel is needed to re-investigate the special counsel's report so a "fair" judgment can be made. Rachel Maddow will be nominated for that task.
.
The left is throwing up all kinds of stuff against the wall now to see what sticks the best. The favorite appears to be that there was actual collusion, the correct definition of the word just needs to be used. I find it all highly entertaining.
So if Jussie never actually pleaded to anything, and his 15 indictments were disappeared without any action or consent on his part, and are considered to not legally exist anymore — what's stopping him from being re-indicted? If a prosecutor drops charges after indictment, does that immunize him from any further prosecution on that charge? I'm not sure when double jeopardy kicks in.
.
With all the evidence they have, could the police dredge up another few felonies?
.
I'll grant that state's attorney/judge showering absolution on an unrepentant Smollett is more of a problem than Jussie claiming innocence. But I still blame Jussie for looking his gift horse in the mouth. Really, if he were *trying* to get the folks who helped him out in trouble, I can't imagine how he could possibly do more than he done. Sue the city for defaming him? Go for it, Jussie. I'm sure that will turn out well for you.
Illinois Prosecutor Bar Association statement:
http://www.ilpba.org/announcements/7249825
Blistering, but I wondered about this statement:
.
"For seals not subject to Section 5.2(g)(2), the process employed in this case by the State’s Attorney effectively denied law enforcement agencies of legally required Notice (See 20 ILCS 2630/5.2(d)(4)) and the legal opportunity to object to the sealing of the file."
.
So if the State's Attorney's action wasn't just unethical but also ignored "legally required" duties, what would be the recourse? Could it be unsealed?
Dale S (Comment #174261): "what's stopping him from being re-indicted? If a prosecutor drops charges after indictment, does that immunize him from any further prosecution on that charge? I'm not sure when double jeopardy kicks in."
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/When+Jeopardy+Attaches
"The U.S. Supreme Court has held that jeopardy attaches during a jury trial when the jury is empanelled. In criminal cases tried by a judge without a jury, jeopardy attaches when the first witness is sworn."
So it seems that jeopardy did not attach in the Smollett case and he could be re-indicted.
Gotta love the Bee:
https://babylonbee.com/news/jussie-smollett-offered-job-at-cnn-after-fabricating-news-story-out-of-thin-air
I just pop in once in a while, but what's up with the redaction of the attorney's name during the the Smollet records? And either an error in redaction on page 38, or there were more than one attorney? Attorney Glandian is named.
http://dig.abclocal.go.com/wls/documents/032719-wls-smollett-files1.pdf
She also happens to work with
http://www.geragos.com/attorney-profiles/tina-glandian
(Geragos is a recent co-conspirator of Avenneti, of the porn star fame), but she doesn't as far as I can tell have a license to practice law in Illinois (Chicago where she defended Smollett). This whole thing is weird…
Just the last file available: http://dig.abclocal.go.com/wls/documents/032719-wls-smollett-files2.pdf
I didn't find too much interesting/different than what was is the news, except that at least one of the brothers were fasting and the clerk at the store barely spoke English. Oh, and one of the brothers says he sold a red hat, so wasn't sure the one the cops inventoried from the house was the same one purchased on camera…
I don't know this organization, the Illinois Prosecutor’s Bar Association; perhaps it's politically biased. But it really reams out the state attorney.
"Prosecutors must be held to the highest standard of legal ethics in the pursuit of justice. The actions of the Cook County State’s Attorney have fallen woefully short of this expectation. Through the repeated misleading and deceptive statements to the public on Illinois law and circumstances surrounding the Smollett dismissal, the State’s Attorney has failed in her most fundamental ethical obligations to the public. The IPBA condemns these actions."
http://www.ilpba.org/announcements/7249825
Foxx is up for re-election next year, I doubt that is going to go well. Apparently if the civil suit against Smollett makes a preponderance of the evidence finding that he faked this crime, that gives (the other) Fox legal cover in firing him from Empire. What a tangled web we weave …
They originally chose not to prosecute George Zimmermann, then another prosecutor was assigned and the murder case went to trial.
Here, they appeared before a judge and did a deferred prosecution, with bail forfeited. I think it would be difficult to prosecute.
MikeN:
According to Smollett's lawyer, this was not a deferred prosecution, just dropped charges.
https://edition.cnn.com/us/live-news/jussie-smollett-charges/h_ca53814de054ff31b9e77eb1f29babeb
(You may have to scroll down to the March 26 item.)
I am sympathetic to the lawyer's plea not to "utilize the press to convict people before they are tried in a court of law." Leaks do not speak well of the police. But plausibility is against Smollett.
Tom Scharf (Comment #174269)
March 29th, 2019 at 10:27 am
"Foxx is up for re-election next year, I doubt that is going to go well."
Chicago is politically a city like no other. It has been a one party city for a long time and more recently the Republicans do not even bother to run candidates. There are a lot of incompetent and dishonest politicians in high positions in Chicago who can get re-elected as long as they can stay out of jail.
I had a bad experience this year dealing with the Cook County Circuit Court that is headed by Dorothy Brown. She has run that place into the ground. My only salvation was finding clerks and judges willing to go above and beyond the bureaucratic mess that has developed there.
I think all here would be sympathetic to the request not to convict people in the court of public opinion, we've seen quite a bit of that recently, but by heading straight to the press to shout his story from the rooftops before any investigation had taken place, Smollett himself invited the public to speculate.
.
Two men are accused by Smollett of assaulting him, pouring bleach on him, and putting a noose around his neck while saying racist and homophobic things. Why is this being brushed under the carpet as if it never happened? Should the public stay silent when justice is so blind it pretends nothing actually happened?
Kenneth Fritsch (Comment #174273): "Chicago is politically a city like no other. It has been a one party city for a long time and more recently the Republicans do not even bother to run candidates. There are a lot of incompetent and dishonest politicians in high positions in Chicago who can get re-elected as long as they can stay out of jail."
Aren't elections in Chicago now officially non-partisan? Of course, Republicans need not apply. But States Attorney is a Cook County official. Have Republicans given up there as well? After something like this, Foxx might get primaried.
Chicago has sent Smollett a bill for $130,106.15 to cover the cost of the police investigation, threatening prosecution if he does not pay. I don't know what the legal basis for that is, although I suppose they could sue him.
https://thefederalist.com/2019/03/29/chicago-fines-jussie-smollett-130000-for-abusing-police-resources/
Mike M. (Comment #174275)
Cook County is overwhelmingly Democrat much like Chicago – which is a big part of Cook County.
Parliament passed a law saying Brexit happens no later than Mar 29 at midnight. By law UK is no longer in the EU.
MikeN (Comment #174278): "Parliament passed a law saying Brexit happens no later than Mar 29 at midnight. By law UK is no longer in the EU."
I don't think so. Parliament rejected the deal again, but the deadline is April 12.
MikeM, the European Union Act 2018 was passed in June of that year and set the date. EU treaties and EU law is longer in force.
Parliament never approved a delay to April 12. The only exception in the EU act to the deadline is if Parliament and the EU approved on a later date with a withdrawal agreement.
It seems to me, if someone arranged to get arrested under EU law, they could get a declaration from a judge that Brexit has happened.
MikeN,
I can find nothing that says that the European Union Act 2018 forces a hard Brexit as of any date and I find it impossible to believe that is true.
Nothing here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brexit_negotiations#The_%22no_deal%22_scenario
or here: https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2018/06/28/1000-words-the-european-union-withdrawal-act-2018/
or here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_(Withdrawal)_Act_2018
That act provides for a continuation of EU law in the UK post Brexit, so as to permit an orderly replacement of EU law in the UK. It also provide for rules covering the negotiations. Parliament is afraid of a hard Brexit; they would not have passed something that forces that result.
While I do not want to see him in jail, the embarrassment at being uncovered is enough I do think that the law is very clear that this should have proceeded to a court case.
Many examples over the years of the system twisting itself to give a completely wrong decision and with enough leverage upstairs it goes away in time.
This just seems too wrong.
PUblic offside in a big way, police offside. Wrong decision.
Enough noise and a reverse might occur?…
Wow. Foxx "explains" her actions:
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-kim-foxx-jussie-smollett-20190329-story.html
She is now claiming that the case against Smollett was iffy. She goes on about how awful Somllett's actions were, then says they were no big deal. She says:
"These felonies are routinely resolved, particularly in cases involving suspects with no prior criminal record, long before a case ever nears a courtroom and often without either jail time or monetary penalties."
Sure. But not, I think, without admitting guilt. And Smollett has a criminal record.
She says Smollett has suffered enough. And that: "I welcome an outside, nonpolitical review of how we handled this matter."
On that, I hope she gets her wish. Good and hard.
It's unsurprising the establishment/elites in the UK can't seem to find a way to make Brexit happen gracefully. Coincidentally they were almost all against it in the first place. It seems the UK establishment and the EU are united in punishing the Leavers as much as possible.
.
I do enjoy hearing about how the Brexit vote needs to be repeated from the same people who breathlessly tell us about how Trump's every utterance is a "danger to democracy" and one step away from authoritarianism.
.
I'm not well tuned into UK politics but I imagine that 98% of all the fear mongering of disasters that the Stay establishment predicted never happened, and aren't likely to happen. NPR did radio interviews from the UK this week and never managed to find a Leave person to interview. Listening to NPR has become like going to the dentist for me.
.
After a lot of saber rattling the EU/UK relationship will be basically the same as it was because it is in both parties interest to make it so, with the UK taking its sovereignty back, even if it doesn't ultimately change its laws much.
.
Obviously the unelected bureaucrats in Brussels are worried that a successful Brexit will be a contagion for other countries. That is a legitimate fear, and maybe if they had a better product they could worry less.
Outside, *non-political* view? Wow. Her view is almost certainly political. But I guess she wants to be the only one who gets to involve politics and others aren't allowed!
She can talk about "usually" al the time. But "usually" people don't hire others to fake hate crimes. And "usually" they don't involve quite so much of the public. Like it or not, a celebrity KNOWS they are a celebrity, and they KNOW they can get on tv and advance their case (which Smollett then actually did– on a major network) and they KNOW then can get other powerful people to reach out to DAs and so on. This case was already not like any other case "usually" is.
I hope Foxx's political ambitions are toast. Sadly, they may not be.
Tom Scharf (Comment #174284): "I'm not well tuned into UK politics but I imagine that 98% of all the fear mongering of disasters that the Stay establishment predicted never happened, and aren't likely to happen."
There was massive fear mongering that a Leave vote would lead to an instant recession, among other dire consequences. Instead, absolutely nothing happened. Now there similar fear mongering about the consequences of a hard Brexit; I presume from exactly the same people.
.
A hard Brexit would probably not be much of a problem, provided that there was lead time for people to prepare for changing rules. A hard Brexit on April 12 would surely cause disruption as people adjust from EU trade rules to WTO rules. That is because the May government has done nothing to prepare for that eventuality. Of course, such preparations would have given the UK a much stronger hand in negotiating with the EU. Which is probably why the establishment did not do it. A betrayal of the will of the people.
MikeM
* That is because the May government has done nothing to prepare for that eventuality.*
Possibly because she wants the option to be as scary as possible and is willing to risk things being bad to get her way!
Sadly Smollett did not win the NAACP award.
Will #MeToo spare Joe Biden?
https://freebeacon.com/politics/female-politician-speaks-out-on-bidens-unwanted-touching-he-made-me-feel-uneasy-gross/
Should be interesting to see how this plays out.
mark
*Will #MeToo spare Joe Biden?*
all I can say is "heh"…
Joe Biden’s past sins (frequently too ‘hands-on’ with wonen) are not going to be forgotten by his opponents in the Democrat primary contests. I will not be suprized if he never officially enteres the race, especially if a few more women with creepy stories avout Biden come forward. ‘Grampa Joe’ doing his ‘now I’m woke’ tour is an embarrassment, but the guy has 30+ years of taking main stream Democrat positions which are now out of fashion with the loony left. My take: Biden has few real convictions beyond wanting to win elections…. and a huge amount of political baggage. He won’t be president in January 2021.
Steve F,
Yeah… Jim came in and reported on Joe's troubles. I commented he'd always been "handsy". During the primary, hay will be made. Given everything, I can't feel toooooo sorry for him, even if this is just "shoulders" and so on. I guess we'll see…..
I get a kick out of political comments and posturing come campaigning time. Joe Biden has been acclaimed by moderate Democrats and a lot of Republicans as something of a voice of reason in the Democrat party. I personally have never seen him that way, but rather as a politician that could accommodate just about any position given the politics of the moment and his doing so with the accompaniment of rather inane and almost childish comments.
The latest problem might appear too recent to fit with Biden's recent apology tour where he genuflected before the left wing of the party in confessing rather long ago past political sins, but I would not bet on it. He could probably attempt to play the naive man of the past in such matters as he is now accused who is getting his game in order to better fit the immediate present rules.
I think the Democrats and their supporters understand and appreciate the chameleon-like political character of Joe Biden, while most Republicans and their supporters are too politically naive to see Biden for what he really is.
Remember the Angela Merkel neck rub?
The day may be coming when there is a puzzling gap between presidents 42 and 44. And the odd fact that Obama will seem to have had no VP. Kind of like Egyptology.
Kenneth,
>>I think the Democrats and their supporters understand and appreciate the chameleon-like political character of Joe Biden, while most Republicans and their supporters are too politically naive to see Biden for what he really is.
.
Thanks. I'm one of the naive on this one. I *do* think of Biden as a moderate, but I'll have a closer look at him / his track record when I've got time since you point this out.
.
I agree with Steve, I don't think Biden will be President. For my part, I don't see Biden surviving the Democratic primaries. So maybe it won't matter.
Biden isn't exactly an intellectual powerhouse. The activist left isn't going to accept any white men, even if they do oppressive patriarchy apology tours. They are demanding purity tests of all kinds that hinder electability in the general election. Reparations, Medicare for All, the GND, acknowledgment of "white supremacy", believe all women, etc. Curiously the media pressing these issues falls into the Trump Trap once again. The trick for the left is being vague enough for deniability in the general election. Not sure it's possible.
My impression is that Biden is a moderate in two related ways. One is that he is not a left-wing ideologue. He does not seem to have much of an ideology in any form. The other is that lacking either an ideology or a backbone, he tends to move in whatever direction is easiest. For most of his career, that has been toward the center.
Now, the strong current among the Democrats is to the far left, so Biden is trying to swim with that. The latest #MeToo attacks, combined with his being a white male, will make that impossible. The only way he will survive is to emulate Kavanaugh and stand up to his accusers. The only way he will get many votes is to stand up against the insanity of the left and act like a true moderate. Since he has no backbone, he will do neither. My prediction is that Biden will cease to be relevant well before the primaries even begin.
Tom Scharf,
"Biden isn't exactly an intellectual powerhouse."
.
So gentle an understatement made me chuckle. Comparable to a box of rocks may be more accurate. Certainly he sits several steps below George W in intellectual power…. which is as damning a comparison as I can think of.
"Reparations, Medicare for All, the GND, acknowledgment of "white supremacy", believe all women, etc."
.
Their disconnect from reality is complete and appears irreversible. I agree that supporting insane and utterly destructive policies is not good for national elections.
Biden is clearly the biggest threat to Trump relative to the other candidates. If Biden does something insane and stands up to the activist left then I predict he will win it all. I think the support for activist left policies is much lower than the media portrays. Everyone nods their head in agreement until the moment they step into the voting booth.
.
I remember Trump being the only one to raise his hand in a debate when they asked the field if they will support whichever Republican wins the nomination. I detest purity tests on both sides. Trump has many non-redeeming qualities, but breaking the mold of generic R-robot vs generic D-robot is not one of them.
"Biden isn't exactly an intellectual powerhouse"
Imagine if the MSM treated him the same way they treated Quayle when he was VP. Biden is certainly more prone to silly statements.
“Imagine if the MSM treated him the same way they treated Quayle when he was VP.â€
.
One can imagine pigs sprouting wings. That will never happen either.
Anyone see Biden taking the myth that there was a 700 year old English law that allowed men to beat women with a stick no thicker than their thumb (the rule of thumb was derived from its use as an approximate measure of an inch) and use it to insist that this is "white culture" and it needs to change? Sickening.
.
Firstly, It presumes that this issue is a "white culture" issue. Clearly it isn't and I suspect the stats would show that and quite possibly much more.
Secondly, I thought groups of people weren't to be held responsible for the actions of a few of their members?
.
Why do these people think this kind of insulting, divisive, ridiculously hypocritical, nonsense is acceptable discourse? It wouldn't be against anyone else. If you want to champion the "believe all women" nonsense, go ahead, but to claim that the bad behavior of some is an inherent part of "white culture"? Unbelievable.
.
You want to know what a hate crime looks like? A politician with media power uses his platform to tell a single demographic that abusing women is part of who they are. It's dehumanizing and dangerous.
DaveJR,
" A politician with media power uses his platform to tell a single demographic that abusing women is part of who they are. It's dehumanizing and dangerous."
.
Perhaps, but I suspect it is more dangerous to the electoral prospects of any politician who spouts such nonsense. An overwhelming majority of 'evil white men' (heck, men in general!) do not abuse their wives (or significant others). The 'evil white men' know it. So do their wives, sons, and daughters. Makes for motivated voters. Joe Biden is willing to embarrass himself by adopting lunatic 'woke' memes, but most voters won't like it.
Steve,
"Joe Biden is willing to embarrass himself by adopting lunatic 'woke' memes, but most voters won't like it."
.
That summarizes the difficulty the prospective Dem challenger will face in a nutshell. To win the primaries, the vocal minority far left must be satisfied. That which satisfies the far left is unpalatable to the mainstream. Joe can embarrass himself all he wants to; he remains a privileged old white guy who looks a little too handsy with the ladies. He will not win the support of the far left.
I'm wondering if Bernie will manage it, at this point, and if it even matters. I doubt anyone left of Biden can prevail against Trump, as the situation stands right now. The collusion narrative is done, the economy is doing well, Trump is doing his level best to deliver on the wall via the emergency declaration, we're done against ISIS. Things are pretty good. I think socialism is a hard sell when times are relatively good.
Giving that dead horse one more good whack for posterity,
From Vox:
https://www.vox.com/2019/4/2/18290345/joe-biden-lucy-flores-amy-lappos
To Biden’s mostly younger critics, the extent to which this kind of behavior is normalized and people are just supposed to accept it without complaint is exactly what needs to change.
.
from the New York Times yesterday:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/01/opinion/joe-biden-lucy-flores.html
.
No one should judge the whole span of Biden’s career by the standards of 2019, but if he’s going to run for president, it’s fair to ask whether he’s the right leader for this moment. He is a product of his time, but that time is up.
.
I don't think it's going to happen for him, regardless of how many journalists and TV people go to bat for him.
forgot the quotes above… sorry.
"To Biden’s mostly younger critics, the extent to which this kind of behavior is normalized and people are just supposed to accept it without complaint is exactly what needs to change."
and
"No one should judge the whole span of Biden’s career by the standards of 2019, but if he’s going to run for president, it’s fair to ask whether he’s the right leader for this moment. He is a product of his time, but that time is up."
Mark,
"He will not win the support of the far left."
.
For sure he won't. But if Biden actually becomes a candidate (it is far from certain he will), then I suspect most Democrats will see that he is their best chance of throwing Trump out of office. The bigger problem for Dems is that just about all the other candidates have already announced support for a bunch of lunatic left policies, which makes them less attractive in the general. So if Biden does not enter the race, I think the remaining candidates are going to have to convince primary voters that they are not so loony-left that Trump is likely to win re-election. The split between the sane and the (vocal!) loony democrats is real, deep, and presents problems for them.
.
But I think Biden presents a more serious danger: he will be 78 in January 2020, and would be (by far) the oldest president in US history. His life expectancy upon taking office would be 9.0 years, so there would be a significant chance (35% – 40% ?) he would die during his first term. He could also become debilitated while in office due to stroke or dementia. Assuming he picks a lunatic-left running mate (and he almost certainly would, to fire up the loony base), there is a good chance that person would become president, and do their level best to flout both the law and the Constitution. Very bad news for the USA.
Mark,
I estimated the chance of death incorrectly; Biden would have about a 22% chance of death in his first term. It rises to ~55% chance of death over two terms. Of course, the chance of serious debilitation has to be added to those figures…. the chance of developing Alzheimer's during two terms would be ~14%, with nearly all of that chance in the second term.
Ronald Reagan won his first election at 69, and left office at 77, a year *younger* than Biden would assume office. Trump, if re-elected, would leave office at 78, the same age as Biden would assume office.
Steve,
.
Yeah, that's a disturbing idea. I agree with you- his best chance of running the primary gauntlet is to select a far left running mate. A one in five chance of somebody assuming the Presidency who was selected solely based on their appeal to the far left is not a very appealing scenario…
.
I groan and complain during political cycles, but I have to admit I'm anxious for this one to start. I can't what to see what shape things are going to take. Dem primary debates start in June I think.
I can't *wait* not *what*.
SteveF (Comment #174309) "Biden would have about a 22% chance of death in his first term."
No, that would be the chances for an average 78 year old (white?) male. But the average 78 year old is probably not healthy enough to endure the rigors of a presidential campaign.
This time around, I expect something different than "I'm not Trump" as a Democratic platform. Perhaps we will still see something similar to "I'm not a white man" again (I'm with her).
Agree with MikeM, you can't take the general life expectancy of a 78 year old and use this to calculate Joe Biden's, unless you have evidence that things like dementia or death are independent of things like general health. I suspect Biden is healthier than the average 78 year old in America.
It's an estimate. Probably we could improve on it. Still, it's not an unreasonable starting point.
*shrug*
On Biden's life expectancy: Yeah. It's higher than the average for his age. That said– age still matters. He's at the age where a risk of sudden decline is high.
Electing older candidates could be used as a form of term limits.
lucia (Comment #174317): "He's at the age where a risk of sudden decline is high."
That is true. It would make his VP choice especially important in the extremely unlikely event that he gets nominated.
Kenneth…. well… yeah. But at the risk of some with mental decline occupying a seat until they actually die. I'd be for a form of term limits I never see discussed:
Members of the house can only serve 5 terms *in a row*. After taking a term off, they can run for the House seat again. They can run for Senate immediately.
Members of the Senate can only serve 2 terms *in a row*. After taking 2 years off, they can run for Senate again. They can run for House immediately.
This largely allows people to seat whoever they choose and also leads to some shuffling. A four term member of the house could run against the sitting Senator. If the Congressman was more popular than the Senator, so be it! A two term senator who can't be Senator anymore can try to unseat a House member. Some of the advantage of being a sitting member is lessened.
lucia (Comment #174320): "I'd be for a form of term limits I never see discussed:"
I thought that was the usual form of term limits for legislative seats.
Term limits are dumb, except maybe for the executive. The only thing they are good for is forcing good people out of office. We already have a perfectly good method to force bad people out of office: Elections. If voters don't want to exercise that option, it is their choice.
I can not imagine why anyone would think that forcing out someone who could be easily reelected would result in the replacement being any better. About the same might be likely. Worse is definitely a possibility. But better seems highly unlikely.
lucia (Comment #174320)
April 3rd, 2019 at 10:51 am
"Kenneth…. well… yeah. But at the risk of some with mental decline occupying a seat until they actually die."
I would judge that determining that a politician has declined would be a difficult task. I doubt that one could apply something like a change in honesty or being fiscally responsible unless, of course, a politician suddenly became forthcoming and fiscally responsible. That change would be obvious to all that something strange was going on there.
Our nation near the beginning show those serving in government doing so not as a life time career but a duty to be served by citizens of all walks of life who after serving briefly would get back their civilian status. Career politicians invariably lose touch with the world outside of government.
Mike M. (Comment #174321)
April 3rd, 2019 at 12:12 pm
So Mike we should allow a President to serve as many terms as the voters allow.
I cannot understand people who think career politicians are a good thing.
Kenneth,
It is VERY hard to determine someone in political office has declined. There is some reason to believe Regan had already begun his decline during the last year of his term. It wasn't horrible, but he wasn't as sharp anymore. He eventually was diagnosed with Alzheimers. Imagine if it happened in his first year of a four year term? That' difficult.
Mike,
Who has the sort of term limits I described? (Real question.) The Fed don't have them for congress critters or senators. Illinois doesn't have them. So I guess I can't know what's "usual".
*The only thing they are good for is forcing good people out of office.*
Well… yeah. That's pretty much the advantage. As in: Overcoming the nearly overwhelming advantage of incumbancy. Saying that's the "only" thing they are important for is a bit odd since that's *precisely* what they ARE for.
*Elections. If voters don't want to exercise that option, it is their choice.*
It's fine to say this. But the reality is that incumbancy has overwhelming advantages.
*forcing out someone who could be easily reelected would result in the replacement being any better.*
No one says the replacement would necessarily be 'better' (whatever that might mean). That's not the point. The point is to avoid a class of people who are permanently in the slot of representative.
lucia (Comment #174324): "Who has the sort of term limits I described?"
Fewer than I thought: Arizona, Florida, Maine, Nebraska and maybe Colorado, Louisiana, Montana, Ohio, South Dakota.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_limits_in_the_United_States#State_legislatures_with_term_limits
.
lucia: "But the reality is that incumbancy has overwhelming advantages."
True. But you don't improve democracy by having less democracy.
.
lucia: "The point is to avoid a class of people who are permanently in the slot of representative."
In that case, the rule should be something like no more than eight years out of any sixteen in *any* office.
Edit: I garbled that with Kenneth's comment about career politicians.
.
Is there any evidence that legislative term limits have improved anything when tried?
Kenneth Fritsch (Comment #174323): "So Mike we should allow a President to serve as many terms as the voters allow."
Mike M. (Comment #174321): "except maybe for the executive".
.
Kenneth Fritsch: "I cannot understand people who think career politicians are a good thing."
To some extent, I agree. But it is good to have some institutional memory. If you don't like career politicians, vote against them. Obviously, most people disagree.
.
Terms limits are a solution that is simple, obvious, and wrong.
Mike M. (Comment #174326)
April 3rd, 2019 at 2:10 pm
Not only should there be a goodly turnover of those elected to office, but also for the bureaucrats who some might say really run the government. "Drain the swamp" is one of the few Trumphrases I like. Continuity in government is the swamp.
In a republic the rules can be changed – like term limits. There is nothing undemocratic about it.
Yeah, I'm with Kenneth on this one. Undemocratic as in thwarting the will of the people? Meh. Some say the Electoral College is undemocratic as well.
I think there could be correlation and causation between political corruption and long continuous stays in office. I'll admit I can't think of any supporting evidence at the moment.
MikeM
*True. But you don't improve democracy by having less democracy.*
Sure you can. And we have.
Our representative government has 'less democracy' than full democracy which would involve holding a plebiscite on anything and everything. Our representative government is better than the latter.
*In that case, the rule should be something like no more than eight years out of any sixteen in *any* office.*
Huh? Why does the motive of not having people permanently in office require this rather than what I suggested? Real question.
*Is there any evidence that legislative term limits have improved anything when tried?*
I think the presidential term limits have prevented more presidents with many terms (like FDR) and that's an improvement over permitting others to have too many terms as FDR did. So, that would go into the evidence in support of term limits being beneficial bin.
Obviously, we have no evidence for Congress or the Senate because we don't have term limits. The experiment has not been done.
MIkeM
*Obviously, most people disagree.*
This is not obvious. The advantage of incumbency on raising money, having an operation and so on are so large that the reelection of incumbants is NOT evidence people don't prefer turn over.
In Australia we don't have term limits but then we've had 7 Prime Ministers from 2007 to now (only 2 changed at elections) and proabaly will go to 8 in a month. Back in the 50s and 60s Menzies was PM for 20 years and before 2007 Howard was PM for about 11 years. How does that bare on your discussion well I guess most Australians now think term limits for the leader is a good idea but when we like a leader/party we don't and I expect that is the same in the US.
Andrew Kenneth,
It's true people tend to not mind the same person being elected over and over when they like that person. But in my view, allowing people to persistently remain in an office, bolstered by incumbency priveledge helps things like the Chicago Machine stay in power and so on. Term limits (implemented as I suggested) will make machine politicians have to run against each other, it will put people out of the seat where incumbency gives them a huge edge and so on. It's for the best no matter who is in power.
It also creates risk who want to pay off a person holding a seat because they can't be sure that their donation is 99.99999% likely to buy them a favor. Or at least the favors will eventually end, and the "rival" might not view donors of the previous office holder quite so favorably.
When I was a kid, my mother said: “There may be people elected to Congress who are not wealthy, but nearly every single one leaves Congress very wealthy.â€
.
That is the best single argument for term limits I ever heard. The motivations of a career politician, the kind of government they support, and the taxes they approve to fund that government, are wildly divergent from the best interests of the citizens. Term limits at least have the potential to reduce the number of career politicians, and return more political control to non-politicians.
With the gerrymandering done in most states, an incumbent is pretty much guaranteed re-election. The real battle is in the primaries and unless they are incredibly awful incumbents aren't generally challenged there.
Out of the 16 seats, the incumbent was seriously challenged in the primary in only one and he was only appointed in August before the November General election, that is he wasn't incumbent during the primary. Most of the other primary candidates won by over a 50% margin. Total votes for the House of Representative seats in my state were split 52% republican to 47% democratic, yet the republicans have 75% of the seats. In only two of the districts where the results within 5%. I'm with Lucia, some term driven churn might be helpful. If it's good enough for the president, I would think the congress could use limits also.
In other news, there is a proposed ballot initiative to steer our 18 electoral college votes to the winner of the national popular vote instead of the state's popular vote.
https://ballotpedia.org/Ohio_National_Popular_Vote_for_President_Initiative_(2019)
A counterargument is to provide an actual example where term limits were a bad thing. Most states have term limits on governors and almost nobody is complaining. Am I supposed to be sad Jeb Bush is no longer governor in FL? I voted for him but I'm not particularly sad to have seen him go. I liked Rick Scott even better, now he is a FL Senator.
.
I think no term limits allow for government to atrophy and for corruption to more easily set in. Pelosi and McConnell will get re-elected every time not necessarily because they are good at their jobs, but because they hold powerful positions. People who bring home the federal bacon for their local citizens are going to be re-elected, but that's bad for other areas with weaker politicians. Being an effective politician and being an ethical politician are only loosely correlated. I want ethical politicians for other people, and an effective one for my area, ha ha.
.
You can look at the extreme though, suppose the term limit was one day? Government would be absolute chaos. So it needs to be long enough to allow government to function, but not too long to allow corruption to become endemic.
Not having term limits leads to the power concentrating in the candidates from less moderate areas. Too much power in congress is determined by seniority and those from polarized areas are much less likely to be challenged than those whose district voters hold more moderate views.
AndrewP
*In other news, there is a proposed ballot initiative to steer our 18 electoral college votes to the winner of the national popular vote instead of the state's popular vote.*
That's nuts. There is no benefit to Ohio Voters to steer their electoral college votes to the national popular vote getter. All it does is disenfranchise Ohio!!
Tom,
I thought about my lengths, and tried to make them just long enough. There's no hard boundary for "long enough", but I think near a decade is useful
Allowing legislators to run for a *different seat* also means representatives who people really, really, really truly want and love can remain in AN office. They just may need to run against an incumbent in a different seat.
If people really like Pelosi, fine, she can run against Harris of Feinstein. The people can elect her. If the people really like Harris or Feinstein, they can run against Pelosi. If it's in a primary, then it's in the primary. The advantage of incumbency will still be weakened. Possibly not enough, but it's better than currently. And each will need to explain their positions clearly when running against each other.
*Pelosi and McConnell will get re-elected every time not necessarily because they are good at their jobs, but because they hold powerful positions. *
Yep. They can bring home bacon to their states and history shows Congress critters DO use the positions gained by seniority to steer largess (construction projects and so on) to their communities– putting a very big thumb on the scale when decisions for major projects are proposed. This is a LONG standing problem.
Turnover would at a minimum result in the bacon circulating rather than going to one particular state or district year after year after year after year until a particular Congress critter retires.
Lucia,
“All it does is disenfranchise Ohio!!â€
.
Indeed. And the whole scheme is of dubious constitutionality. It is a power grab by deep blue states to reduce the electoral power of deep red states. You can bet that if the shoe were on the other foot, deep blue states would instantly reconsider their agreement to such an inter-state agreement. I find the endless attempts of ‘progressives’ to bypass the Constitution troubling, but by now expected.
SteveF,
I'm sure if Ohio passes this, there will be suits. We'll be reading about them for a while.
Standing tests? Ripeness? I don't know about standing. But eventually, (after the rule actually kicks in) it will probably be ripe but with luck not moot. Then it will s_l_o_w_l_y move on…. . (Or maybe not if it affects the outcome of a particular race….)
But the law would *definitely* disenfranchise voters in Ohio who voted for the candidate who did get the state vote but did NOT get the national vote. It only matters in close races….. But yeah…. of course.
The disenfranchise aspect is quite troubling.
If we want to get rid of the electoral college, we should just get rid of it. It would be hard, in part because the sentiment against it isn't strong in part because amending the constitution requires a strong sentiment. But the latter is a feature, not a bug.
I should add: the feature of it being difficult to amend the constitution is a GOOD one. It prevents us from being in the ridiculous position the UK currently is in. To change rules that gave an external body power to enact laws that bound us– overruling our own state and federal bodies — requires a constitutional change. So joining certain sorts of things would require an amendment (a treaty for other things) . To get out would also require an amendment.
This is a MUCH better way to make MAJOR changes than a simple majority vote in a referendum that, in anycase, was vague. They voted "OUT" on a referendum that provided no details to specify what, precisely, OUT meant in terms of the deal. OUT whether or not they had a deal? OUT if the deal contained features "X and Y but not Z"? The referendum didn't say. No one knows what the majority would have voted on any deal *that contained specifics*. We do know the voted "OUT".
It's currently a mess.
The electoral college serves a purpose, though I wouldn't be adverse to doing away with winner takes all that most states use for proportional division of the EC votes. I believe that would solve the issue that the national popular vote bill is trying to solve without the doing away with the intended EC counterbalance of high population states. That would enfranchise every voter and still retain the EC's intended counterbalance between high and low population states. This just seems silly, but a handful of states, blue ones of course, have already enacted legislation supporting it.
It's going to take an amendment in Ohio to make that change. I'm not sure they will even get the 442k signatures needed to get it on the ballot by the July 3rd deadline. I'm pretty sure it doesn't stand a chance of passing.
The overwhelming advantage of legislative incumbents is indeed a problem. But term limits are a poor fix. A politician in a safe seat can afford to be independent. The real corruption occurs when an office holder sells influence to either gain campaign funds or to ensure the gratitude of the right friends once he leaves office. Term limits don't really address either. It is treating a symptom, not the cause.
.
I have two suggestions to treat the cause. Part of the problem is that there are so many safe seats. That is a result of people sorting politically into red areas and blue areas. Then the only real competition for an incumbent is in the primary. But it is hard to primary an incumbent unless you catch him by surprise.
.
This problem can potentially be addressed by means of the "nonpartisan blanket primary", sometimes called the "jungle primary". It is essentially the same system as used in some nonpartisan municipal elections/runoffs, like the recent one for mayor of Chicago. In a traditional election, Emanuel could have taken on his in-party opposition in the primary and his out-of-party opposition in the general. Divide and conquer. Being unable to do that made him much more vulnerable and probably contributed to his decision not to run.
.
My second suggestion addresses the problem of incumbents being in a powerful position to solicit funds. That gives them an even bigger advantage against challengers as well as being an invitation to corruption. The solution is to treat soliciting campaign contributions while in office the same as soliciting bribes. That would apply to contributions for oneself, for others, for a party, or for a PAC. Any communication with a PAC by either the office holder or his staff, even via third parties, would count as solicitation.
.
In combination, the above would greatly reduce the safety of incumbents, reduce corruption, and likely reduce political polarization.
MikeM
*A politician in a safe seat can afford to be independent. *
A politician in a safe seat can afford lots of things: to be capricious, not represent their constituents, grandstand, collect buy offs from special interests with money….
*The real corruption occurs when an office holder sells influence to either gain campaign funds or to ensure the gratitude of the right friends once he leaves office. Term limits don't really address either. *
Yes. That's when real corruption occurs. Term limits DOES address this. The strong risk of not having a lock on an office means the corrupt politician has a very strong risk on not being able to control investigations and so on.
*Then the only real competition for an incumbent is in the primary. But it is hard to primary an incumbent unless you catch him by surprise.
.*
Term limits address the problem that incumbents only have competition in the primary.
*Being unable to do that made him much more vulnerable and probably contributed to his decision not to run.*
Uhmm… He didn't lose the primary. There is no reason to believe your theory of why he did not run in the primary is valid.
*. The solution is to treat soliciting campaign contributions while in office the same as soliciting bribes. *
LImiting campaign contributions has negative 1st amendment aspects. Preventing people from contributing to who they want is much, much, much worse "solution" than term limits.
Term limits is a much better fix.
I'm not fond of the popular vote compact. Aside from making smaller states disproportionately less important, there's an important practical benefit to the current system — in states dominated by a political party, there's no electoral benefit to ballot-stuffing. In a popular vote system, both parties have incentive to ballot stuff on a large scale wherever it can be performed. While the current system can (and arguably has) be decided by fraud, it will matter only in states where the parties are fairly even and presumably in a positition to detect/deter it.
.
Even if it we assumed no one would cheat, the requirements for voting are not level. If Georgia makes sure citizens voting are who they say they are, but California allows third parties to harvest absentee ballots and turn them in, that helps California and hurts Georgia in the popular vote. I think absentee ballot harvesting is tailor-made for fraud, but if only Democratic states allow it that's a significant competitive disadvantage.
.
Proportional votes instead of winner-take-all doesn't solve the problem and for small states would produce some odd results — 3 vote states would almost always be 2-1 split, 4 vote states would usually be 2-2 split, and so forth. The marginal votes would be driven by the large states. In the case of Maine and Nebraska the electors are allocated (besides 2 for the state winner) to the winner of each congressional district, but adopting this system widely would make the benefits of gerrymandering immense.
If electoral college votes in each state were allocated 2 to the state vote winner (corresponding to the two senators from that state, and the remainder (number of representatives in the House) were proportionally allocated based on popular vote in that state, then I doubt the results of close presidential elections would likely change. But it would be interesting to work out the arithmatic for 2016 to see the impact. Clinton would have gotten 35 electoral votes in California instead of 55.
I think the popular vote compact will be struck down by the SC. Whatever one thinks of the states having lots of independence (I like it), this is in direct conflict to that. It's not a slam dunk though.
The open hypocrisy of accusations for "violating norms" on one subject and the same very serious people (VSP) talking about popular vote compacts, stacking the court and so on is evident to everyone. This has been a fundamental issue for me losing respect for academia over the past decade. There are almost no VSP who are brave enough to even highlight this conflict. When ideology captures any major government entity the result is bad, bad, bad. Bad.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WmrNJIwoDFsuSx5MnANbgFoZXUFzk_1zQ0vI0OVgEZ8/edit?usp=sharing
2016 Actual, straight proportional and Proportional w/Winner +2. Rounding errors are a problem. In straight proportional 16 states lose an EC. Michigan gains one. There's also 3 missing somewhere. I'm not motivated enough to solve the rounding issue or find those missing votes.
For what it's worth, 7 electors in states where winner takes all, voted for someone besides the winner. 2 in TX, 4 in WA, and 1 in HI.
AndrewP,
Thanks. So with 2 vote given to the winner of eac state (the senators) and otherwise proportional, Trump likely ends up ahead in a squeaker.
.
Probably some very specific rules would be needed to handle more than two parties and what to do if nobody reaches the magic 270 count.
.
Dems would NEVER go for assigning two votes to each state winner (representing the two senators), of course. The left wants power, by any means available. Screw the Constitution!
SteveF,
There's already specific rules on what to do if no one has an electoral college majority. It gets thrown to the house of representatives, with each state's congressional delegation getting a single vote.
Yup. When a few elections ended up in the house, the 12th amendment, specific votes for president and vice president over two votes each for president with #2 getting the VP role, was added to help prevent it from being as common of an occurrence. You'd have to come up with a solution to rounding errors. Assign left over votes to winner; Subtract extra from loser? That'd add over dozen votes to the total. Once that is done, I'd expect most of the green would vote democratic and libertarian would vote republican which should push one over the threshold.
MikeM, regarding my claim that UK has already left the EU, I refer to the EU (Withdrawal) Act of 2018. It says the date of withdrawal is March 29, unless there is an extension as set forth by Article 50 of the EU Treaty. The argument is that this never happened.
Article 50 requires a unanimous agreement of UK and the 27 member countries of the EU.
Parliament rejected May's deal, and then she went to EU to ask for an extension, and was granted one until April 12. She is now seeking a longer delay.
Seems pretty straightforward, but it was argued at the time of extension by some that it was illegal.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6882583/Former-appeal-judge-says-legality-Brexit-extension-tested-court.html
The unanimous agreement of UK and the EU requires a vote of Parliament which never happened when the extension was sought. May does not have the power to make this call for an extension on her own, and thus no unanimous agreement of UK and EU was reached, and under the 2018 EU Act, Brexit is completed as of 11PM March 29.
If you think the argument that May cannot do so on her own is a stretch(and I agree), the irony is that this appeared in court and it was declared that May does not have the authority to give an Article 50 notification to start the Brexit process without approval from Parliament.
MikeN (Comment #174352),
The UK government says the UK is still in the EU. The EU government says the UK is still in the EU. I am pretty sure that means the UK is still in the EU. I don't think the fact that someone is pushing a wacky legal theory changes that.
What is wacky about a legal theory that has already been validated in court, when it was being pushed to prevent Brexit?
MikeN (Comment #174354): "What is wacky about a legal theory that has already been validated in court, when it was being pushed to prevent Brexit?"
That claim is rubbish. No court has ruled that Bexit has happened.
I'm starting to wonder if AOC is for real, or if she's just having us on:
.
"When “centrists†care more about the GOP base than the Dem base, bigotry gets legitimized.
This is *the* playbook. GOP does it w/ virtually every Dem figure who isn’t a white male: otherize, demonize + splinter.
It’s vital that we adapt & dismantle this approach, not cow to it."
.
Siriously. She's implying that the GOP base is bigoted and in the same breath accuses the GOP of demonizing.
.
The lack of self awareness portrayed here is almost raised to the level of art, in my opinion.
It's more than just accusing the GOP base of being bigoted while accusing the GOP of demonizing. At the same time, she's attacking centrists in her own party, splintering them, [and further widening the right left divide in general] while stating that the tactic comes from the GOP playbook.
.
There's so much hypocrisy packed into just a few words, it's mesmerizing to me. I keep wondering if there are other dimensions to it I'm just not seeing yet.
mark bofill (Comment #174356): "I'm starting to wonder if AOC is for real, or if she's just having us on"
That illustrates a variant of Poe's Law: It is impossible to parody a Social Justice Warrior in such a way that someone won't mistake it for the genuine article.
.
mark bofill: "The lack of self awareness portrayed here is almost raised to the level of art, in my opinion."
That is pretty much the norm for SJW's; although AOC seems to be an especially fine example. They are so sure they are right and good that they see any disagreement as evil. From such a garden, we get evil fruit such as Mao and Pol Pot.
Mike,
>>we get evil fruit such as Mao and Pol Pot.
For sure. AOC is laughable [at the moment]. She's underwater with respect to her approval ratings right now, and I hope she stays that way and gets flushed out of politics soon. I shudder to think of her climbing the ranks towards established elder statesperson over the years. If she lasts she'll be trouble.
AOC channeled Southern Fried Hillary when speaking before Al Sharpton's group. Wasn't just channeling, makes Hillary look normal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrfKm_vi8t4
She then responded with she's from the Bronx and this is how she talks when she gets excited, and this was the same at the Women's March. Ryan Saavedra then linked to her speech, and got blocked.
When someone who isn't so smart gets overconfident and believes they can say anything and get away with it, hilarity ensues. Trump vs. AOC, another proud period of USA politics. AOC makes Pelosi look like good cop.
.
That the GOP base is bigoted and worthy of contempt is now an article of faith on the activist left. It's too much work to prove this in a meaningful way, so it is just now assumed. This was not so cleverly hidden during the last election (deplorables) and is now out in the wide open. This carries no social penalty for saying out loud among their peer groups, but they don't seem to understand it still carries electoral penalties, thus their lack of cleverness. You almost have to feel sorry for Democrats outside the coasts who cringe every time these people open their mouths. The good hearted people are only openly hating the haters, who don't actual hate others in the open, but the good hearted know they have irredeemable hate in their black hearts, everyone they know agrees this is the case.
It would appear that the college entrance cheating parents are likely to serve jail time, 4 months to 2 years. I guess justice is different once you exit the Chicago city limits. they said they were "very sorry", ha ha.
Lucia, Thought you might be interested for the benefit of your students in the merit aid process as it is playing out for my son.
He has gotten about 85% merit tuition aid at one school and likes it a lot. We have confirmed his acceptance there about a week ago. However, since then another school has added $5,000 to its offer and second school invited us to call if we had questions about assistance or financial matters. It appears that if you have good scores (Son has 33 ACT) and wait until this time (about 3 weeks before acceptances are due) that schools will sweeten their offers. If I had realized this, I would have waited longer on the school he really wants to attend.
Also, it was a bit funny to me that USC rejected my son for admission. His 33 is in top 1% and his extra-curriculars are off the charts. I had expected that he would have been accepted at USC, but that they wouldn't give him much aid, which would have meant he wasn't going to USC anyway. Maybe we didn't have enough pull.
JD
Tom Sharf,
“It would appear that the college entrance cheating parents are likely to serve jail time, 4 months to 2 years. I guess justice is different once you exit the Chicago city limits. they said they were "very sorry".
.
I am also very sorry….. that they did not spend their 18 months in prison meeting daily with Jussie Smollette.
JD Ohio,
That's great on the tuition aid! It's such an odd game– tuition is so high, then it gets knocked down. But you can't know in advance what it might be knocked down to, and there are strategies. Oy!
Maybe USC decided your so photoshopped his face on an athletes body. 🙂
SteveF,
Yeah. Too bad the college parents can't mill around in prison with Smollette. They could make a reality show about it. 🙂
JD Ohio,
USC is a very competative school, but 33 ACT is in the middle of their accepted applicants, especially if he also has a GPA above 3.75. There’s a chance he is just too Asian to be admitted.
JD Ohio,
If you haven’t already seen it: http://admission.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/Freshman-Profile-2019.pdf
I doubt USC is having a problem getting enough Asians in Southern California, importing them just isn't necessary. The Harvard Asian trial ended in November, the judge sure is taking his time on this one. I find it very hard to predict how he will rule, but kind of expect he is going to put out a home town ruling.
Harvard announces high admittance of Asian Americans as judge weighs affirmative action
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/harvard-announces-high-admittance-asian-americans-judge-weighs-affirmative-action-n990051
.
Oh brother, our best and brightest.
Not really "high" so much as "high for Harvard".
Tom,
I should add: the Asian's probably all found tutors to help them develop "better personalities". 🙂
They paid a "likable" stand-in to do the interview, the only likable Asian in the country did all the interviews, because the people at Harvard are unable to tell one Asian apart from another.
Tom,
>>They paid a "likable" stand-in to do the interview, the only likable Asian in the country did all the interviews, because the people at Harvard are unable to tell one Asian apart from another.
.
:> I'm going to be chuckling about this all morning. Thank you.
mark,
One interesting thing…. I think very few people who've met Harvard grads think "likeable" is a dominant feature of the group. So you kinda gotta wonder what traits make admissions officers at Harvard think someone is "likeable".
If I've ever met a Harvard grad I'm not aware of it. Didn't know that, thanks Lucia.
USC should not be taking race into account, as Prop 209 is still the controlling law in California.
MikeN (Comment #174376): "USC should not be taking race into account, as Prop 209 is still the controlling law in California."
I don't know what Prop 209 is, but I'd bet money that it does not apply to private schools.
Wikipedia says prop 209 applies to state institutions. So not USC.
My first thought is to agree with you that it does NOT apply to USC. But the Wikipedia article also says, "Private universities and colleges, as well as employers, are not subject to Proposition 209 unless they receive public contracts."
So…maybe?
Tom Scharf,
The judge in the Havard admissions case is a woman. Yes, she is taking her time. But she is an Obama judge and a dedicated ‘progressive’, so almost certainly she will rule 100% in favor of Harvard. The real contest starts if the SC chooses to take the case upon appeal. I would put that chance at below 50% (because of Roberts not wanting to reverse past court decisions.)
Lucia,
No, the adjectives used in describing Harvard grads don’t often include ‘likable’. ‘Arrogant’ and ‘snob’ are probably more common.
I thought USC was part of the UC system. They are not covered then, though I think a challenge under federal civil rights law would work.
Public Texas Tech has just reached an agreement with DOE Office for Civil Rights to end race in medical school admissions.
Dam about to break?
NY Times mentioning Halper and Papadopoulis links being investigated by Barr?
An attorney in Foxx's office writes about the handling of the Smollett case:
"No prosecutors or police officers, and I mean none, thought that the just result would be for Jussie Smollett to go to prison. He was charged with a Class 4 felony. The anticipated outcome was a reduced sentence, a misdemeanor with some community service or restitution. This would have been done on the record, on a regularly scheduled court date, with the Chicago Police being notified, since they are the “victim†in a disorderly conduct of this nature. This case was handled markedly different from any other case at 26th Street. No one knows why, and more importantly, no one can explain why our boss, the head prosecutor of all of Cook County, has decided to so demean and debase both our hard work, and our already tenuous relationship with the Chicago Police Department."
https://www.cwbchicago.com/2019/04/prosecutor-in-foxxs-office-speaks-out.html
The NYT is figuring out their bubble does not equal the Democratic bubble. They are probably the last people to know this. Some good infographics work here.
The Democratic Electorate on Twitter Is Not the Actual Democratic Electorate
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/04/08/upshot/democratic-electorate-twitter-real-life.html
.
"The rest of the party is easy to miss. Not only is it less active on social media, but it is also under-represented in the well-educated, urban enclaves where journalists roam. It is under-represented in the Northern blue states and districts where most Democratic politicians win elections."
Related: How Radical Is Too Radical for 2020 Democrats?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/10/opinion/democratic-candidates-primaries.html
.
"The best example of this is Medicare for all. In March, a Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that a majority supported “a national health plan or Medicare-for-all plan,†56-39, but support vacillates in both directions depending on how the program is portrayed.
If, for example, Democrats posit that Medicare for all would eliminate health care premiums and reduce out of pocket costs, support rises to 67 percent with 30 percent opposed.
Conversely, if Republicans succeed in portraying the program as leading to delays in getting medical treatment, or to the elimination of current private coverage, or to higher taxes, support collapses to the mid-20s and mid-30s, with opposition shooting up to the 60 to 70 percent range.
Bold progressive stands may be risky in general elections, but recent research suggests that policy radicalism pays off in primaries."
.
Whaaaaaaat? This might raise my taxes?
A good example was the poll showing high support for the green new deal from people who had no idea what it was beyond the idealistic description given to them by those conducting the poll.
The New York Times has finally deigned to notice that there is in fact an emergency at the border:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/10/us/immigration-border-mexico.html
I only skimmed most of it, but I "learned" that it is, of course, all Trump's fault.
———
However, following up on something in the article, I did indeed learn something new, but unsurprising. It has been widely reported that Trump said "The country is full." Fake news. What he actually said was "The system is full." That is undeniably true.
One heart-warming story I saw today: Michael Avenatti has now been indited again, on multiple counts of embezzelment, theft, purjury, and tax fraud….on top of the existing charges of extortion. The sums involed approach $10 million, including multiple millions simply stolen from multi-million dollar settlements he received on behalf of clients. He took the money and never told the clients there was a settlement paid. IIRC, he is facing up to 400+ years in prison. That is pretty extreme… I think justice would be served if he receives a sentence of only 25 or 30% of the maximum. Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy. 😉
.
Avenatti’s client Stormy Daniels, who reneged on a non-disclosure agreement that cost Trump $160,000 (about a trist with Trump 12+ years ago) now owes Trump $300K in legal fees.
Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) Tweeted:
….Mexico must apprehend all illegals and not let them make the long march up to the United States, or we will have no other choice than to Close the Border and/or institute Tariffs. Our Country is FULL! https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1115057524770844672?s=17
OK, so Trump said "The system is full" (certainly true) and tweeted "The country is full" (Trump has made it clear that he disagrees with that). So he mis-tweeted. Only a big deal if people take tweets seriously. Either way, his meaning is clear.
SteveF,
One of Avenatti's clients was a paraplegic! Oy!
Lucia,
Ya, saw that as well. He is remarkably harmful to those he deals with, and remarkably un-repentant for his evil deeds when they are discovered. The one I particularly liked was his theft of a big settlement payment to buy himself a private jet…. he is almost comically evil, like a villain in a Batman movie. Spending the remainder of his life in prison seems appropriate.
.
But in a world where Jussie can walk after multiple (unrepentant) felonies, who knows what will happen to the worm.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/04/05/president-trump-country-is-full-border-security-roundtable-sot-vpx.cnn
SteveF,
He spent it on his racing team.
Thanks Joshua.
https://youtu.be/j2aZHjkKVB8
Hey Mark –
If you have some time (maybe while working out, or something), I think you might find this interesting :
https://player.fm/series/the-ezra-klein-show/an-ex-libertarians-quest-to-rebuild-the-center-right
(You'll need to breathe at the outset and get past the one-sided question – that doesn't ask if we similarly need a center-left, which I would consider to, legitimately, be a separate question. In fact, if you skip the first 12 minute or so, you won't miss much of what I think you'll find interesting.. That first part is mostly background)
Also, some polling data to consider as you listen, if you listen (along with the caveats associated with pulling data):
https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2019/04/09/race-in-america-2019/
Joshua,
.
I'll try. I've been working like a mule the past few weeks (months?) and haven't had time for much beyond the occasional snarky comment here and there. But the deliverable deadline is Monday, so maybe I'll find some free time next week. Thanks.
Mike M –
…
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/government_says_trumps_tweets_are_official_presidential_statements
….
Mark –
…
If you do find time to listen, let me know what you think. You know where to find me.
Suppose I am a global warming alarmist who believes renewable solar and wind energy(with associated batteries) will be cheaper than coal and natural gas by 2030. What will be the amount of global warming I should expect to see?
MikeN,
I get the sense that you're asking a trick question…
.
Maybe the answer is *none*. I'm sure you've seen that meme that goes "What if it's a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?" I've always taken that to mean that (at least some) people think it's a good idea to go renewable regardless. Arguments could be made.
*shrug*
Mark Bofill,
“"What if it's a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?"
.
The only problem is that green policies, absent CAGW, will be costly, wasteful, and terribly damaging to human wellfare, compared to doing nothing. The argument that green policies are inherently good, independent of global warming, is utter rubbish… a wild eyed delusion of the green left…. no matter what folks like Joshua suggest. The actual extent and actual negative consequences of future warming *really do* matter if one wants to rationally contemplate costly “green†policies.
Twitchy shows a tweet by ESPN's Michele Steele:
—
Prosecutors just admitted at a hearing about the Robert Kraft video they will not charge anyone at Orchids of Asia with human trafficking. Prosecutor: "we have no evidence that there's human trafficking involved."
—
If true, this makes the reckless statements from police at the time of the bust *far* worse than what Kraft did, IMO.
I was struck with the Japanese government's handling of the Ghosn case. It appears rather second and third worldish and that the government is doing Nissan's bidding.
Even a Japanese TV station I watch that is critical of US policy and seldom those of Japan, allowed some critical comments from outsiders about their government's handling of this case.
Steve,
Yep. Except I don't see a need to attribute specific positions to Joshua he hasn't espoused, to my direct knowledge. I mean, for all I know maybe he's posted extensively on the subject someplace, but I'm not aware of it. *shrug*
But in essence yes. Maybe nobody voted for AOC's green new deal in part because deep down everybody knows what an unmitigated disaster it would be.
hmm. Let me unwind this real quick :
1. Mike asks how much warming a warmie would expect to see who believes solar and wind will be cheaper than coal by 2030.
2. I say maybe none; an argument can be made.
3. Steve points out that the warmie would be wrong. I agree. This doesn't mean that a warmie couldn't think this, however.
There.
Thanks Mark.
Joshua,
No problem. I got through half the podcast on my way into work today. Some of the ideas I'd heard before (population density governs red/blue color, big five traits openness and conscientious correlate with liberalism vs conservatism, personality differences leading to 'migration' causing the population density color phenomenon), some were new to me. I don't recall having heard that righties are more tribal than lefties, although the reasoning sounded OK at a quick listen at least superficially. That's pretty much where I ended up about halfway through. I'll listen to the rest on my way home.
If it's true that we Righties are more tribal than you darn Lefties, maybe we ought to follow up at Anders rather than continue to irritate folk here. Let your guys have a crack at me, that way I'll get my fair share same as you.
An unimportant aside – I always feel as though if I only took enough of some psychedelic mind altering drug for a long enough period of time, I'd be able to understand where Ezra Klein is coming from. It's not that I think he's crazy or stupid – none of that. I just have the darndest time following his train of thought and the way he seems to look at the world. But whatever…
Hey Mark –
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2019/03/04/climate-change-risks/#comment-154755
DaleS,
Yep. If they have no evidence of trafficking, the police statements were irresponsible.
No trick question. Just trying to figure out what can be argued in support of 'If renewables are going to become cheaper than fossil fuels as I am constantly being assured, then there is no need to worry about global warming.'
Oh. Ok.
MikeN,
I've heard people tell me that renewables are going to be cheaper and replace fossil fuels whether or not we subsidize renewables. My response to that is: Great! Then we should no longer subsidize renewables. Let's just get the government out of the way. Let the renewables kill off fossil fuels on their own and let the better run companies and ideas sort themselves freely. The free market will take care of that.
The answer to "how much warming do you expect?" if renewables are now inevitable and do take over is irrelevant to my suggestion that if renewables are now at such a developed state where they replace fossil fuels because unsubsidized renewables are *actually cheaper* and *plentiful* is inevitable is relevant to my response to what we should do– which is stop subsidizing the.
Presumably if wind, solar and so on take over, the answer to your question is "less warming that if they don't". There are lots of estimate of how warming proceeds if we do hit zero emissions. You can look them up. But I don't think that affects the answer to the economic question. That answer is: Well, then stop subsidizing the inevitable winers let the free market work!
lucia (Comment #174415): "I've heard people tell me that renewables are going to be cheaper and replace fossil fuels whether or not we subsidize renewables. My response to that is: Great! Then we should no longer subsidize renewables. Let's just get the government out of the way. Let the renewables kill off fossil fuels on their own and let the better run companies and ideas sort themselves freely."
Exactly right.
I suppose that makes us corporate shills.
MIkeM,
Corporate shills for renewables run by market oriented capitalists!
I agree with Lucia's comments on letting the free market work in determining the direction of attempts to mitigate climate change. Government picking winners and directions in these matters is much too confining to work.
The position for the argument against this approach, although not necessarily directly stated, is that government can work directly more efficiently than freeing up the market and then standing out of the way. I do not see any empirical evidence or theoretical understanding for that approach, but I think the discussions become less tangential if we concede that most of the differences on climate change and how to handle it come out of these more basic political or philosophical differences. Even how we judge uncertainty about climate change and its effects can be related to our views of government versus (true) free market approaches. One who is already convinced that government is better equipped to handle the climate problem will not need much evidence to call for (more) government involvement. A truly hardliner on government involvement in this case probably thinks the government should already be involved no matter the evidence for future effects bad or good.
Kenneth,
The thing is, if someone's argument is that renewables are necessary but *can't succeed* (or get a start or something) without government support, that would be an argument to subsidize. But when the argument is that they are now sufficiently far along that they will displace fossil fuels no matter what, we no longer need subsidies. If the claim is true, we have definitely moved to the point where we should let market forces work, allow business people to enter and make choices based on what is going to be rewarded in the free market, not based on which specific program the government happens to be subsidizing. The government choices between competing renewables are likely to be suboptimal, so we (and the companies working to bring these to market) are better off *without* the subsidies.
Yes, the government was involved in kicking off the internet. But after a certain point, it didn't need to be subsidizig things like Facebook vs. My Space, or Amazon vs. Barnes and Nobels or promotig some specific "vision". The government subsidized the Wright Brothers *competitors* to bring about flight. At a certain point, the government is just no good at picking out the "right" technology– ad has ever been. Consequently, after a certain point, the subsidies are just throwing money down a rathole.
By the way: if someone admits renewables are FAR from ready to compete economically, argues we need them, and they could someday get there but meanwhile require subsidies, I could support subsidies– provided the claims can be supported and the government program is well thought out. In fact: I do and have supported such subsidies. Yes, there might be the "rat hole" effect, but that's a risk we sometimes need to take.
The problem is: that argument for subsidies falls apart if the claim is that the renewables are now at the point where they are economically viable and don't need any subsidies.
Lucia, the problem with even the initial government subsidies of industries is that it never ends. Fossil fuel and nuclear power continue to be subsidized by the government.
I do not like to call the tax break that fossil fuel receives a subsidy since it implies the government owns your output and is giving some of it back, but when you are keeping score of who is being favored by the government it has to be considered. I would approve of eliminating all subsidies in order to level the playing field in order to allow the markets to work.
Lucia,
“…they could someday get there but meanwhile require subsidies….â€
.
That’s the problem: that someday isn’t coming. What makes renewables not competative isn’t going to be resolved by subsidies. They are not competative because they are non-disparchable, which drastically reduces the market value of the power they produce. Subsidies only keep renewables going, when they ought die a natural (market driven) death. Development of fail-safe nuclear, which has minimal long-lived radioactive waste production, ought be subsidized, because it is a much better fit to actual economic needs.
SteveF,
I agree nuclear is the path forward. I think it makes more sense to subsidize nuclear for low carbon baseload. (Then use other things for peak demand).
I'm just saying that IF someone says that (having been subsidized) renewables are now so well underway that somehow they will take over even if we don't subsidize, that's an argument for NOT subsidizing them.
Mind you, the person saying renewables are about to become abundant and cheap might be deluded or lying or whatever. But ok: If renewables are suddenly going to be cheap and abundant, they don't need or merit subsidies. We don't need to think anymore: off the list of things that should be subsidized. They can stand in their own, let them.
MInd you: the first time I came across someone who was making that claim they *seemed* to think the near imminent breakthrough for cheap abundant renewables was a reason TO subsidize them. But it's not. It's in fact a reason to NOT subsidize them.
I can see an economic argument that when an industry generates harm/benefit that they aren't capturing directly, the government can level the true economic costs by using taxes/subsidies to force the third party effects into the transaction.
.
Of course, there are some immediate practical difficulties — the government has to assessment damages correctly, and the government is not likely to be the affected party. Plus unless the benefit/damage is immediate, you need a discount rate and the "correct" discount rate simply can't be determined accurately in advance. Unless protected by the government, harmed third parties have the ability to sue for damage done; if the Social Cost of Carbon is unreasonably high, who do the victims of that sue?
.
There was a darkly amusing thread at WUWT about a month back about a proposed ISO standard for "monetary valuation of environmental impacts and related environmental impacts". A useful tool for the toolkit, perhaps? But the linked article gave an example:
—
A simple example of environmental impact valuation:
.
Imagine a wooden chair, which is worn out and needs to be disposed of. The chair weighs 12 kg. There are two options:
.
Throw the chair into a nearby rubbish bin, after which it ends up in landfill.
.
Drive the chair to a heating plant 10 km away, where it will be burned, and used for local heating instead of fossil fuels.
In the first case, the cost of transport and the landfill is low – 0.40 Euros, and the emissions from the transport are largely negligible. But, the degradation of the wood in the landfill takes place under oxygen-poor conditions, resulting in 4 kg of methane being formed. This leaks into the atmosphere and contributes to the greenhouse effect. The environmental cost of methane emissions has been calculated at EUR 3.80/kg using the EPS methodology. In total, therefore, there is a conventional cost of 0.40 Euros, and an environmental damage cost of 4 X 3.80 = 15.20 Euros.
.
In the second case, the transport costs 5 Euros. The transport gives an emission of 3.8 kg carbon dioxide, but the thermal energy derived from the chair means that 6 kg of coal does not have to be burned for the heating plant to produce the heat needed. This results in a saving of about 20 kg of carbon dioxide emissions, and 6 kg of the finite natural resource, coal. With EPS, the environmental damage cost for carbon dioxide has been calculated at EUR 0.135/kg and the natural resource value of coal at EUR 0.161/kg. Therefore, this method of disposal results in a total conventional cost of 5 Euro, but a saving of environmental damage costs, an actual environmental gain, of 0.135 X (20 – 3.80) + 0.161 X 6 = 3.153 Euros.
—
Without this handy useful method, spending 0.40 Euros to dispose of the chair instead of 5 euros is *much* more economically efficient. But with the ISO standard, we can see if their calculations are correct, sequestering the wooden chair in a landfill deserves a tax of 15.20 Euros, while driving it further to send its CO2 up a chimney deserves a subsidy of 3.153 Euros. Maybe it's just me, but I think putting a thumb *that* heavy on the scales could really do some serious economic damage.
DaleS,
Or you could burn the chair when camping, save the firewood you would otherwise have burned. Or you could put the chair in chipper shredder and use it as mulch. Or. . .
The Democrats continue to disgrace themselves.
You have probably heard about Ilhan Omar's outrageous description of the 9/11 attacks as "some people did something". Prominent Democrats have been lining up to defend Omar. They include Nancy Pelosi, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, and Beto O'Rourke. The only defense I can see for Omar's remark is that perhaps she misspoke. So far as I am aware, she has not walked it back and none of her defenders have suggested that maybe her wording was unfortunate.
——-
Here is a critique of Omar from an immigrant American Muslim:
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/qanta-ahmed-ilhan-omar-is-a-disgrace-to-islam-and-doesnt-represent-my-muslim-religion
"Sadly, Omar gives millions of Americans a false impression of what Islam is and what we Muslims believe and stand for. While she denounces prejudice against Muslims, her aberrant views on Islam fuel prejudice against me and my coreligionists by distorting who we are while defaming and dishonoring the great monotheism of Islam."
…
"As a Muslim woman of color and immigrant – just like Omar – it’s logical to assume that if there was pervasive anti-Muslim discrimination in the United States I would be aware of it.
"But in fact, Muslims have not experienced a contraction of civil rights in the U.S. since the Sept. 11 attacks. We continue to have the same rights as all other Americans."
…
"The myth of Muslim victimhood is an Islamist one. It is completely false in the setting of Islam in America and in comparison to Islam in the wider Muslim-majority world."
Lucia,
The funny thing is that I like real wood furniture because it's light and doesn't wear out easily. We're still using a wooden table that my wife's great-grandmother originally used. I've broken a wood chair but never worn one out, and I think mine are significantly less massive than 12 kg.
.
In the event that it really was better to burn the wood industrially than bury it, the logical way to do that would be to have the sanitation company gather it and send all the burnable wood together.
Saying which, apparently Notre Dame is on fire.
https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/notre-dame-fire/index.html
>Presumably if wind, solar and so on take over, the answer to your question is "less warming that if they don't".
Not necessarily. Global warming from CO2 is only to a new equilibrium. It could be that the impact of the wind and solar would happen after this max level is reached.
Bradley Manning's hacking consisted of conspiring with Assange to get someone else's password, which Manning used to access the same material he could already get. Is this hacking?
MikeN,
The law doesn't say it's illegal "to hack". It describes what behaviors and actions are illegal. I'm pretty sure getting someone else's password and accessing material is "unauthorized access" and that's what's illegal. So, for example, phishing to get a password and using it is illegal and so on.
Arguments exist if an authorized user willingly shares their password and you log on with their permission. ( The question is *who* has the right to authorize.)
Arguments exist when a company tries to use "obscurity" (i.e. really long passwords with strange characters in them) to protect access. ( Companies are stupid to try this method and argument. )
But an actual, formal password that the user knows is a password communicates one is supposed to be authorized.
But there is no question that if you have permission from no-one and use a password, your access is 'unauthorized'.
Lucia, in all of your cases, the activity is needed to get access. Manning was authorized to access the material, had his own password. I can't quite see a violation. Steve McIntyre pointed out that wget was used to present alternate credentials, but I don't think that produces a violation either.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030
MikeN (Comment #174432): "Manning was authorized to access the material, had his own password."
But he misused the material in a criminal manner. So are you questioning whether he can be charged with hacking in addition to his other crimes? If so, I suspect that he used someone else's access in an attempt to cover his tracks. Then that is illegal access in the furtherance of his crime. I think that is hacking.
MikeM, Manning is guilty of some crimes, perhaps, but Assange is not guilty of conspiracy to commit all of these. 18USC1030 that I linked, seems to have the crime of transmitting the material to Assange include 'access without authorization…' as an element. Yes, Manning was trying to cover up who was taking the files, and this is where Assange helped.
MikeN,
I have not been glued to the intertubes keeping track of precisely what Manning did. So, I don't know. However
"(6) knowingly and with intent to defraud traffics (as defined in section 1029) in any password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization, if—
(A) such trafficking affects interstate or foreign commerce; or
(B) such computer is used by or for the Government of the United States; [3]
Would be something a person who (a) has a password and (b) is authorized to access material could easily do. Lendig a password could be "trafficking" it. If the intent is to allow someone else to get material they don't have access to, that would be with intent to defraud the government.
If a person did that it looks like they would be guilty of a violation. So, your claim he had a password and was authorized to access does not mean he could not be guilty of a violation.
Whether he was or not…. dunno. Because as I have said, I don't know what he did. I did not follow the story. Obviously, I can't go through and find precisely what he might have been guilty of because I don't know what he was charged with nor what he did.
Traffics requires sending the password or 'disposing of' it, whatever that means. They might have him on sending part of the password for Assange to decrypt the rest.
The indictment bypasses this by charging the use of Linux to get to some files that required administrator access in Windows, which Manning did not have.
MikeN
**They might have him on sending part of the password for Assange to decrypt the rest.**
Maybe. I don't know.
>>The indictment bypasses this by charging the use of Linux to get to some files that required administrator access in Windows, which Manning did not have.
.
That raises my hackles. I don't know what this is about – haven't been following it, so I don't really know what they mean. But what it sounds like- something was 'secured' under Windows (basically means it wasn't secured) but it was accessible from a Linux machine on the same network. So – it wasn't secure. You can build a three walled structure with a door and lock the door. I don't know what the law says, but it seems to me that walking through the opening isn't breaking and entering. It's just.. entering…
.
Building a three walled structure with a door and locking the door isn't as ridiculously uncommon or hyperbolic an analogy as one might imagine, in my experience with government security. Particularly where the government interfaces with contract workers who are just trying to get a specific job done.
Mike, you've got me curious now. Where are you reading about this? [I wanna go see too].
Mark, it's in the indictment. I saw Steve McIntyre tweeting about details.
I don't think Manning accessed Windows files from another Linux machine, but by booting the computer to Linux from CD to bypass Windows security. This would mean Windows login was used as authentication for the network though, so perhaps it's a little different.
There is a legitimate debate about how to pay for the R&D to get to the point where renewables are at cost and reliability parity.
.
Imagine if nuclear power didn't exist yet, there wouldn't be any commercial entity willing to commit to the risk and cost of developing it. There are a few Bill Gates around willing to invest some money into this technology but the reality is that we have nuclear power because the government needed to nuke somebody and invested huge sums to get there, ha ha.
.
The government funding R&D for energy breakthroughs in storage and production is fine by me, and I vastly prefer this over subsidies on non-competitive technology, and vastly, vastly prefer it to placing carbon sin taxes on anyone. There is also some justification for the government investing in pilot large scale projects to get the technology worked out.
.
The end goal is to get poor developing countries to be able to use low carbon energy because it makes financial sense. Future emission increases are dominated by these poor countries becoming more wealthy. You don't get there by taxing US citizens, unless that tax is for R&D. It is telling that most global warming activists aren't interested in this line of logic because they are more interested in moralizing and self gratification.
It is only possibly honorable to break the law for a just cause if you are willing to pay the legal price for that breach. Too many alleged martyrs today think they should not have to pay any price, nor do the hard work of changing a bad law. It's lazy.
.
Edward Norton sitting in jail would have my respect, even though I may not agree with what he did. Muhammad Ali was willing to go to prison and ultimately won his case after a long legal fight.
Thanks Mike.
Tom Scharf,
"It is telling that most global warming activists aren't interested in this line of logic because they are more interested in moralizing and self gratification."
.
Sure, there is always a lot of moralizing by the green/left…. even as the very wealthy ones fly private jets to Davos. But I think what they are after is mostly that poor people remain poor (AKA never use much inexpensive fossil fuels), and that more wealthy people become poor (AKA don't use much inexpensive fossil fuels). Of course, you can be certain private jets would never be banned. It is a POV that values "protecting the environment" far more than improving the lives of poor people… or even maintaining the lives of somewhat wealthier people.
SteveF "USC is a very competative school, but 33 ACT is in the middle of their accepted applicants, especially if he also has a GPA above 3.75. There’s a chance he is just too Asian to be admitted."
Before too much time passes, I did want to respond to this. Yes (surprisingly to me) USC is very competitive. However, my son's extra-curriculars are much better than his ACT score. He has written and directed 4 short films, including one that was a semifinalist in a competition open to college students. He has formed 3 businesses (none of which made money) and more.
I am a bit suspicious that some wacko rejected his application for a weird reason. For instance, in one of the film competitions that my son entered, a film by an Asian Indian girl claimed that teachers tried to force her (and a Black girl) to change their last names. Personally, I believe this was a lie and there was no evidence in the film that her experience was true. On the other hand, since USC is so competitive his rejection could have been entirely justified under whatever standards USC has. No big deal to me because it would have probably been too expensive and because USC is in a very dangerous section of Los Angeles. However, academia is quite often such a weird, small-minded place that I always wonder.
JD
Lucia: For your pupils –More evidence that it pays to wait to May 1 deadline for college enrollment if you have good grades and scores.
After not hearing from SAIC for a while, it offered my son $18,000 a year in scholarships a couple of days ago. My son isn't interested. Still just a fraction of their tuition, but further evidence that if you wait to close to the deadline, the offers will come.
JD
Lucia: "But for some mysterious reason "sports" (including water polo) is seen as doing it, despite there being ZERO evidence it teaches any life skills not taught by doing any number of other things including flipping burgers at McDonalds to put together money to pay for lunch!"
……
A confluence of the NFL draft, and a comment my son made today got me thinking about your comment. I think that competing at a high level can teach more life skills than flipping burgers — although virtually any kind of work is useful. I am a big Ohio State football fan and have been pleasantly surprised about the maturity and work ethic of most Ohio State players. Here is a link to Terry McLaurin being informed that he was a 3rd draft pick. ($1,000,000 signing bonus) https://theozone.net/community/main-forum/washington-redsksins-select-terry-mclaurin-third-round-2019-nfl-draft/#post-3290 He is very humble and eager to work. He was always a good teammate at OSU.
…..
When I was in law school and came across OSU players (mostly on basketball courts), they were invariably more mature and polite than most other students.
…..
Part of what motivated me to comment was my son telling me that Ohio State was probably the number school for his classmates. (His high school is very good. My son with a 4.2 gpa ranks about 50th in his class) He said that OSU is becoming like Michigan (ACT scores rising significantly) and that a lot of his classmates like OSU football. For whatever the reason, there is significant evidence that football leads to higher enrollment for some universities.
…..
My son is going to Miami of Ohio which is giving him a good chunk of change and appears to have a better business school than OSU.
JD
JD Ohio,
Fair enough. I have to admit…. there is something about competition in a sports framework that has special features. The feature is and the end of the discussion of the "experience".
I've been doing ballroom dance and decided to compete. The competitions don't involve many people and they create all sorts of levels and age groups. Last fall, I competed "Novice Bronze" and "Bronze I" in five individual dances in Latin dance but then went in for the "Fulll bronze" for the 5 dance. (Only Full bronze exists for 5 dance. There are four levels — I think). I did really well in the Novice and Bronze 1 taking lots of firsts in my events (except "Full Bronze" where I came in fifth.) What this really meant is I was the best of 4 in "novice" in my age group. Since I was best in that grouping, I tended to first or second in *every* one of the 5 dances. But when competing against the "Full Bronze" crowd– whove been dancing longer… well… 5th out of more dancers.)
Then… I competed smooth. I'm not that great in smooth. There were only two "novice Bronze" in my age group. The other Novice Bronze lady beat me in …. pretty much everything. (But of us went up a step against Bronze 1 for a few… I did beat her in Tango once.) It felt bad…
So then,later, in the ladies room, I talked to a few other competitors. Some said they felt disappointed… and I said… yeah… It did. But when I really looked at it, I wasn't constantly beaten by "everyone else". If we account for levels and experience, I lost to really *one person* who was better than I was.
Afterwards, I just decided I need to focus on some BASICS instead of patterns and so on. So hopefully I'll do better.
But the point is: the experience of *losing* and accepting losing is useful. And, equally important, sports competition is organized in a way that nearly always forces nearly everyone to lose *sometimes* and often, the loss *doesn't matter*. The loss isn't part of your "record". It's not quite like school grades which continue to follow you when you apply to schools. You can resolve to work on the sport more. Or, you can give it up. It really doesn't matter.
So if you love it (or something about it), you continue because you love it and you want to be better. And you work. And you admit that (nearly always) someone else is better than you at something about your sport. But that's ok.
So there is something about competitive sports that does foster both effort to improve, loving victory but accepting defeat as part of the process. And for that matter, knowing that "defeat" is contextual. Not winning the Super Bowl is almost certainly disappointing to the losing team, but OTOH, they got lots of victories on the way there. And they did get there.
Lucia, does your dance partner share your views on competition? Teamwork has to be one of the major learned skills coming out of competition where more than one person is involved and particularly where the level of competition is higher.
The dancing is "pro-am" which means everyone is dancing with their teacher. I'm not sure what his views on losing are. He has to dance with people who sometimes win and sometimes lose. The fact is whether or not he is a good teacher, some students work hard… others don't. Some enter in unrealistic levels, others don't. Some risk more loss… some don't…
Lucia, your post regarding competition just about knocked me over with a feather. For some reason, I just felt like giving my take. Didn't expect your viewpoint to change.
JD Ohio (Comment #174684): "When I was in law school and came across OSU players (mostly on basketball courts), they were invariably more mature and polite than most other students."
I think that goes to an aspect of sports that is in addition to what lucia says. Organized sports for young people can be useful in developing desirable traits associated with maturity. They need to learn punctuality (practices, games, team buses), responsibility (to teammates), time management, sportsmanship, respect for elders (coaches, officials), public deportment (if the team travels).
One can find lots of examples of bad behavior by players, coaches, and parents. That is because such things make news, being very much the exception, not the rule.
JD Ohio,
It probably wouldn't have changed my view point last February. The competition where I came in 2nd out of 2nd was in March. My "major wins" were in October. When you wrote your comment, I thought …. hmmmm…. And I thought back on that experience and realized that *the losing* (and reasonable reaction) is very beneficial.
Mine you, losing over and over and over and over wouldn't be beneficial. But most sports are organized to try to have a more or less level field for competition. They create divisions like men, women, age classes and so on. USDanceAssociation keeps points so people who win "Bronze" a certain number of times need to move up to "Silver" and so on. (I've heard there is rampant cheating though…. people like to win. 😉 )
>>For whatever the reason, there is significant evidence that football leads to higher enrollment for some universities.
Football, and basketball, when you are in the top 25 can be an effective low cost, for the reach, marketing campaign for the University. It's the best way to get your name out in front of the masses if you're not a top 10/top 20 school. You can see the impact in enrollment spikes when lower visibility schools do well.
Andrew P (Comment #174693): "there is significant evidence that football leads to higher enrollment for some universities."
I thought the only clearly established case of that was Boston College. Pre Doug Flutie, it was a regional school; post Doug Flutie, it was national. But at the time, Boston College was something of a hidden gem, not known outside of the northeast. So Flutie put it on the map, and the quality of the school took it from there.
Enrollment was a poor word choice. Applicants would be more appropriate. This could lead to increased enrollment, higher selectivity, or more out of state students. I know the applicant pool size jumps for the Cinderella's that make it deep in the NCAA and the local school's jumps whenever we do well. No debate on that the quality of the school is also a determining factor.
On the Harvard/Asian admissions front. One of my son's Chinese friends got admitted to Harvard. Had a perfect ACT and only moderate extra-curriculars. Almost certainly the current lawsuit helped him.
JD
JD,
He must have had a great personality…. for someone from a Chinese family. 😉
.
But you are probably right, the rate of Asian admissions to Harvard is bound to increase due to the lawsuit. When it does, that will show even Harvard Admissions staff know they have always blatantly discriminated based on race. The lawsuit may not succeed, but it will help to reduce racial descrimination.
The college admissions advisors have probably learned which personality traits admissions personell consider are "good" and how to seem to have that trait on paper and are now coaching the student applicants to add certain adjectives or sentences to their essays. 🙂
Interesting discussion with son several days ago. (4.2 gpa and very good ACT score at a very good high school that had 18 students with perfect ACT scores and 14 more with 1 below perfect)
…..
He said that in dealing with computer competency, among the boys, it was hit or miss. Either they were very good or knew nothing. He said the girls had no interest in computers and generally knew very little. (including his sister, my 13-year-old daughter) Would add that he hangs around with smart girls and that his short-term girlfriend, was one of those with a perfect 36 on the ACT.
……
Surprised me because around half of high school math teachers are women and it appears that women have a real interest in math. Think this is relevant to the comparative lack of women programmers at places such as Google. Don't know why women would be attracted to math but not programming.
JD
>around half of high school math teachers are women
What's the percentage for other teachers?
As of 2016, 64% of high school teachers are women. In elementary schools, it is near 90%. Nationwide, 80% of all teachers are white.
.
FWIW, I think math and most kinds of computer programming are very different from each other.
SteveF: "I think math and most kinds of computer programming are very different from each other.'
…..
How so. In my mind a big component of both is the ability to follow rules in a disciplined manner along with some imagination in solving new problems.
JD
JD Ohio,
Math is pure logic. Computer programs are a means to reach a goal. Yes, there are ‘rules’ for both, but that is about the extent of it. A computer program can be structured in many different ways to reach the desired goal (some much more efficient than others!), but math is usually much more limited; you solve algebra problems using standard manipulations. I know people who are math competent but are not at all competent in the use of computers, never mind writing computer programs. They also have no interest in learning programming. The capability to do math is probably a requirement for most types of programming (certainly scientific programming), but math capability doesn’t imply programming capability.
SteveF: Re: Computer Programming and Math.
…….
Thanks for your very useful answer.
SteveF & JD Ohio,
Also, bear in mind that "high school math teacher" is not quite the same as "mathematician". While high school math teachers need to be good at math relative to the general population, teaching high school math over a 20-40 year career means they will be focusing on how to get this years students to master certain material. Then next year: get that years students to master more or less the same stuff. Then next year…. and so on.
One of the very easy things about tutoring is that if you know the subject matter at the appropriate level, after a few years you know precisely what topics are going to come up, you have a trove of materials you find useful and so on.
The popularity of Advanced Placement programs makes things even easier because you don't have and AP physics 1 teacher deciding they think "color and light" is or "relativity" are so super keen that they should cover those instead of "waves" or "rotational motion". The later are on the AP Physics 1 test; the former are not.
For the most part, high school teachers will not be focusing on developing new mathematical breakthroughs or applying mathematics to new novel problems. According to this site https://www.aps.org/programs/education/statistics/womenmajors.cfm
the fraction of women graduating with BS Math is roughly 40%. This page:
https://pages.uncc.edu/rootsofstem/wp-content/uploads/sites/529/2013/12/ROOTS_WP_103.pdf
Says the fraction of female high school math teachers is 68%. The difference between 40% and 68% is quite large and likely reflects the fact that teaching math and working as a mathematician are very different types of jobs.
The spread may exist because many women are attracted to *teaching* (for various reasons). Some attracted to teaching know there is somewhat of a shortage in math. So if they are good in math, they decide to teach math. But also, owing to the shortage in STEM teachers relative to other topics, some of the math teachers may not have majored in Math. They generally have to have a qualification in math– but *may* have majored in education with a minor in math.
While there are some teaching programming jobs, I suspect there are a larger number of math teachers, and well… there are some differences there too. This has implications for how much of the job can be "tweak last years note slightly" vs. revamp everything! (Algebra 1 has not changed in ages. Which computer languages are most popular now were probably not the most popular 10 years ago and are unlikely to be most popular 10 years from now.)
(I don't want to suggest teaching is all done on remote control– but all jobs have elements of repeating what you did in the past. Some more, some less. "Working mathematician" is likely to have to move on and can't just do what they did last year quite so much.)
The fact is, despite all the rhetoric that ends up surrounding what is fair for teacher salaries, expectation, what level of respect they get and so on and so on, there are some unique things about teaching "X" that make it not the same as "specializing in X and applying it outside teaching". There are also unique things about time and effort demands, flexibility, vacation time, relative level of benefits, job security and so on.
I wonder if there would be more women teaching computer programming if the classroom had no computers.
Remembering we are talking about a statistical population and not individuals, I am going to go way out on a limb and suggest that men and women's brains are slightly differentiated in how they get rewarded.
.
Evolution favors successful hunters. Successful hunters need to have a long staying power not to get discouraged during long droughts and need patience to set up longer and more complex plan. If programming is more akin to a long complicated project that has no reward until fully complete it may be more akin to hunting. Most of human evolution relied on the males for hunting.
.
I have to qualify that females have areas of superiority over males in endurance for shorter tasks that have minimal payoff. Females shop for domestic goods at much longer intervals without being bored. There must be a biological payoff that males do not receive. Grocery shopping is perhaps more akin to evolution-programmed gathering. Teaching is nurturing. Females like bookeeping perhaps because there is a concise and reliable reward of the monthly reconciliation being achieved. I'm sure this theory is not original. There might be some science on it. I haven't checked.
Ron,
I tend the think there are on average difference between men and women and that includes preferences and other things. I don't have many theories about why women like one particular thing rather than another; it wouldn't surprise me if its due to past historical behaviors.
Having said that, I'm not at all convinced that "manly" pursuits like hunting require more planning than "womanly pursuits" that included gathering and– quite often– activities to preserve food so it kept through winter. This sometimes included preserving food the guys brought back from the hunt. Someone had to plan what materials to have on hand to preserve that– and that had to be done under the uncertainty of what would be hauled back.
So it seems to me, food preservation, storage and upkeep requires quite a bit of planning. I would argue it requires significantly more planning and foresight that hunting– especially since hunting often includes things like catching rabbits which really requires very little more planning than gathering. But preparation can involve more planning even than collecting together a team to bring down big game. Since preserving food requires MORE planning than hunting, and the food preservation is a "woman" task that would argue for women having more patience than men.
(Of course, we can speculate all we want, but I'm pretty sure we can concoct arguments for men's task requireing more planning and others for women's requiring more planning. All we need to do is edit the list of tasks!)
Beyond that: some programming involves long complicated projects. Quite a bit does not. Often programming can be broken down into smaller project each with a finish. Many people find finishing the sub-projects — like getting a function or subroutine working– rewarding. So I would hardly say that there is no reward in programming before it is complete.
in contrast, book keeping, like laundry is never really done. As soon as you "finish up" there are new entries and everything starts over. If anything, *these* jobs never have the reward of "completion". (At least, that's one of the reasons I can't stand them! So it's funny to me to hear they are rewarding because they end up completed. They never are!! Arghhh!!!!)
But nomadic people don't go in much for preservation and storage of food. That only works for sedentary groups, which usually requires agriculture.
Lucia (and others),
Seems to me that hunter/gatherer civilizations benefited (genetically) from having men be bigger, stronger, and willing to take on high-risk tasks (slaying the beast! war!) and those same civilizations benefit from having women take lower risk (but equally important) tasks…. someone has to raise children if humanity is to survive. Of course, we are no longer hunter/gatherers, so it doesn’t really matter today in most jobs if you are bigger and stronger.
.
But the ‘hard wired’ male/female differences are not so easily changed. Sure, there are women willing to take on combat roles in the armed forces, and more power to them, but that role will most often be dominated by men. In the most competative work environments, the most aggressive people usually do better, and what are ‘real men’ if not aggressive? The suggestion (as many have suggested) that male/female behavioral differences are social constructs, and nothing more, strikes me as infantile nonsense.
I think the difference between % of females and males as professional mathematicians may be explained by the male variability hypothesis. Basically when looking at the population as a whole ability in most things closely follows the normal curve but looking at females alone the curve is extra peaky with thin tails while the male curve is flat with thick tails so when looking at the top 1% (those likely to use this ability professionally) there will be more males than females and this is also true with the bottom 1%. So more male inmuerates but also more male mathematicians.
Mike M,
You are mistaken about the history of food preservation. Food preservation predates agriculture. Even Neanderthals preserved food.
https://www.healththoroughfare.com/science/the-neanderthal-communities-developed-food-preservation-techniques-a-study-discovered/7698
Among other things, ancient and modern day nomads dried meat. They dried other things.
SteveF,
I agree there are hardwired differences. Your speculation about risks etc. strike me as more grounded in evolution than the idea about the "planning". Females take fewer risks for lots of reasons. Among them: being currently pregnant, currently lactating, not getting an "extra reward" in procreation for outsized behavior.
Andrew Kennett,
Males do seem more variable. I've read people suggest it is for exactly the same reason Steve suggest. Females tend to have a number of offspring between a few and not a more than a dozen no matter what their behavior. Males can potentially have zero or thousands. Ghengis Khan is thought to have had lots and lots and lots of kids– from a bunch of harem concubines. Risk taking paid off for him. This sort of behavior would never garner a female that number of progeny.
Lucia: "So it seems to me, food preservation, storage and upkeep requires quite a bit of planning. I would argue it requires significantly more planning and foresight that hunting"
.
I agree. The human trait of hoarding, which likely springs from survival stores, seems to be very equally split. Planning might not have been the correct word. I think it's likely more the willingness to tolerate the lack of results for a longer period. I cannot remember seeing a woman fishing alone. If others have observed the same that example may be telling since it eliminates the social aspect from the equation.
.
I agree with Steve F on the high risk occupations being dominated by males. Although that shows possible co-evolutionary origins with longer waiting payoffs it does not explain computer programmer gender gap. I take the moderate road and feel social constructs are active and important as well. Women care about their identity as men do and programming, (let's face it), invokes an image of a Sheldon on the Big Bang Theory, not a Penny.
"Ghengis Khan is thought to have had lots and lots and lots of kids– from a bunch of harem concubines."
.
I can applaud the restraint from not using the example of the orange one. The irony is how we despise the inequity but we love to follow a strong leader.
Ron Graf,
It wasn't restraint. I picked the most extreme example known. Ghegis is known to have had hundreds of children and his Y gene is carried by 1/200 men.
https://bumpreveal.com/blogs/statistics/genghis-khan-dna-descendants
But yes, Trump would be an example of a man who fathered a lot of sons by having multiple wives.
I don't think there is any evidence women are less willing to put up with lack of result for long periods of time. Many of the guys I know who go fishing do it as an excuse to drink beer and sit in the sun. Or it's an excuse to get away from the family. The guys I see who fish to feed the family find efficient places and pretty well catch fish fairly quickly.
Ron Graf,
“Women care about their identity as men do and programming, (let's face it), invokes an image of a Sheldon on the Big Bang Theory, not a Penny.â€
.
Never seen the program, so I will have to take your word on the characters. But I really don’t think not wanting to write computer programs has a lot to do with wanting to maintaining social identity. When I ran a process engineering group many years ago, I had a couple of women in the group, and they were certainly willing to write code. One wrote very nice, clean code, well organized and commented, and I was happy to have someone who could make changes without screwing anything up. She was 26 and drop-dead beautiful as well, which was a plus….. for the men at the production plant! The other was very good at experimental design and data analysis (factorial designs, ANOVA, ext), much better than the other engineers in the group. Now, these women were both chemical engineers from well known universities, and so it didn’t surprise me that they were technically competent; I just don’t think they thought their technical competence was something that damaged their social identity. The drop-dead beautiful one was offered a sales job at a significantly higher salary but instantly turned it down. She said she just wasn’t interested in sales.
.
All of which is a long way of saying different people of both genders have a range of interests, and that their choices in education and employment reflect their interests. I am no more concerned with a relative lack of women in computer programming (or chemical engineering) than I am a relative lack of male nurses. It is only if you believe there are no differences in the *average* interests of men and women that differences in education and career choices reflect ‘prejudice’ against people based on gender. Having actually known many men and women, I think the a priori assumption that men and women have no differences on average is absurd. I have seen zero evidence for employment prejudice based on gender.
Lucia, just because fishing is used by some men as an escape today doesn't mean that it gives no reward. Also, women have escapes as well like romance novels. I stand behind my hypothesis that there is a statistical variation in the biology of the brains according to gender.
.
Steve F, I agree with everything you wrote and do not see any conflict in it to what I wrote. I especially agree that there is no significant discrimination today except for a slight social carryover from past traditions, which is quickly vanishing naturally and does not present a problem or inequity. My hypothesis would predict that if men and women were raised identically they would still statistically show preferences by gender for types of work.
When dealing with individuals – which is what we all do in the end – the variation within a categorized group quickly comes to the fore. While general differences in the mean between groups certainly exists and makes for interesting conversation about the origins of that difference, it probably will not help me size up the next individual I meet. How boring life would be if that noise level within groups were so low I could easily do that sizing up.
Ron,
I think fishing involves *a lot* of reward. What I doubt is there is any delay in achieving it. My brothers in law achieve the "reward" associated with ice fishing the moment they are on the ice. It's the activity itself that is rewarding, not the catching of fish.
*Also, women have escapes as well like romance novels.* Yes. And the reward starts the moment they begin to read the book, not when they finish it. Just as the reward for fishing starts the moment they guys begin fishing.
*I stand behind my hypothesis that there is a statistical variation in the biology of the brains according to gender.*
I've already agreed with this multiple times.
It's your notion about when reward occurs, which activities involve the most planning and foresight or willingness to wait for rewards that I find dubious. With your example for fishing you are giving men credit for "waiting" for their reward, when in fact, for modern day fishermen, the reward starts *almost instantly*. (It's the same for lots of hobbies– knitting, sewing, my current hobby dancing. The lessons and practice sessions are their own reward. I don't need to wait to win a competition to have a "reward".)
If I was to predict programming ability, I would first look at scores on the non-verbal portions of the SAT. Although the ability to understand differential equations might not be directly related to programming ability, all the underlying prerequisites do, especially algebra and geometry/trigonometry (as in proofs, etc.). I think image visualization ability also is predictive of programming abilities.
.
The big asterisk here is what means by "programming". Knocking out corporate web pages, database search algorithms, 3D gaming, and embedded firmware are all significantly different.
The really hard part is separating what is cultural and what is biological. Being handed Barbies or GI Joes every birthday likely has some influence.
.
What is rarely discussed beyond patriarchal oppression is that there are likely many men out there who would prefer to stay out of the manhood rat race and take care of the kids at home and not deal with the survival of the fittest corporate climbing exercise.
.
One can acknowledge cultural barriers and also believe that there are real biological differences. The goal is to remove any artificial cultural barriers and then let people sort the rest out themselves. The goal is not to force a 50/50 split on who plays with dolls and then declare success. If women don't want to be garbage-persons and brick layers that is fine by me.
.
Even if some of the differences are artificial cultural barriers it's not so obvious to me that is such a bad thing that we need political programs with diversity accountants to solve it. Many people are more comfortable in all-male or all-female groups.
Ron Graf,
"The goal is to remove any artificial cultural barriers and then let people sort the rest out themselves."
.
Sure, but that is NOT what the lunatic gender-studies-left-fringe say they want. Poor Larry Summers was driven out of office at Harvard for even suggesting the *possibility* of "hard wired" differences in average aptitudes or interests for men and women. These folks will not countenance someone even entertaining such a thought…. really, IMO, they are simply disconnected from reality.
.
By the way, my kids didn't have GI Joe's or Barbie dolls handed to them on their birthdays…… they quite consistently hounded me for the toys they wanted well before their birthdays; I never pushed them.
Lucia: "It's your notion about when reward occurs, which activities involve the most planning and foresight or willingness to wait for rewards that I find dubious. "
.
Somebody had asked the question of why there is a deficit of female software engineers or programmers. I knew I was going out on a limb on a sensitive area because we all know that everyone tends to be egocentric even when they try not to be. So immediately radar antennas go up. Even though I never said that men were superior, only different, that must imply that I really meant superior. So I will plainly disavow that proposition. I suspect out of pure logic, that both genders have areas of superiority as statistical populations.
.
`I stand behind my hypothesis that there is a statistical variation in the biology of the brains according to gender.*
"I've already agreed with this multiple times." '
.
Lucia, what is your hypothesis for the gender gap in occupational areas like engineering and software development?
.
I realize Kenneth is always going to remember this was when I revealed my sexist attitudes. (sarc/off) But I knew the hazards.
Ron,
*I knew I was going out on a limb on a sensitive area because we all know that everyone tends to be egocentric even when they try not to be. So immediately radar antennas go up.*
Huh?
*Even though I never said that men were superior, only different, that must imply that I really meant superior. *
I never suggested you claimed men were superior. I said I doubt your theory about what tasks involve planning and so on. I've said I think you are wrong about fishing by modern men who do it for recreation involving the ability to defer a reward.
You can engage the issue and explain why you thinking recreational fishing involve deferred "reward" (when in reality, for men I've seem fishing, the reward is *immediate*. They are having fun being in the fresh air, mucking around and so on. The fish is NOT the reward. They could buy fish!)
Or of go off on an irrelevant tangent and suggest that my objection had something to do with accusing you of claiming men were superior even though I did nothing of the sort.
*Lucia, what is your hypothesis for the gender gap in occupational areas like engineering and software development?*
Mostly inherent differences between male and female interests. I've said this before. I've agreed with people who said it upthread.
It your specific theories about "fishing" and "hunting" vs. "gathering" that I find dubious.
Lucia: "Mostly inherent differences between male and female interests."
.
Inherent on what theory?
Ron.
I now have no idea what you are asking me.
What I can say, and have said, is your idea that hobby fishing involve deferred reward is wrong. Do you concede that theory of yours is wrong?
"Do you concede that theory of yours is wrong?"
Not without a better theory.
.
Lucia, you say the differences are inherent. By that I will assume you mean genetic. My belief is that evolution drives genetic traits. Therefore one must logically look to what evolutionary forces existed for a male and female to succeed in passing on their genes.
.
If you agree, and also that men were tasked in the evolutionary sense with hunting and combat while women were tasked with maintaining the dwelling and child rearing then it seems logical to me that what you must mean by "inherent" follows this idea into influence in affinities for modern tasks that most emulate these hard wired legacy responsibilities.
.
If you agree to that then the question follows does programming emulate hunting or combat? Or, does it more emulate child rearing or domestic tasks? I think we can eliminate combat of child rearing, and we can be left with hunting and domestic tasks. I think men dominate the sport fishing industry not because that is the most natural way to get away from a wife, but because they enjoy the engineering of a plan to use an apparatus and bait in an adventure to a special place where unseen game fish are known to inhabit. Yes, they could enjoy every step of the adventure even with the possibility they might leave disappointed. The question is why don't as many women get that same payoff from fishing?
Ron,
I don’t think there is a need for “delayed gratification†to explain selective pressure towards behavioral traits. My personal observation is that *on average* women tend to be more people oriented (or if you prefer, socially oriented) and men *on average* more object oriented. When I troubleshoot errant behavior in one of my boat motors (which I did a few days ago), I am doing it as much to understand the physical process/problem as to resolve the problem. I could just pay someone to fix it, but much prefer to understand it. My wife (a chemist with a PhD) just rolls her eyes in disbelief that I would spend time that way, yet volunteers to care for our 8 month old grand daughter… even though her time is much more financially valuable than child care wages.
.
Computer programming is usually pretty far removed from people orientation, and depending on the complexity of the program, extremely ‘object oriented’. It is no coincidence that modern day programming is often described as ‘object oriented’ programming! Same sort of thing (to a lesser extent) in engineering.
.
I think the *average* differences in interests, abilities, and physical characteristics between men and women don’t need any explanation beyond that those differences generated selective advantages for BOTH men and women over the history of human evolution.
Ron,
I don't think we need a "theory" to see that the gratification for participants of hobby fishing is not delayed. Sorry, but for hobby fishermen, the gratification happens *immediately*. The fact that you either
(a) won't engage the things I am saying and specifically am objecting to in your claims or
(b) seem to need some sort of major theory to identify that the gratification occurs immediately sort of puts us at a end here.
If the problem is
(a) we can't get anywhere on discussing evidence on your ideas about major differences between men and women because you are either not grasping or not wishing to engage points I actually make.
If the problem is
(b)… mind boggles. I can certainly observe obvious facts without having a theory for why they occur. (Example: I can observed things in my hand fall when I let them go without having a theory of gravity.)
Ron,
*If you agree to that then the question follows does programming emulate hunting or combat? Or, does it more emulate child rearing or domestic tasks? *
Well… of the four, the answer would pretty obviously be domestic tasks or child rearing since it is absolutely positively nothing like hunting or combat. If those, it is most like domestic tasks.
*I think men dominate the sport fishing industry not because that is the most natural way to get away from a wife, but because they enjoy the engineering of a plan to use an apparatus and bait in an adventure to a special place where unseen game fish are known to inhabit.*
Nonesense. Men enjoy sport fishing because they get out in the fresh air, drink beer, have fun with their buddies and avoid domestic chores.
* The question is why don't as many women get that same payoff from fishing?*
Well… for me, there's the sunburn. And if you want to come up with ideas that the attraction to fishing is the "engineering a plan" to use "apparatus", domestic chores also "engineering a plan" to use "an apparatus" women are also at home deciding which already existing tool to use to vacuum the floor and which to use to clean the dishes.
It's hardly as if hobby fishermen are inventing poles, boats, fishing line and so on. This theory about where the reward is in fishing is ridiculous.
SteveF,
Once again: agree with you.
This bit is interesting
*I am doing it as much to understand the physical process/problem as to resolve the problem. *
Oddly, similar thing can happen with crafts. For me, one of the fun things in knitting is planning out a pattern, picking materials, figuring out how to assemble stitch patterns to get what I want, watching the process of forming stitches. (Note: there is just as much of what Ron described as "planning" and "engineering" involved here as Ron's fishing example. But I would rather disdain the idea that my thinking ahead that I need a cable needle and assembling the materials is "engineering". I'm an engineer. That's not engineering!)
The hobby makes no sense economically. One can buy perfectly good sweaters at the store!
Having said that: what many, many women love about knitting is getting together with friends to chat while doing a fairly simple mechanical thing. The socializing and 'crafting' will interlace. Similar things happened historically with quilting (quilting bees) and so on. The socializing is the reward.
Is there evidence (on evolutionary timescales) of this?
>>that men were tasked in the evolutionary sense with hunting and combat while women were tasked with maintaining the dwelling and child rearing
I'm not unduly concerned about the child rearing, I think women tend to care for infants and small children for various fairly straightforward reasons. But the assumption that males hunted and females maintained the dwelling in my view ought to be supported by some sort of evidence.
Female chimps hunt (https://www.futurity.org/female-chimps-hunting-tools-898912/). Female bonobos hunt. (https://www.livescience.com/9601-bonobos-hunt-primates.html)
I'm not exactly challenging the idea that males did most of the hunting – it's more that if somebody has solid evidence, I'd be pleased to know what it is.
Lucia, I'm not trying to evade your points. On the contrary, I am exploring all assumptions to promote a valid answer to both of our points.
.
I agree with the idea that needlepoint takes skill and planning, just like fishing. This brings up the question of whether needlepoint and fishing supply rewards in different ways. The answer is either: 1) they do and men and women have preferences based on hard wired genes or 2) the preference is totally the following of learned and emulated due to social forces. I think that both are at play. But if some is hard wired then this could explain other occupational preferences. And, this means that there are differences in how these activities supply rewards.
.
My hypothesis men are willing to take risks more than women. I think this is born out scientifically, for example, in automobile insurance industry statistics. Perhaps it's not that men enjoy taking risks but that men require a higher payoff and are willing to take more risks to get it. This is the other side of the coin of being willing to risk a failed hunt and also gaining some payoff in the anticipation of a successful hunt. This makes me wonder if men in casinos tend to make riskier bets, looking for higher and less frequent payoffs. This would be a good scientific exploration of the issue.
mark bofill,
Wikipedia has an article on hunter gatherers here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer
With regard to your question:
1) In modern day hunter gathering groups, men hunting and women gathering is more common. However, there are groups where women hunt. In particular, in Filipino hunter gatherer groups, women only groups hunt, and when they do, they have a higher success rate than men only groups. When mixed groups have the highest rate. (I could speculate why. I won't.)
2) They point out that conditions and alternate opportunities surrounding hunting and gathering today are quite different from in the past due to changes in ecology and so on. In the far past, scavenging is thought to have been more important than hunting. No one knows whether men only groups hunted in the far past. (I would suggest it's plausible for certain types of hunting.)
I am struck by a photo of a puma couple out "hunting and gathering". It's worth nothing that the man is carrying a bow and arrow. The women a gathering stick. So, the "team" is collecting food but working the same field at the same time.
I would suggest that IF you had these two food gathering options to do in parallel, and wanted a diverse food source, it's better have the man use the bow and arrow because the energy in the arrow will be proportional to F*d where F is the force the archer can apply to the arrow and d is the distance he pulls it back. Men are stronger and have longer arms, so his range will tend to be larger.
With respect to Ron's theory of something like "planning" or "deferred gratification" or "engineering solutions", in this particular instance it's pretty clear neither partner can be assumed to do more "planning", neither is deferring more gratification and neither is engineering more solutions. Both picked tools, decided to set out together and is getting food (or not) at the same rate. Working as a team the lower the risk the team will fail to get food, and tend increase variety of their diet. Specialization can help because with practice the man's aim is likely to get better and the woman's ability to detect plants is better. Also, during this process, each can be paying attention to particular things (the man looking for moving rabbits and so on, the woman on the look out for the tops of plants that have tuberous roots, shrubs with berries and so on.) The choice of who does what would simply be based on practical reality that men are larger and stronger and can put more energy into an arrow and so cause it to have a higher velocity.
Lots of people like to think of past hunting as some sort of team of men planning the great mastadon hunt. But there is no particular reason to expect that's been the main method of hunting over eaons and plenty to think otherwise.
Ron
*This brings up the question of whether needlepoint and fishing supply rewards in different ways. The answer is either: 1) they do and men and women have preferences based on hard wired genes or 2) the preference is totally the following of learned and emulated due to social forces. *
We've already agreed on the answer to these. I said my only disagreement was with your ideas of what involves "planning" and "delayed gratification" and so on.
*My hypothesis men are willing to take risks more than women.*
Ok… so you've moved on from the "planning", "delayed gratification", "engineering solutions" (in fishing) and so on and now are agreeing with what I wrote above:
Men take risks when they see the possibility of a large reward. See "Ghegis Kahn" issue.
(See my statement *Ghengis Khan is thought to have had lots and lots and lots of kids– from a bunch of harem concubines. Risk taking paid off for him.* )
So, at least as far as I can tell, after proposing bunch of claimed characteristics for "male behaviors" (which I said didn't seem to match the behaviors) you have now moved on to the ONE characteristic of activities I proposed way back: Reward for risk taking.
Interestingly, computer coding per-se actually doesn't really involve much "risk taking", which is likely why it is a endeavor that once was dominated by women and later me. I would suggest the relevant changed is not the coding per-se — though it has changed. It is the fact that coding now supports the possibility for a person to take a risk of failure and then achieve a very large reward. As in: they can start businesses and create products that then sell massively. Like Gates did. Like the Google guys did. And so on.
When coding was something that promised a decent job, but did not include the possibility of fabulous wealth through business generation, it was dominated by women.
Thanks Lucia.
I didn't know about the scavenging hypothesis, much appreciated. I can't find anything I disagree with in what you said.
The reward of fishing is being away from the wife, right? Am I missing something? Ha ha. Men are going to gravitate towards some kind of part time guys only activity. Golf, fishing, watching football. Women have the same things in their book clubs, sewing circles, etc.
.
I can tell you one thing with absolute certainty, men behave differently in male only groups and I assume women do the same. When men are in their groups without a woman present then the sexual tension (or whatever you want to call it) is removed and that changes the social situation. The drive for mating just cannot be turned off, and this tends to lead to conflict, so this may be one reason why gender specific groups form naturally.
Tom,
My brothers-in-law like ice fishing. They aren't married. But they like being outdoors in the fresh air, drinking… chillaxing…. They report that when you ice fish, catching fish is fast and easy. They throw everything back.
The reward is clearly not the fish. Nor is the gratification associated with the task "deferred".
But yes, for some men, the reward is being away from the wife who might ask them to do "honey dos" or help with the laundry. . . Also, they sometimes just want to hang with other men with no women present. So, I'm not entirely sure the attraction isn't partly the fact that the task HAS become associated with being a "man" thing instead of a "woman" thing (same for women.)
I once TAed for a 100-level computer science class. It was a required course to gain entry to the computer science program, but also fit General Education requirements and was recommended for a wide variety of technical majors. It had a large number of students and a fairly large proportion of these were female students.
.
In grading the tests, the main difference I noticed between male and female students was that the female tests were (by far) much easier to read. Neither the mean score nor the distribution of scores impressed me as different between the two populations. (While it may be true that males are more likely to be at the extreme ends, it didn't show up in a class at this level where the top end is constrained at a very achievable 100%, and those at the low end will drop quickly.) . As far as I could tell, the women were just as "good" as programming as the men.
.
However, a vastly smaller proportion of female students went on to major in CS than the men. AFAICT, it was interest rather than ability that drove selection away from CS. I have no way of knowing what proportion of disinterest was innate versus social, though back in the 80s CS was new enough that I doubt theories going back to toys handed out as children on basis of gender.
.
I also don't know why the women's tests were so much easier to read, and since the tests involved pseudocode we're talking printing rather than handwriting. This is presumably a subject on which both sexes had equal instruction and on which I imagine few of either sex had any specific interest in. Is there a theory for that?
.
Fortunately in this enlightened age where gender is a matter of preference rather than biology, all remaining differences between genders can be solved easily by bribing sufficient indidivudals with the right attributes to switch sides.
My daughter has taken several programming classes at UF and she absolutely crushes them. She showed me a list of scores from her last class and the lowest score she got was a 95%. She thinks it's simple, and I told her that it's not simple for a large majority of the populace and she has a lot of talent there. She is not interested at all into going into programming. She can't even articulate herself why that is, beyond it just isn't very interesting.
.
Speaking for myself I really like the problem solving and goal oriented aspect of programming. It is rewarding on both the small scale of solving mini-problems on a daily basis, and the large scale in completing large scale projects. I also "like" the anti-social aspect of it, much of the grunt work of the job is done solo. I've done the corporate job for over a decade early in my career and office politics are more downside than upside IMO. It's not that I like or dislike interacting with people, I just don't find it particularly rewarding.
My two cents (obviously your actual mileage will likely vary):
I like programming because it's the closest thing I can find to getting paid for doing puzzles (along with the boring docs and meetings and so on). Also, in general programming presents me the question 'can I make this thing do that?' which is (reasonably) often a fairly interesting question to me.
And it pays OK.
*shrug*
I'll add, I think women enjoy puzzles and find them interesting just as much as men do. I suspect the difference has something to do with the 'can I make this thing do that' question; if I had to guess, I'd guess that this question is generally less interesting to women.
Tom,
What you report about students you see and your daughter is exactly why I think the issue is preferences more than ability. It *may* be that, somehow, on average men have slightly more ability, or that the statistical spread means there are more men on the extremes of good ability. But I don't think that's the reason women don't go into CS.
The fact is: men who have borderline aptitude for engineering and coding pick the major out of interest. Sometimes the manage to graduate; sometimes fail. But many will perservere even if they fail a few classes. Women *with* aptitude are often profoundly disinterested and pick something else. Women with borderline aptitude for the subject almost invariably pick something else.
Of course, all of this is nested in our current culture and economic situation. Women might make different choices in a different culture or if the country was richer or poorer. But as far as I can tell, the major factor affecting lack of women in engineering is they don't want to work in that area. That lack of desire to working in the area results in a lack of desire to study the topic whether or not they are "able" to succeed if they did pursue it.
Some of you may enjoy Jordan Peterson's take on the differences between sexes. Here are a couple of samples. The second one addresses the question of why there are so few women at the top of major corporations – it's because they are not crazy as men!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Awot-d8U9Cc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewvqEqIXdhU
Dale S: "I also don't know why the women's tests were so much easier to read, and since the tests involved pseudocode we're talking printing rather than handwriting. "
I have a 13-yr-old girl and an 18-yr-old boy. Both bright. My girls 8-yr-old handwriting was way better than my son's handwriting at age 15. My son's 18-yr-old handwriting has become somewhat readable — maybe roughly like that of an average 6th grader. My girl now writes like an adult.
When my girl was in the second grade, she had a very bright female classmate. This girl wrote like an adult.
From my sample of one family, there are definitely differences between boys and girls; whether it is hard wired or social, I don't know.
JD
JD,
“…there are definitely differences between boys and girlsâ€
.
Thank goodness; it is something I have noted many times myself! (More when I was younger than now.)
Women tend to pick biology as a major over computer science or engineering.
I've never noticed the better looking code phenomenon, but it doesn't surprise me, as women will in general care more about neatness.
Lucia, I have not yet backed off my hypothesis of why women get less of a payoff from programming. I am still open though to hear a better one and have no great investment in it. Your hypothesis that: "The choice of who does what would simply be based on practical reality that men are larger and stronger and can put more energy into an arrow and so cause it to have a higher velocity," is not persuasive to me. You are saying that men just happened to be larger and stronger by chance, so the species just took advantage of that situation. I would say most biologists (even female ones), would assume that the gender phenotypes evolve to accommodate the specialized tasks. For example, women most certainly were the primary clothing makers, maybe even the tool makers. This would explain why women on average have better fine motor skills, which in turn explains why they have better handwriting. The neater writing is also a product of women being more aware of hygiene, being the ones around children, and needing to keep the dwelling orderly.
.
This all seems common sense to me but I know that we are in a hypersensitive society now. My opinion is that we are as far off the rails in that direction as the people of the eugenics era were in the other.
.
Again women may have identical student aptitudes in programming. If they do not get the same payoff as men though that even pack of runner at the start will quickly see the runners pull away who get the most reward for their work. Because, of course, they will be more motivated.
.
The central question is do men's brains get a different payoffs than women's brains? Lucia and I agree the answer is yes. The next question is why. I say evolution. Again, I think Lucia agrees (but not sure.) The final question is what types of problem solving give men's brains different rewards than women's? I'm not sure that discussion is a great idea in mixed company but I'm determined not to be cowed by PC, and I don't think it will lead to eugenics or other Pandora's boxes by thinking about it. I just haven't seen anyone dig into any specifics besides me on what evolutionary wired benefits equate to modern day programming.
humph.
>>You are saying that men just happened to be larger and stronger by chance…
Where did Lucia say that?
>>For example, women most certainly were the primary clothing makers
Again, I would be delighted to see conclusive evidence of this on timescales relevant to evolution. I'm not being sarcastic, I mean it. I'd love to share your certainty. Show me the evidence.
>>he neater writing is also a product of women being more aware of hygiene, being the ones around children, and needing to keep the dwelling orderly.
Look, you can't just make this stuff up and say 'well, that would make sense' as far as I am concerned, this is pure speculation.
.
>>I'm not sure that discussion is a great idea in mixed company but I'm determined not to be cowed by PC
This is why I really responded.
I'm not cowed by PC either. I don't think anybody objecting to your arguments here is cowed by PC. I expect everybody here agrees that men and women have genetic differences that give rise to different preferences (on average) over their lifetimes.
.
Not agreeing with you != being cowed by PC.
Ron
*Lucia, I have not yet backed off my hypothesis of why women get less of a payoff from programming. *
I've never suggested you back of from that. I've been asking you about your notions about fishing. For example:
*What I can say, and have said, is your idea that hobby fishing involve deferred reward is wrong. Do you concede that theory of yours is wrong?*
I keep asking you about the things you bring up as *evidence* for how men and women have acquired some specific traits you think they have. (It's not entirely clear the specific traits you are picking are ones that differ. For example "planning" or "deferred compensation".)
*Your hypothesis that: "The choice of who does what would simply be based on practical reality that men are larger and stronger and can put more energy into an arrow and so cause it to have a higher velocity," is not persuasive to me. *
Oh? That was a specific situation, with two specific people in a photo. The pair were hunting and gathering together. It IS a practical reality in that situation that the already larger stronger guy could put more energy into a bow. I'm not seeing why you dispute that is not practical reality.
Are you suggesting that — in that specific pair– the smaller weaker woman could put more energy into the bow? If you are, we'll go back to physics.
* The next question is why. I say evolution.*
We both say evolution. I've specifically connected risk taking to having more children– see Ghengis Khan example. You brought up the "orange one" as another example. He hasn't been as genetically prolific and Ghengis, but yes, by being very wealthy, he has managed to marry serially and have more children than most American men.
Having kids is how genetics works, and in men *risk taking* that pays off to create *sufficient resources* to attract women and have *many* children seems to be a big evolutionary factor driving differences between men and women.
The problem I have with your posts is your specific notions about when payoffs happen for things like fishing, or what tasks involve 'planning', 'deferred gratification' and so on. You don't seem to be grasping that *those* claims are the things I'm saying are wrong.
I am not disputing that guys get more out of programming. I know one of the rewards they get from programming: A job with good prospects that lets them attract women and helps the man potentially have offspring.
mark
*Not agreeing with you != being cowed by PC.*
Thanks.
I'm actually amazed that Ron thinks my objecting to his claims about *hobby fishing* involving "delayed rewards" or that *hunting* involves more 'planning' than "women's task" (like say "food preservation") are somehow due to PC. I can't help but think that if he looks at his claims about the connection of something like *hobby fishing* to the *actual reward* for the modern day hobbiest, he'll see that his claim is nonesense.
The idea that "hobby fishing" involves "engineering" made my mind boggle. If it does, then "knitting a sweater" involves "engineering". I knit sweaters. I have fished. I have knitted. Neither involves "engineering"!
Lucia,
Yes. I think speculation is fine. I don't put much stock in where it leads for just these reasons; as you point you – sometimes it leads to mind boggling nonesense. Obviously, this is why we look for evidence to support and refute…
.
I'm sort of touchy about the PC thing I guess, for various probably uninteresting reasons.
Ron,
I think we'd all agree that males being bigger/stronger on average is not chance; it's not a universal phenomenon in nature and is going to be driven by natural selection. At the same time, it's practically certain that men were already bigger and stronger when bows and arrows started be used, making them a more logical choice for that role even if they aren't any more inclined to do it than women are. This puts it in a different category than something men and women are equally capable of doing, but differently inclined to do. I don't see how biology is going to drive me to be more likely to enjoy programming, yet not drive me to be actually better at programming. If there's a selection advantage in having that mindset, but only for males, biology should improve skill as well as desire, shouldn't it?
.
Of course, programming itself is way too recent for even a large reproductive advantage to make any appreciable difference, which is why we have to go back to untestable theories about planning mastadon hunts, as if women couldn't just have easily planned to scare large critters off cliffs and scavenge the remains. Maybe we should take a step back to the larger picture of natural selection:
.
Males do things because (they think) the chicks dig it.
Females do things because (they think) the guys go for it.
.
This may or may not be conscious, but if the conclusion is right and you survive to reproduce you have a selection advantage and you are a winner in the generational DNA playoff. Forget the cavemen for a second, and stereotypically what gives you an advantage *now*?
.
Men attract women with money
Women attract men with looks
.
Maybe we're overthinking this. Why is it that in STEM women are well represented in Science and Math and terribly represented in Technology and Engineering? Perhaps it's not that the proficiency or payoff is different betweeen the fields, maybe it's just that the tech jobs are both more lucrative and more time consuming — and so men are inclined heavily towards something perceived as lucrative while women see the time commitment interfering with looks. This isn't necessarily conscious, and of course it could be a selective dead-end if women collectively are turned off by the geekery more than on by the money (not to mention that surrounding yourself with other workers of the same sex probably isn't the best way to win the genetic playoff). I'm reminded of a Dilbert strip where Dilbert is promoting engineering as a career to an unimpressed grade school class:
.
Dilbert: And don't forget the social life that comes with being an engineer.
Dilbert: Ninety percent of engineers are guys, so it's a bonanza of dating opportunites for the ladies who enter the field.
Dilbert: For the men, there are these little video game devices…
Little Girl: Would I be allowed to date a non-engineer?
.
While the "chicks dig it" connection to money makes sense to me as a conscious decision, as an unconscious driver it strikes me as very modern — money is a very recent thing on evolutionary timescales, so while I can imagine some instinctual urge to haul fishes out of a lake (being a good provider of *food* would be handy going way back), connecting the numbers on a paycheck to "being a good provider" requires a mental adaptation to current, recent conditions. If so, we can make programming less attractive to men just by making it less lucrative. Or to make it more attractive to women, have society shift to the point where women subconsciously believe coding makes them more sexy to men. This may not be as ridiculous as it seems, certainly standards of physical attractiveness have radically differed between times and societies, which seems inconsistent with a biologically hardwired image that will not change in non-evolutionary timescales. It's certainly my impression that the larger "geek" community has radically increased in its female percentage within my lifetime. But I have no idea how it could be intentionally and wouldn't want to try if I did — I don't see differing preferences as a problem that needs to be solved.
So, a footnote to the clothing thing. I'd never looked at the question before now.
Apparently based on a study of the DNA of clothing lice and head lice and an analysis of when the two diverged (under the assumption that clothing lice didn't exist before clothing), we only started wearing clothes about 170,000 years ago. Granted, maybe this is not irrefutable or overwhelming evidence, but it's at least some evidence.
https://www.seeker.com/humans-first-wore-clothing-170000-years-ago-1765156178.html
.
There are arguments to be made that lasting evolutionary change doesn't happen that fast.
https://phys.org/news/2011-08-fast-evolutionary-million-years.html
.
[Edit: Although we only find modern homo sapiens fossils from the last 200,000 years, so. Either we are missing a lot of fossils or lasting evolutionary change can happen within that timeframe, roughly.]
I'll stop after noting this:
http://discovermagazine.com/2009/mar/09-they-dont-make-homo-sapiens-like-they-used-to
The jury is out. Homo sapiens might have undergone evolution since becoming homo sapiens. We might evolve faster than most other species due to our numbers.
Or we might not. Personally, I think the timeframe for the evolution of the various archaic humans shows that significant evolution / speciation can occur over a timeframes of less than a million years.
Anyway. Gotta quit screwing around and get some work done.
DaleS,
Women, as a group, do love the idea of dressing up and showing off their assets. I have taken up ballroom dance, and I can tell you *for sure* based that a fair number of the women like dancing and dances precisely because they want to have their recreation involve going to events where they can dress up.
I am way under-dressed for this competition. But Lauren is just right– (and you should see her in her blue "smooth" dress. ) She's a hottie– and gets dressed up. Lots of women want to dress up like Lauren. Most guys don't say, "Oh boy! I want to wear a spangled outfit like Devin, Ryan or Gary.)
My new dance studio says they are going to be picky about what I wear because people need guidance. I said "Great!" the fact is, I have not developed the makeup or dress applying skills associated with being a girly-girl, and help would be welcome. (For example, I said, I have no idea what to do with my hair. They were all surprised because they commented that I have great hair! Which I do. Everyone agrees the "basic hair" I have is what hair dressers all wish they could play with. It's thick thick. It's medium curly– so holds curl but can be straightened. It's medium coarse– so not easily damaged. But I have NOT A CLUE how to style it….)
If I were "more average" for a woman, I'd have spent time figuring out how to maximize those assets I have. That's what most women do– and like to do. I don't enjoy it so much– and I have not. (On the plus side, I was never late on dates. 🙂 )
Lucia,
Within the last two weeks I've attended both a RenFaire and an Anime/Comics convention, both of which had most attendees in costume and roughly equal numbers of male and female attendees in costume (my impression). There's no question that the female costumes are much much more likely to show off the body than male ones. I've also noticed that the annual costume contest at the con has a disproportionate number of female winners, and certainly in my own family it's the females who do nearly all the costuming work for both sexes.
.
In anime/comics the female characters being imitating are heavily male-created and highly impractical for the tasks they actually do, I've seen much (justified) criticism of this representing male fantasies rather than actual likely female behavior. OTOH, I'm not convinced it's inherently misogynistic behavior that should be stamped out, when I see so many women who enjoy voluntarily dressing up that way. It's true that I'm not going to see the ones who are annoyed and repulsed, but if my observation that male/female ratio is approximately equal at the con is correct, the repulsion can't be overwhelmingly sex-specific. Or can it? If women enjoy dressing up more than men in general, at an event where dressing up is a central draw should it naturally lean heavily female instead of mixed?
.
Another con we go to revolves around Harry Potter — there's no "male fantasy" costumes there, but I still have the impression that the female costumes as a class are of higher average quality. The gender ratio is approximately equal, but since families are so common at the event I don't know that I can read much into that.
.
My wife enjoys dancing, and I enjoy watching her dance but feel like a fool when dancing (and I am quite sure my wife doesn't enjoy watching me dance). I think the appeal to her is more the act of dancing than the costuming; OTOH with the form she does with specific costuming (belly dance), she has far more costume material available than need requires.
Dale S
*certainly in my own family it's the females who do nearly all the costuming work for both sexes.*
I've been to dance shows where the costumes involved motorized objects like moving wings, a little moving dog on a leash and so on. The *women* made these. So it isn't just "sewing" either.
Belly dancing has obvious "show off my figures" aspects to it. The dance moves themselves, the type of costumes…. Obviously, there are other ways to show off ones figure that do not involve dancing. But on dance forums, one woman points out that even if you lose a competition it was an opportunity to really, truly doll yourself up, put on make up, wear a fabulous dress and so on. If you go to these events there are obviously women who are involved in dance for this reason. Others are attracted by dance itself or athleticism.
Mind you, I wouldn't say guys mind looking dressed up and fabulous. But…. to some extent the guys work up to that over time. I don't here guys thinking, "well…. it gives me an excuse to dress up. Yay!" On the other hand, some like that it gives their wife or girlfriend a chance to dress up.
I have been following this thread, but not so closely that I might have missed the issue on generational differences and how those differences in general can tend to counter generalizations about a group. I am old enough to have observed 6 generations of family and friends and significant generational differences- on average – that are not anomalies. This effect certainly widens the variation within generalized groups and may even counter some theories on origins of differences among groups. Another factor of generalized group differences is the effect of aging within a group.
I have also observed that the youngest in a group might have greater differences, such as male and female, and that might be due to the hard wired differences being unaffected by factors that are expressed later in life. As a young parent I had expected much less difference between male and female babies. My eyes were opened when our baby daughter and our friends' baby son were together taking formula from their bottles. Our daughter was demurely and slowly drinking hers while the friends' boy was chugging his and when finished he threw the bottle on the floor. This was a single incident but it opened my eyes to others.
Marc Bofill,
.
Thanks for an interesting link.
.
"The jury is out. Homo sapiens might have undergone evolution since becoming homo sapiens. We might evolve faster than most other species due to our numbers."
.
Makes perfect sense to me. If multiple relatively large human populations became isolated from each other over the past 30,000 – 50,000 years, then it seems those populations would be subjected to all sorts of new/different selective pressures. Even a separation of 10,000 years represents some 400 – 500 generations, which ought to be plenty of time for selective advantage from a mutation to spread in a population. It is a field facing strenuous opposition from those (like just about the entire staff at Harvard!) who refuse to even *consider* the possibility of group differences in behavioral tendencies, interests, and cognitive skills being related to genetic differences. So I think, even with solid genetic evidence, the field will face strong headwinds for a very long time. The article notes that our closest animal relatives, chimps and bonobos, differ from humans in only few % of our DNA despite 5 million years of independent evolution, while different human populations around the world differ by up to 0.5%…. which if accurate, provides a rather somber perspective on the rate of recent human evolution.
.
One thing that I find interesting: Neanderthals and anatomically modern humans diverged somewhere near 500,000 – 600,000 years ago. All recent genetic research supports some interbreeding of neanderthal populations with anatomically modern humans, starting as early as 130,000 years ago, as anatomically modern humans began to migrate out of Africa (but certainly ending with the extinction of the Neanderthals about 35,000 years ago). East Asians have somewhere between 2.2% and 2.8% Neanderthal genes, while Northern Europeans have between ~1.8% and ~2.6%. Sub Sahara Africans have zero Neanderthal genes. Certainly if Neanderthal genes were strongly disadvantageous, it is likely they would have been selected against over the last 35,000+ years. That they have stuck around suggests they confer some advantage.
Steve,
Yes. I assume (as generously as I can manage) that this strenuous opposition is rooted in reaction to eugenics and Nazism. Unfortunate, in my view. Maybe if modern philosophy hadn't abdicated all responsibility for providing useful guiding principles for societies today, modern universities would have some better alternative than stick their heads in the sand and cling to a dogmatic refusal to accept mounting evidence that all groups of people do *not* have identical genetic characteristics.
.
I got the impression that it's not controversial among scientists that differences in behavioral tendencies / interests and skills are dependent to some degree on genetic differences. I thought it was more of a cross discipline problem, that other fields (humanity / liberal arts fields) are the ones that in some cases adhere to an ideology that rejects this. I'm not sure I have this right though.
.
I think the archaic human gene intermingling is absolutely fascinating actually. I've been looking forward to this weekend so I can follow up and read more on that and the haplogroup group / human migration stuff I hit in passing.
.
Thanks Steve.
.
[BTW – quick footnote. If I had to guess, I'd guess based on what limited evidence seems available that women probably *were* more involved with making clothes throughout our prehistory than men. I just object to the idea that this is known with certainty as absolute fact. If it is certain fact I still want a piece of it via a source.)
Mark Bofill,
I think there is considerable opposition even among scientists, at least those leaning to the political left.
.
Richard Lewontin and Stephen J Gould at Harvard were stridently (and loudly!) opposed to the work of E O Wilson (also at Harvard) on "sociobiology", where he suggested social behaviors and genetics co-evolved, reinforcing and magnifying each other. IOW, he proposed that behavior was tied to genetics, not just something that was learned. Wilson's critics were vocal and highly critical…. for decades! If anything, I think the situation in higher education is today even more hostile to any suggestion that behaviors, interests, and aptitudes are in any way inherited, in spite (IMO) of overwhelming evidence genetics are crucially important. The resistance to accepting clear genetic evidence strikes me as nothing more than "Lysenko-lite". History will not be kind.
Didnt know that.
Thanks Steve.
Mark, thank you for your research. I didn't address your questions earlier since I didn't do research and can't make time to do so at the moment. My background facts come over a lifetime and are hard to site. I remember reading a book in second grade teaching about a native American family which explained in vivid detail the daily like of a plains Indian in pre-colonial times. There is plenty of archaeological evidence supplying anthropologists minute detailed pieces of the puzzle we have been discussing, as is easy to find.
.
But I have another angle to look at the topic, that of unbiased, un-culturally influenced household inhabitants that eat, sleep and play with us, our pets. We can validate there are gender difference in personalities of cats even though there is little specialization necessary for their survival. Females hunt just as well and males. Even so, females are smaller on average and less adventuresome. They stick more to home base while the males prowl longer distances. Males are more dominate. Females are more affectionate. Males youths are more playful and for longer periods. I've owned a lot a cats but vets and others confirm this. Lucia, do you find the same? I know you already agree there are hardwired gender influences but I am going to make points if you are patient and acknowledge my premises.
.
Kenneth said: "Another factor of generalized group differences is the effect of aging within a group.
I have also observed that the youngest in a group might have greater differences, such as male and female, and that might be due to the hard wired differences being unaffected by factors that are expressed later in life. "
.
Yes. I observe that juvenile humans as cats are much more playful and curious *and* take more risks, as do male cats. I observe the same tenancies in humans. It makes perfect sense that some hardwired tenancies are mammalian, some primate and others strictly human. This is how evolution seems to have worked. The differences are subtle and only clear by population. But they are real. And, I agree with Steve F that some of this reality is being denied by modern science for the sake of political correctness.
.
I think that people are afraid if the scientific establishment backs the idea there are real difference then it would be used to justify inequalities. It would be the 1920s and 1930s all over again. I have a little more faith and thus progress toward understanding truth need never be feared. As I stated earlier, it's just logical that women and men on the whole are equal in skills and aptitudes. The reason is because nature would have used every tool available for survival advantage to either sex. Intelligence is always an advantage. Risking to forgo and basket full of berries for a even money chance to bag a fox ,however, may not have been a good choice for a woman in the Pleistocene, but was for a man.
Ron
*They stick more to home base while the males prowl longer distances. Males are more dominate. Females are more affectionate. Males youths are more playful and for longer periods. I've owned a lot a cats but vets and others confirm this. Lucia, do you find the same?*
Oddly…. no. We've owned one female out of 7 cats. So statistics would be rather difficult. That said, when we had the female, usually we had two other cats. She was the boss!! Absolutely the boss. The males have been very affectionate. Bear in mind…. they were all are neutered or spayed.
Both the most determined and least determined hunters were male. But that's explained by the fact the Cosmo was already 5 years old and fat when we got him. He eventually had diabetes and was slow. Whiskers and Jones had been a nearly totally indoor cats for their early lives. Whiskers (who was older) never took to hunting before he died. Jones eventually did. But Pie was an indoor/outdoor cat from birth. So she always hunted.
The other males who were indoor/outdoor from birth definitely out hunted Piewacket in their youth. ( Our current cat is old and frail. He's retired from hunting but was impressive in his youth.)
So age, background and health all seem to make a difference. Also: neutering probably makes a big difference. That's one of the purposes of neutering. 🙂
Thanks Ron,
>>There is plenty of archaeological evidence supplying anthropologists minute detailed pieces of the puzzle we have been discussing, as is easy to find.
.
There is, but that's recent history. I have been unable to find such evidence for prehistoric people and I've been looking. Maybe my google fu simply sucks, your mileage may vary, if so, let me know what you find. But if we're talking about evolution and genetics, I question if we're talking about recorded history timeframes. It seems to me prehistorical timeframes would be more relevant.
.
We know a lot more about fairly recent history (written history, say) than we do about life in truly ancient times. I do object to generalizing from what we know about ancient China or ancient Greece, or American Indians or modern hunter gatherer cultures to paleolithic people. I mean, I don't object to using it as a speculative basis if that's all we have, but I'm not going to claim certainty from such a basis and I'll object to people who do.
mark,
I think you are wise to be cautious. After all, some modern divisions of labor may have occurred *after* other traits arose. For example: if the reason women NOW do tasks that require less strength is they are NOW less strong, that does't explain why they got less strong in the first place. Male silverback gorillas are much larger and stronger than females. This is NOT due to male gorillas hunting and females gathering. If I understand correctly, it's more due to male-male competition for access females. And my understanding is the male-male competition is a fairly common reason for the difference in size.
For all I know, homo-sapiens descended from a species with greater differences in size between sexes and the spread has reduced. (Others may know more.) Having said that, I think I've read that the difference in size between sexes is greater under *agriculture* rather than hunting and gathering, but that may be totally untrue.
This thesis is interesting.
http://etd.fcla.edu/UF/UFE0009587/vick_a.pdf
I've only scanned a little, so can't report details. But
1) It says sexual dimorphism has *declined* over the course of human evolution. (They seem to be restricting this to height which is measurable in skeletons.)
2) It tests the hypothesis that dimorphism declined under agriculture and seems to find it did not (of if it did so, the change was small.)
If (1) is true, then we certainly should not be explaining theories for dimorphism based on current habits modern humans, but based on the previous species. Because what we are doing now, evidently has caused the dimorphism to decline. If under (2) agriculture had no effect relative to hunter-gathering, then we might need to consider that whatever is driving the dimorphism, it appears *common* to both lifestyles. (Male-male competition in mammals would be a common element to many lifestyles though it might matter more in some styles.)
Lucia,
Thanks, that *is* interesting. Also I believe you are correct about gorillas, I looked at that too.
Brown belt test for me today, I'll be back later.
Mark, I would say "good luck" but in my experience luck isn't a factor in martial arts. Honor your instructor by doing well.
Earle,
Luck is always a factor in competition. Skill is a bigger factor, but luck… well…. stuff happens!
Lucia,
In competition that is true — I should have been more precise in my statement. For belt testing, in my experience, the candidate demonstrates their proficiency, knowledge, and strength/endurance.
Some schools may include sparring in the testing, but I know many do not. Even then, sparring is intended to further demonstrate skills rather than determine a victor.
Still, I wish for Mark all the best luck! 🙂
Thanks Earle! I made it through. Rationally I knew I would, but there were moments there I wondered. Sometimes I think I'm getting a little old for this sort of thing. But it's still fun and mostly it seems I can still do it (some of the more acrobatic aerial kicks not so much) so why not.
I think the instructors discourage students from even trying if they are unlikely to pass; very few lower belts fail. I believe its a lot more severe and unforgiving for the black belts.
[Edit: Regarding sparring, yeah, we spar on tests. But they stop you before you spar if you've already failed. The only way to fail the [sparring] part of [belt test] is to essentially give up and make no effort whatsoever (or so the instructors tell me). Most everybody enjoys sparring at the place I go so it's never been an issue that I've seen. I had my first two on one fight! Heh. I got pummeled. It was still fun though!]
Congratulations! At my dojang advanced belt testing is by invitation, and they only invite when the student is ready.
Are push-ups part of your testing? For our brown belts and above it's a multi-day event and over the course of those days one can expect to do a couple thousand push-ups.
Ah, good times!
Earle,
>>Are push-ups part of your testing?
No!
>>For our brown belts and above it's a multi-day event and over the course of those days one can expect to do a couple thousand push-ups.
Re pushups: Lord I hope none of my instructors read here! They'd probably think 'What a fantastic idea!'
:>
It sounds like your place is more serious / hardcore than mine. Our black belt tests can run past 4-5 hours straight, but I think that's about as bad as it gets. Course I've never witnessed testing for above second degree, so what the heck do I know.
.
I'm at a Midori Yama Budokai type school. More because there's one down the street and it's convenient for the kids than any other reason; I'd never heard of Midori Yama Budokai before bumping into this place. What's your school of martial arts?
Mark,
I'm 3rd dan in Moo Duk Kwan taekwondo. Our school has a strong emphasis on competition, sending teams to Nationals every year.
Black belt testing is twice a year. It starts on a Thursday night for about three hours, throughout which we do about 500 push-ups plus some stomach exercises. Friday night is when most of the testing occurs, plus more push-ups. Saturday runs about 4 hours and is mostly for show, but of course there are more push-ups!
For poomse testing (TKD version of katas) you have to demonstrate two forms to perfection. If you miss a move or don't return to your exact starting spot there are more push-ups. If one owes push-ups for their forms, there is the option to try again — double or nothing. I only tried that once!
500 push ups, wow. I'm sure I couldn't possibly do that in a day. Maybe in a week. I'll see this week!
3'rd Dan huh. That means I'm supposed to call you 'Sir.' 🙂
Thanks Sir!
I got into taekwondo because my kids were doing it and I needed some form of exercise. It was awesome testing for 2nd when my son was testing for 1st dan. They since got interested in other sports in high school, but I'm hoping they come back to TKD eventually. I feel that my daughter, now 21, would benefit greatly from some advanced self-defense training.
Earle,
Almost identical case here, except my younger boy is actually a year ahead of me. My kid is a year away from his first black belt. I'm two years out; about halfway now.
I wish my 22 year old daughter would train also. Shes mildly interested, we'll see.
Men are more competitive in competitions. Winning seems to be more important. I think there are many lines of evidence for this, not to say individual women can't be just as competitive. Lot's of men watch men sports while relatively few women watch women's sports, etc. There are outliers such as ice skating and gymnastics where women dominate the public interest, even though men might still be physically more capable.
.
As a group men train harder and are held to a higher standard. Differences in track/field, tennis, golf etc. are substantial even when things like strength and height are controlled for. Exactly why this is may be hard to pin down. Evolution, genetics, and culture certainly play a role. Men gravitate more to activities that can be measured and won/lost. This may just be the warrior aspect of evolution. Perhaps the gravitation toward engineering is partially based on the fact that solutions can be more easily directly measured and compared for "victory".
Studying genetics in academia is very dangerous if you get within a country mile of attributing behavior / intelligence to race / gender.
.
This is the latest inquisition: Noah Carl: An Update on the Young Scholar Fired by a Cambridge College for Thoughtcrime
https://quillette.com/2019/05/28/noah-carl-an-update-on-the-young-scholar-fired-by-a-cambridge-college-for-thoughtcrime/
.
Everyone in genetics knows the rules of allowable thoughts in academia. Attributing race/gender disparate outcomes to genetics is a career terminating move. If you are going to say something remotely controversial you better have tenure and be highly respected.
Tom,
>> Exactly why this is may be hard to pin down.
.
(More or less directly ripping off Jordan Peterson here:)
If you buy "big 5 personality traits", men are slightly more disagreeable on average than women (60/40 split). I am under the impression that disagreeableness and competitiveness are correlated to some extent. So an argument can be made along those lines than men may tend to be more competitive than women on average.
Why are men more disagreeable? I think Peterson's argument was than women tend to be more agreeable because they've dealt with newborn infants on evolutionary timescales.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits#Agreeableness
Tom,
Gymnastics is one sport where they've adapted somewhat to different body types (male larger upper body. Women more mass in lower.) The events differ. The uneven parallel bars is less a feat of upper body strength than the even ones. The balance beam involves more length strength; rights more upper body strength.
But yes, I'd rather watch women's gymnastics than men's gymnastics But generally, I don't watch any sports. Jim doesn't watch much, but will occasionally with other people.
I continue to think the attraction to engineering is strongly influenced by men wanting good jobs to attract women. This isn't "warrior mentality". The thing is: I tend to look for *evolutionary benefit* when assessing whether men or women pick something. "Attract women" is a very strong necessity for men who want to pass on their genes.
Women still often want jobs that make room for family. Teaching has no travel requirement, hours are predictable and so on. Women want those things even if some women claim otherwise after the choice is made. "Raise kids I have" is a strong necessity for women who want to pass on their genes.
The balance beam is pretty scary. I can see why men don't risk that one, ha ha. Women's gymnastics has become much more athletic even over the past few decades. The US team during the last Olympics was way better than anyone else. It's just amazing to watch that stuff. The drama is top notch, a whole lifetime of training for a few minutes on the grand global stage. Those women can handle pressure as good as any man.
MB Why are men more disagreeable? I think Peterson's argument was than women tend to be more agreeable because they've dealt with newborn infants on evolutionary timescales.-
Not to mention they want to marry, live and deal with [disagreeable] men on decadal time scales!
Angech,
To the extent you're joking, hah.
To the extent you're serious, it's not clear (to me anyways) that being agreeable is actually a good strategy for dealing with somebody who's disagreeable. I think I could make an argument that it's not.
.
[Edit: It's a 'good' strategy for [dealing with] infants, but the question is 'good for whom' or good in what sense? It's probably *not* optimal for the well-being of the agreeable mom. It probably *is* more optimal for the well-being of the infant. Since our infants are so dependent for their first year (or two) of life, I think it's more optimal from an evolutionary standpoint that mom's are agreeable towards their offspring. Now – AFAIK nobody actually has any evidence that this is really causually *why* women are slightly more agreeable. It's speculation, so take it FWIW. It might not be worth much.]
I think it is pretty obvious that, for social animals, evolution would tend to produce an anticorrelation between agreeableness and physical strength.
p.s. – In case someone is oblivious to the obvious, I am referring to adults.
mark bofill,
With respect to dealing with someone disagreeable: Being agreeable is sometimes a good strategy. It's sometimes a very bad one. It's rarely a good *long term* strategy if the disagreeable person is both disagreeable and demanding.
So, for example, if you are in a coffee place (e.g. Starbucks) and some person in line is grouchy, remaining agreeable can generally avoid escalation without your needing to give up very much. You avoid a punch in the nose, you never need to deal with them again, if you see them again…. stay away….
If you have a coworker who is both disagreeable and makes inappropriate demands shoves his work off on you, insists on being "the presenter" for "the team" so he gets credit and so on and acts disagreeable to get you to comply, then being consistently agreeable is generally not in your interest. Moreover, his disagreeableness may very well cause him to be promoted– since it's likely asymmetric. He likely appears agreeable to higher ups.
It's probably generally more pleasant to avoid disagreeble people. By the same token though, sometimes, being married to a disagreeable person means you are married to someone who brings home more bacon (see above). Or they don't get ripped off by unscrupulous trades people because they will definitely press the matter. In contrast, agreeable people might just let tradespeople, sales people and so on get away with more than they should because they never want to press matters and be "disagreeable".
The idea is being appropriately agreeable and disagreeable. But since this is partially temperament, and partly learning what's appropriate, people will lean one way or the other.
SAT "Adversity Index". I'm not sure If I like this or not. When you are helping people from bad neighborhoods you are hurting people from good neighborhoods.
.
I guess the real answer is how much a college uses this to influence admission. The score is kept secret from the student and colleges can apparently use it as they see fit. I suppose it is a step above a make up the secret rules as you go along system, and it also isn't technically race based, although the intention of the system is to be a proxy for race.
.
If a college says it doesn't use race at all and uses the adversity score then that is a better system than we have now. One can easily imagine that the formula for the scoring system will be secretly leaked and the type A parents will abuse it. Living on the wrong side of a border between a good neighborhood / bad neighborhood.
.
The system will help a lot of poor first generation Asians no doubt, and that will be seen as a flaw by some.
.
I don't mind this used as a tie breaker at all, and possibly a little bit of extra help. Some kids are born into a mess that is not of their making. But if it is effectively erasing thousands of hours of hard effort by a "privileged" child with "responsible" parents, then that is where I stop supporting it.
Lucia,
Yeah. Real life is too complex for us to discriminate the utility of strategies solely by looking at 'agreeableness' or 'disagreeableness', fair enough.
Mike M,
Did you know people measure personality traits of animals? I didn't until fairly recently. I don't know if agreeableness and physical strength are anti-correlated or not. Primates (well, at least chimps) have this extra category, 'dominance', and I don't know how to relate that back to humans. I toy with the notion that this corresponds to culture, since bonobos and chimps have much different dominance patterns despite being relatively closely related from an evolutionary perspective. I mention 'dominance' because that category sort of confuses the idea of 'agreeable' for me. I wonder how it might tie into your idea about physical strength.
Tom,
Not a fan. Sounds like alternative affirmative action to me.
Sorry, I shoulda linked this before:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/835f/9709b761baec6477c528e13f14acfe48906d.pdf
regarding the chimps and personality and dominance.
I have to agree with Lucia on her comments about the disagreeable and agreeable issue when it comes to dealing with real life situations. This issue like many of the others being discussed on this thread are more complex than a two or three sentence account allows. When people and their behaviors are observed and studied I think you are dealing with a complicated and dynamic situation that makes generalizations very difficult. I would also guess that academics dealing with these issues when attempting to fit a model or generalizing are tempted, like economists dealing with human behaviors, to make assumptions that while simplifying their studies can be very wrongheaded.
The women closest to me in my life would on first impression appear to be friendly and agreeable, but in those situations where a disagreement was needed in dealing with people they could calmly and coolly get the job done. The men closest to me and including myself while more outwardly vocal and aggressive in disagreeable situations probably had a poorer track record when it came to successful results. I have also seen more changes in the men as they age in that their approaches to these disagreeable situations become more like those of the women I know.
I would have to know the details of what is considered agreeable and disagreeable in the observations of women and men. Is a loud retort more disagreeable than a look that could kill?
I should have added to my post above that I know males and females where the behaviors I have observed about people I know well where the opposite was the case generally – and that my generalizations did not hold for every situatution.
Maybe it's worth saying — men and women aren't all that different on average on agreeability / disagreeability. Men are more disagreeable 10% of the time I think. It's not a yuge difference. There are plenty of women who are more disagreeable than plenty of men and vice versa.
I assume it's intended to be Supreme Court permissible affirmative action. You have to look at the new score relative to what we have now, in which case it's probably better. Rich hard working black kids with responsible parents won't be getting a big advantage based solely on the color of their skin.
.
Affirmative action for poor kids is much more palatable than affirmative action on race. I suspect college admissions will gladly use it to get around the legal morass of race based admissions. It will likely withstand legal challenges, although the argument will be made that this is specifically designed as a proxy for race so it is the same thing. No doubt the people who designed the scoring system were quite sensitive to the legal implications. There is no reason for the formula to be secret though, or the way colleges use it.
.
It will also expose any agendas of people who want to keep explicit race based admissions in place, a certain 'ist word could be easily applied to those people.
Tom,
The adversity index might *not* help first generation asians. Many asians sacrifice a lot in terms of commute time, money for gas, and so on to get their kids in magnet schools, to move to neighborhoods with better schools and so on. The kids are then the least prosperous in "low adversity" schools. So they get the low adversity score while still struggling economically, precisely because the families have grit.
At least in the olden days, one big goal of admissions was to admit students who would be likely to succeed and thrive and not admit those likely to fail and never graduation. Kids with high GPAs tended to do better. Kids from good schools (i.e. low adversity) tend to do better. The standardized tests were concocted to give additional information that complimented reputation of the school and GPA and so on.
With that idea in mind, in principle, each metric used for admission should give a school information on the likelihood a student will thrive and succeed at a particular college. Also, ideally each bit should give data that is "orthogonal" from a statistics point of view.
I haven't read any thing commenting on whether the "adversity" score provides schools additional information on success in college. In principal, it might. For example, it's not implausible that a kid who got 1500 on his SAT but went to a low resource school is smarter, harder working more ambitious and so on than a kid who got 1500 on his SAT and went to a great school in a great neighborhood with parents who had plenty of money to pay for test prep and so on. The former should tend to have a low "adversity" score, and in that sense might be the one who is more likely to succeed in school. So the adversity score might– at least hypothetically– improve the prediction of outcomes for students who are admitted.
If it improves the ability of admissions departments to predict who will succeed, and they use it that way, that will be a wonderful addition.
Having said that: I suspect no one has looked into this if only because the adversity score did not previous exist. If so, no one *could* look into how "adversity scores" correlates with outcome– given the other predictors. If no one looked at it, there will be little way to know how much credit to give the higher adversity score vs. the lower one.
Caltech is notoriously cautious about using anything other than grades and board scores to admit kids. And they are quantitative beasts. So I bet their admissions department will look at the numbers at least internally to find out. Heck… I'd want to do it!
Sadly, we can't know in advance whether (all other things being equal) a high adversity score will correlate with better or worse graduation rates from college. It could go either way: it might predict "grit", "extra brain power" and any number of positive traits. It might also predict "run out of money", "disorganized families who can't help when the shit hits the fan, so the kid drops out". "End up really busy and overloaded because they have to take two jobs." The sad fact is adversity is adversity. Admission to college isn't going to make it go away immediately.
Of course, if the purpose of admission is to achieve some sort of social justice, we don't need to know whether high adversity (all other things being equal) predicts better or worse success in college. We just admit high adversity to 'benefit' kids whose lives have been adverse. So you give that score whatever points you see fit and then cross your fingers and hope they graduate rather than have even worse lives after taking out loans, not graduating and being stuck with heavy debt and poor job prospects. If the latter happens, admission won't have been a helping hand.
The adversity score would be an enormous improvement over using race in admission. Given two students with a similar level of academic achievement, I am very much in favor of giving a leg up to the kid from a disadvantaged background over the one who has has every advantage. And I am very much against giving the edge to the advantaged black kid over the disadvantaged white kid.
Yes, the adversity index will on average help black kids more than white kids, but that is the *right* way to try to end the propagation of past injustice.
Lucia raises a good point about correlation to academic success. I'd guess that the adversity index will give a somewhat positive correlation for a given level of pre-college achievement. But even if it does not, or gives a somewhat negative correlation, I see benefits to aiding the upward mobility of the less advantaged.
As it is, black students admitted because of affirmative action have terrible success rates in college. Of course, the SJW's in admission offices could achieve equally bad results using the adversity score if they overweight it strongly enough.
Mike M.,
*SJW's in admission offices could achieve equally bad results using the adversity score if they overweight it strongly enough.*
Yep. If it is given too much weight, a sizeable number of kid's whose grit or natural ability is insufficient to overcome lack of preparation will be admitted where otherwise they would not be. After admission will then tend to fail. If they or their families spent a lot of money and sank a lot of time into the attempt, they will be worse off than if they had not been admitted.
OTOH: If it's given the right amount of weight *and* as an "extra" factor it is positively correlated with success, it will give a leg up to kids who succeed, and that will be a good thing.
I have no guess how much weight should be given to the CB's "adversity score" particularly since I don't know whether that *particular* method of judging "adversity" is going to be well designed to identify those kids who do have the "grit" or "natural ability" to overcome poorer conditions during their k-12 preparation.
I am pretty sure there are *some* personality traits that *if we could detect and measure* would give useful information to identify which of the "adversity" kids will do better. I just have no idea if the College Boards method will work.
>>I am pretty sure there are *some* personality traits that *if we could detect and measure* would give useful information to identify which of the "adversity" kids will do better.
.
Probably conscientiousness.
.
https://www.businessinsider.com/conscientiousness-predicts-success-2014-4
It depends on the school, virtually everyone applying (within reason) to Harvard and CalTech are going to succeed, and with grade inflation the chances of dropping out due to it being too hard academically are pretty small. They might struggle and get lower grades.
.
Once you get into smaller schools and you start weighing adversity too highly then there could be some dropouts. Almost all schools have remedial classes to cover people from poor school systems.
.
I don't think anyone is believing this is intended to measure chances of success better. It is social engineering to try to break the cycle of poverty in some families, neighborhoods, and ethnic groups. If this actually happened to work then I think it would be easy to support it straight up. The track record of social engineering (think forced busing) has not been very good and there is no particular reason to believe this will work any better. Affirmative action has been around for decades and things look the same. Is this social experiment worth trying anyway? Meh. I guess, at least it is designed more fairly. They should try to measure if it does what it is designed to do.
.
With the anti-establishment and anti-elite sentiment today it is the politically correct (in the real sense of the phrase) to do. A lot of it is virtue signaling between elites and a system that makes the middle class kids give up spots to the lower class kids. I haven't seen any elite kids volunteer their prized spots to anyone.
I am wondering what effect maturity has on a student's potential to succeed in college. I saw a number of cases in my generation and my children's generation where a student was failing in college and quit to get a job and after a few years went back to college and succeeded well beyond expectations. I do not think that going to college necessarily has a positive effect on maturity and particularly compared to looking at the world from the prospective of having a job. I also saw some of these college dropouts never return to college and have successful careers.
In my ideal world we would not have government loans and subsidies for higher education and have the alternative of a student working for an organization that would in turn fund their education. Some organizations do this on low level currently, but I would think that without loans and subsidies the alternative approach could become a necessity.
Tom,
I wouldn't be too sure that nearly everyone who applies to CalTech would succeed. According to this site:
https://www.prepscholar.com/sat/s/colleges/Caltech-admission-requirements
they have a 7.7% acceptance rate. Their 6 year graduation rate is about 70%. It's possible all applicants would succeed somewhere, but not Caltech. Caltech famously has nearly undetectable "affirmative action".
On affirmative action: I think it's hard to overcome problems that created an unprepared 18 year old by admitting them to schools they are unprepared for. Perhaps it's ok at Harvard because a lot of the benefit of Harvard is "the brand" rather than the education. But only a few schools can be about "The brand" without also creating a great product.
Kenneth,
I think the dropping out and going back isn't *solely* maturity. Maturity is an element, but sometimes, it's also the fact that the student who returns now really wants to graduate and also likely really wants to pursue a particular major.
One problem with high school grads is that some are really only going to school because that's the path their parents put them on, they are being supported to some extent and it's the path of least resistance for them. Their motivation to party them becomes greater than to study.
Sadly, even when they take out loans rather than have parents paying, school is (temporarily) the path of least resistance for some. So the rack up loans when they might be better off being a barrista for a year or two while they decided what to do. But parents might not let them live in the basement while they were a barrista, but might give them some support while in school. (I understand why parents would do this– but you still end up with kids who laze around at school.)
Lucia,
" If it is given too much weight, a sizeable number of kid's whose grit or natural ability is insufficient to overcome lack of preparation will be admitted where otherwise they would not be."
.
I think you can safely count on it being used to admit kids who will not do well, and exclude kids who would do well if admitted. It is just another route to affirmative action, though perhaps one less likely to be challenged by lawsuits like the one Harvard has been fighting.
"I think the dropping out and going back isn't *solely* maturity. Maturity is an element, but sometimes, it's also the fact that the student who returns now really wants to graduate and also likely really wants to pursue a particular major."
Lucia, in my book I call that maturity and what you say here has often been what I have observed.
I'll go Tom and Steve a step further and say that those politicians who would or do favor using something like adversity score for qualifying students or who favor affirmative action whether it be racially or class driven have a single motivation in these matters and that is make the favored ones more dependent on government and inclined to vote for politicians who favor more government. There is much evidence that this political strategy works and does not depend on the implementation of the strategy succeeding.
Lucia,
“On affirmative action: I think it's hard to overcome problems that created an unprepared 18 year old by admitting them to schools they are unprepared for.â€
.
For sure. As a junior, I was hired by my school to tutor affirmative action admitted students in math, physics, and introductory chemistry (for the then princely wage of $3 per hour!). It was hopeless for almost all of them. They didn’t know much beyond add subtract multiply and divide, and the divide stuff was sometimes iffy. Algebra, geometry, trig? Not a hint. They simply could not successfully take freshman courses and pass. Most left during first semester, and nearly all left by the end of their first year. These were 90% full scholarship students, meaning plenty of kids who could have used more financial aid didn’t get it. It was a sad waste of money.
You would need to find out why 30% of CalTech graduates didn't finish. Why people drop out of CalTech is likely not representative of why people dropout of StateU.
.
43% of students graduate in under 6 years. 33% dropout entirely. Finances are the number one reason for dropout. 10% of dropouts cited the classes were too difficult as the major reason.
https://www.publicagenda.org/pages/with-their-whole-lives-ahead-of-them-reality-1
.
It's impossible to decode even when you have statistics. The classes might not be too difficult but students just don't work to get it done. People leave for "finances" because they lose their scholarships and loans for academic progress reasons, they will stay as long as someone else pays the bills. Those who have families too young face a very difficult time getting through college. It's really simple, laziness and partying are what I saw.
.
College isn't for everyone, and the push to make it so is misguided in my opinion. The credentialism requirements for job applications further inflames the situation.
Corporations paying for full time college probably isn't workable. You would need to commit to working for the company X years after graduation as an indentured servant for the incentives to be right.
.
On the other hand corporations could train you in very specialized areas they care about for less money and a shorter time. If those credentials could be transferable it might be more workable.
Tom,
It's hard to decode with the statistics you have. And then there are the ones you don't have: How did students who applied and were rejected do when they went to other institutions?
I did a few minutes search on Google and didn't come up with any compelling statistics. There are lots of stuff on dropout rates but the reasons why and how to fix it was pretty murky at best.
.
The correlation between SAT scores and graduation rates are what one would expect, although the trend is nosier than I expected.
https://randomcriticalanalysis.com/2015/06/02/exploring-college-completion-data/
"Corporations paying for full time college probably isn't workable. You would need to commit to working for the company X years after graduation as an indentured servant for the incentives to be right."
I think if corporations or any other organizations had to pay for the training and educationally acquired skills of its workers instead of the government (taxpayers) or the future employee or the future employee's family or benefactor, the market place would find ways around the problem noted above. For example, if a worker would choose to go to another job part of the deal could be that the worker could payback a part of the educational expenses or have the new employer make all or part of that compensation to the former employer. There could be agreements amongst corporations, organizations, unions and individual employees concerning these matters. The agreements and contracts under which professional athletes and their employers work could perhaps be adapted to these arrangements.
I do not know how the matter would be handled, since the market place of ideas would handle and choose from more than my own preferences and ideas. I do know that if these approaches are viewed without the dynamics of the market place they will always appear to be impractical.
With ferpa its can be tricky to figure out where students who don't get accepted go. It's even hard to figure out why some students drop out and where they go when they do. They don't all have poor grades, but yet they still disappear.
To get the best correlation for college success you need to combine the test scores with HS GPA and weight down the edge cases of high GPA low test scores and high test scores and low GPA. That adjusts for the students from schools who inflate the GPA and bright students with poor study habits.
Don't corporations do a lot of training of new hires?
My impression is that in many, if not most, cases employers use college as a filter: If you can graduate from college then you are a better bet than someone who can't make it through. They do that at least in part because of court decisions that make it almost impossible to use testing in deciding who to hire.
Kenneth,
Two problems problem with having workers payback part of training are (a) figuring out the dollar value of the training and (b) the possible involuntary nature of the training.
If the training is a college course the dollar figures is not too hard to figure out. The dollar figure should *at most* be the amount the school sets per credit hour. That's probably what the company paid. BUT, in fact, in some cases perhaps the student should owe the company less than that because the "trainee" might have gotten financial aid had they not been using a company program. But at least there is some value kinda-sorta set by a market (not the employer only) to peg the value.
Also, the "credit" for the training exist external to the company and is potentially transferable to another educational institution. (Although that doesn't always work.)
Now, if the training is internal to the company the dollar figure is much more ambiguous. The company might be paying it's own employees…. something. The cost of the rooms and so on is…. something. But it's not at all clear that's the price any person taking the 'training' would pay for the course. Also, the value of the training might be purely internal to the company.
For example: at PNNL, sometimes secretaries had "training" in how to use new company forms. They then knew how to use *those* forms which were purely internal. They did pick up some generally abilities associated with office work– but much of the training was transferable. PLUS, while some secretaries really needed this training, others really could have just asked someone and figured it out in 15 minutes of fiddling.
That training was useful to PNNL, but it would be ridiculous for those secretaries to "owe" the employer anything. This sort of training (though perhaps for more difficult things) is pretty common.
Of course we also had things like "laser safety training" and so on. It was all "training", but mostly to CYA the employer.
College is a half-way decent filter for somethings. As a general rule, the college grads could figure out the company forms without "training". They'd had to do similar things figuring out tools like "EXCEL" or "WORD" on their own in college! Yet, they had no "certificates" for these "skills". 🙂
I didn;t get onto the involuntary nature…
Needless to say "laser safety training" and (believe it of not) "driver's safety training" were not the sort of training one could opt out of once the employer decided it was required. Also, employees couldn't chose from among several different course providers. We had to take whatever training the employer concocted, on their schedule, taking the amount of time they deemed fit. If we'd had to "pay back" that cost because we left, the price the company set for their offering would be entirely arbitrary. There would have been no lower cost option for us. We couldn't just pass a competency exam and so on.
Plus, of course, any follow on employer who felt we needed this training would require us to retake it because the "training" needed to be on record, they would need to know what, precisely, they "taught" us and so on.
In this case, it would be ridiculous to claim the employee "owed" the employer.
Lots of employer provided training falls between this very job specific, sometimes CYA employer provided training and more general university course work. But figuring out just where on the spectrum something falls is difficult. If the choice is up to the employer, employees are going to find themselves "owing" for lots of involuntary "training" that was no where near the value to employees the employer claims.
I suppose this is off topic, but I will post it anyway.
I am sure that Nancy Pelosi is not an idiot, but she seems determined to play one on TV. I suppose that it the same as assuming that the American people are idiots.
Here is Pelosi commenting on Trump's latest diplomatic triumph:
"President Trump undermined America’s preeminent leadership role in the world by recklessly threatening to impose tariffs on our close friend and neighbor to the south".
And: "Threats and temper tantrums are no way to negotiate foreign policyâ€.
Of course, there was no "temper tantrum". And so far as I am aware, threats and bending over are pretty much the only ways to negotiate foreign policy.
Source of quotes: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pelosi-hits-trumps-deal-with-mexico-accuses-him-of-threats-and-temper-tantrums
"If the training is a college course the dollar figures is not too hard to figure out."
I was thinking in those terms when I wrote the post. Under current custom training within the organizational structure is not something for which an employee owes the organization and for the reasons you gave. If the training is at a sufficiently high level it can make the employee a more sought after candidate by other organizations. I worked for an organization that reimbursed employees taking MBA courses and a goodly number of those employees after receiving their MBAs went to work for other organizations.
I think in a number of cases an organization judges that educating and training at high levels is worth it even though they may lose some trained and educated employees. Of course, they could always hire employees educated and trained by other organizations.
Right now these organizations get most of these people trained and educated at someone else's expense or at least preliminarily weeded out by others – even though a good deal of learning and further weeding out occurs on the job. This situation certainly inhibits organizations from doing more in expending moneys for formal education.
Kenneth,
Reimbursing while they are taking the course retains them while they are working toward their degree (and at least while taking that course!) So the company gets some value prior to reimbursement. The people will usually not leave instantly, but yes, they may eventually leave.
If not, they may ask for a raise soon after getting their degree. But the company probably kinda-sorta knows both will happen.
That program is going to continue at many places because even though some people leave, enough stay long enough to make it worth it. But yes, some companies just hire away people who got their MBA paid for by their previous employer.
I think it works better than trying to make an employee have to pay back after they leave. The company that reimbursed them otherwise has to figure out *how much* of the cost of college the former employee should pay. Since they were working for the company during that period, that's not all that easy either! (Plus, really, how long are you going to make them "work it off" and at what rate of payment for each hour worked for the company afterwards?)
I doubt it's a coincidence that the tech giants started thinking it was wise to police right wing speech (and of course left wing speech is tolerated) and the beginning of conservatives to line up with thinking regulating tech giants is a good idea.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/overthrow-the-prince-of-facebook-11559862145
.
Exhibit A of why getting into controversial politics is a bad idea for businesses. Falling under the spell of using your special corporate power for "good and justice" is a path to potential ruin.
.
My libertarian streak still tells me regulation is a bad idea, but the thought of these guys suffering a bit for being too heavy handed does not cause me to shed a tear. My libertarian streak also tells me that these guys should not be asked nor take the opportunity to become the thought police on their platforms. One side's virtue is the other side's hate.
.
These companies are now in a no-win position, and perhaps it was always unavoidable, but a corporate mentality of we are not diving into the culture wars at any cost seems like a winning proposal. Amazon seems to try to stay out, Apple tries to navigate the maze and play both sides, Google and Twitter have taken sides, and Facebook seems incompetent and confused.
Here is a sign that the culture apocalypse may still be a ways off.
Ohio bakery awarded $11 million in libel lawsuit against Oberlin College over alleged racial profiling
https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/09/us/oberlin-college-bakery-lawsuit/index.html
.
The Dean of Students at Oberlin (run of the mill liberal arts school) apparently was helping pass out brochures that called the bakery racist. As if the details really matter any more once the labeling mob has started, but the case began when a bakery employee used physical force to detain shoplifters. Oberlin apparently thinks there is a need for affirmative action in shoplifting.
Tom Scharf (Comment #175014): "My libertarian streak still tells me regulation is a bad idea, but the thought of these guys suffering a bit for being too heavy handed does not cause me to shed a tear. My libertarian streak also tells me that these guys should not be asked nor take the opportunity to become the thought police on their platforms. One side's virtue is the other side's hate."
Yep. But I think the solution on this one is clear. The law immunizes internet platforms from liability for things that people might say on those platforms. I think that is a wise law. But platforms should not censor what is said on them, with allowance for some sort of public safety exception. If they want to censor content, that is fine with me as long as they are then treated as publishers. But they should have to choose and should not be allowed to be treated as either platforms or publishers depending on what suits the tech companies at the moment.
Mike M,
I agree. They are either publishers, responsible for content, or unregulated neutral forums, not both. Their days of doing whatever the leftist instincts of their staff dictate, while claiming to be neutral forums, are coming to a close. They have a clear (leftist) POV which they impose upon users.
It's a complicated world, nobody complains when they filter the Islamic State's propaganda or take off the KGB's political fake news. I'd prefer they filter nothing versus taking their orders from the mob's and politician's whims. The direction of censoring always seems to be toward more once it starts. They have to do some, but the threshold needs to be clear and convincing, not preponderance of who is screaming the loudest on Twitter.
Lucia, I do not disagree with what you say here. My point which is probably hiding in my comments somewhere is that if education was not subsidized by governments and private organizations required educated people there are ways that a market place of ideas could discover means of doing that educating and training. My further point is that while it is fun and thought provoking to exchange ideas on how various ideas might work in the real world without government restraints, one individual or one group's ideas will not prevail unless it stands up to a dynamic and flexible market place of ideas put to practice. The libertarian view of the limitations of government involvement in these processes is that it greatly truncates the ideas to be considered and once an idea is put in place the hesitancy to remove a bad one.
Unfortunately our political culture is quite conservative in its views of what would replace government involvement in these practices once government has been involved for awhile – and even when that involvement has been problematic.
Internet platforms should not restrict protected free speech. Free speech is not unlimited. For instance, incitements to riot are not protected speech. Neither is speech by foreigners. Platforms should be permitted, perhaps even required in some cases, to restrict such unprotected speech. But they should not be allowed to restrict protected speech, such as the rantings of domestic neo-Nasty groups. Unless they want to be treated as publishers, not platforms.
.
p.s. – The spell checker refused to recognize a certain word as correct, leading me to worry about ending up in moderation. You can figure it out.
I usually ignore Peggy Noonan's Saturday WSJ column and because I have little interest in her luke-warm political views. I read the one linked here and found that she has advocated in her article for more government regulation – which is not surprising. It appears she is more into punishing the people involved than looking at the system.
The fact that some of these entities that Noonan doesn't like are run by left wingers and have employees of the same political views ignores the feature in a truly capitalistic system that it should matter little who is running or working for an organizations but rather only that it is business because it is satisfying a consumer demand and without government subsidizing it or regulating away free entry of competition into the market place.
I certainly use Amazon and some Apple applications but not so much the other entities noted by Noonan. I do not agree with much of their left wing views, but I certainly do not want to go down the slippery slope of regulation, anti-trust measures or censorship. As a private entity that entity should have the right to put on its platform whatever it wants (within reasonable legal restrictions) whether I or many others disagree with it. We can always choose not to do business with that entity as a consumer and with those great powers that consumers possess. I personally like the freedom that a chaotic appearing internet provides and judges it important for the government to keep its distance.
I think conservatives would do better in these matters to assure themselves that these entities are not using government regulations to inhibit competition. A left winger is going to want more government involvement in these matters and that is what should be under a watchful conservative eye – and not helping the left winger along by agreeing to the principle of imposition of more government involvement.
If we had a working system of education paid for by the private sector (with its own set of warts), I would suggest that an idea to have private citizens pre-pay for education themselves in the hopes the private sector might hire them later would be met with riots in the streets. The left would be howling about corporate greed and systemic inequality. The right would greet massive government subsidizing in the way it usually does. There is no doubt the inertia of the current system is pretty large.
I pretty much agree with Kenneth, but there is a legitimate argument that Google has become Standard Oil or vintage AT&T for global search. They own massive infrastructure that another company would be crazy to try to duplicate from the ground up to compete. Amazon is a huge threat to retailers but I see this as more of the evolution of the market. I haven't set foot in a mall for at least 5 years. Apple isn't a problem because … Blackberry … Nokia … the half life of cell phone dominance is pretty short. If Amazon of Apple doubled their prices then consumers would flee. If Google doubled their advertising rates then ?
.
Once your product becomes a verb it is heading toward being a monopoly. Even if Google is a true monopoly it is unclear if anything needs to be done. They need to abuse that power first.
Europe shakes down Google for billions on a regular basis, and I do like my "free" maps and search and all the other stuff that others are paying for.
Kenneth Fritsch (Comment #175021): "in a truly capitalistic system … it should matter little who is running or working for an organizations but rather only that it is business because it is satisfying a consumer demand and without government subsidizing it or regulating away free entry of competition into the market place."
But that is a libertarian fantasy, not the real world. Adam Smith: "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." As Smith recognized, government action on behalf of the public is sometimes needed as a counterweight.
.
Kenneth: "We can always choose not to do business with that entity as a consumer and with those great powers that consumers possess.I personally like the freedom that a chaotic appearing internet provides and judges it important for the government to keep its distance."
Ideally, yes. But none of that is automatic. Your local drug store may not refuse to serve you on account of your race, religion, or (I think) political views. Some extreme libertarians would say that is wrong, for reasons similar to what Kenneth says. That might be reasonably true in a city, but not in a small town with only one drug store. Where monopolies, or near monopolies, are involved the consumer does not have a meaningful choice.
Equal access ought to apply to internet businesses as well as brick-and-mortar businesses.
.
By the way, I have not googled anything in years, nor do I use Google Maps. And my browser is set to block all scripts that Google wants to run. It occasionally causes me a bit of inconvenience. But I refuse to trust a corporation whose motto used to be "Don't be evil".
.
The left wing political pressure is not just from tech companies. Look at the way corporations line up to bully states that enact laws to restrict abortion or the "right" of men to use women's restrooms and locker rooms.
.
Kenneth: "I think conservatives would do better in these matters to assure themselves that these entities are not using government regulations to inhibit competition."
But companies also use their market power to inhibit competition. Google can, at least in principle, bias searches to favor their products. Amazon both runs a marketplace and acts as a vendor in that marketplace; a clear conflict of interest. It would be appropriate for the government to take antitrust action to keep operators of platforms separate from businesses that depend on those platforms.
The only true monopolies are those that are given monopoly powers by the government and enforced directly by the government or through government regulations that make entry by other concerns impossible to very difficult.
Anti-trust law brought into existent by progressives in the early 20th century has been a failure both in theory and practice. I get the feeling that the left in the current instances wants anti-trust law to give power to the government to reign in private entities – which is expected of that political class. I get the idea that some conservatives, like Peggy Noonan, would like to use anti-trust to reign in their political enemies.
Given a free market place the consumer has great power. The progressive and conservative thinking that government interference can remedy these problems is the real pipe dream.
You tell them Kenneth. I don't have the will to argue that anymore, but I still think the same way you do about it.
Kenneth,
With all due respect, I think what you are saying is simply not accurate. Yes, in a free market individuals have power, but the truth is an incumbent de-facto monopolist can (and will) work actively to eliminate competition to protect its dominant position, and to avoid price erosion. The examples are many, but one is DeBeers buying diamond mines to limit production and even buying “excess diamonds†to maintain an elevated diamond price. I agree the *worst* monopolies are those protected by government, but run-of-the-mill monopolists also behave badly.
SteveF (Comment #175027): "I agree the *worst* monopolies are those protected by government, but run-of-the-mill monopolists also behave badly."
I largely agree, but state backed monopolies are also the hardest to get rid of. I think that run-of-the-mill monopolies have a limited lifetime, but they can do a lot of damage in that lifetime.
SteveF (#175027),
It's certainly true that monopolists (or even non-monopolists) are no fan of competition. But in the absence of government intervention, maintaining a monopoly can be problematic. DeBeers once had over 90% of the market, now they're down to 37% (per wikipedia). More to the point, a monopoly maintained by *buying out* new competitors gives investors an excellent reason to start potential competitors. Further, dominating a segment of the market doesn't automatically translate into control–in the case of diamonds, while the cartel fiercely tries to protect the price of that gemstone, they rely on marketing (probably the most successful marketing in history) to keep the market buying other stones that are cheaper and arguably prettier. Diamond jewelry is to some extent fungible with other jewelry; where diamonds are actually essential (industrial uses) synthetics dominate the market.
Monopolies can exist. Of course people work towards monopolies; that's just the limiting case for dominating market share. I think without government games monopolies usually exist at the sufferance of the populace however. If they do not, at the end of the day generally people are still free *not to* deal with the monopolist. People are free to compete with the monopolist, to not sell out to the monopolist. To pay higher prices to competitors if they actually give a crap about preventing monopolies. Merely because people often feel free to act in an irresponsible / short sighted way does not mean that government intervention is the only possible remedy, or even the best remedy.
Here's a fun related article.
https://fee.org/articles/41-rockefellers-standard-oil-company-proved-that-we-needed-anti-trust-laws-to-fight-such-market-monopolies/
mark bofill,
Whether people are entirely free to not deal with the monopolie depends a bit on the thing controlled. Railroad, roads, water, telephone etc. where in a category where groups of people had to go without something important. For example: farmers needed to get goods to market and city folk also needed those goods. Rail sufficiently more effective than putting a load in your wagon, that rail was to an extent, the only sane choice. But the product– a rail– tended toward natural monopoly because it was so expensive to build and maintain a rail.
These things tended to end up regulated. A number of factors affect whether it needs to be regulated.
Other things like cake bakeries, restaurants, photographers and so on tend not to form monopolies at all because it's not that expensive to start a bakery, and one will spring up if the local bakery tried to raise prices too much. Also, people can not buy cakes or make their own, skip cake altogether and so on.
lucia,
I try to avoid drawing unreasonable lines, but maybe I'm in error. Help me look at this if you would, to determine where you think I'm going wrong.
.
Sure, rail beats the heck out of a wagon for getting goods to the city. A train ride to transport goods is valuable. I think we'd agree that valuable things ought to cost some. If rail costs more than the wagon alternative, .. rail probably isn't going to do very well; it's not going to be competitive.
.
What always baffles me is this. This is the question I'd really like your input on. The guy with the railroad could shut the darn thing down and we wouldn't dispute his right to do so. We only seem to dispute his right to price gouge us. There seems to me to be something inconsistent about this. Sure, maybe rail is the only sane choice. But – if it's OK for somebody to not offer rail service *at all*, how can it not be OK for somebody to offer rail service at too high a price? I have never been able to reconcile this in my mind.
.
What are your thoughts?
"if it's OK for somebody to not offer rail service *at all*, how can it not be OK for somebody to offer rail service at too high a price?"
.
I feel like I should have explained a little further: The reason I think this is that offering rail service at too high a price ought to be OK if not offering service at all is OK is that effectively it seems to me to be the same thing. If Alice is offering a service at too high a price, people are free not to buy. It seems to me that this case results in the same situation as the case where Alice shut down and refused to sell–> Alice makes no money, Bob et al get no service. So; the worst case scenario or extreme scenario of monopolistic price gouging seems to me to be the same as the scenario of shutting down / not offering the good or service in the marketplace at all.
I will shush after this. I can never tell when I'm too verbose (which I suspect means I'm generally too darn verbose). But two things:
1) I thought I could make my dilemma more clear by rephrasing and elaborating along the lines of: it's clearly within Alice's right to offer no service whatsoever. So the union of no service whatsoever and grudging service at a very high price shouldn't be worse than just no service whatsoever. The second case contains a choice, how can a choice be worse?
2) I tried to honestly answer this rhetorical question, and I was forced to conclude that sometimes a choice is indeed worse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophie%27s_Choice_(film) I'm not claiming this is a parallel case by any stretch, but. Sometimes having an additional choice makes things far worse. We're strange creatures…
Alright I'll hush now until somebody addresses me again. For awhile. If I can make myself.
mark bofill,
I think "right and wrong" is not necessarily the way to look at the issue of monopolies. The issue also isn't necessarily "too high a price". The issue is our idea of how the "right price" is established.
In most circumstances, the right price is established through competition of somewhat similar things provided by somewhat different commercial entities. The problem with comparing rail transportation to a horse and buggy is that lots of things are impossible by horse and buggy. For example, you can't have refrigerated wagons with horse and buggy. Also, once the cost of providing the "old fashioned way" is just totally outstripped by new technology the things just stop being the same.
If there is NO other thing comparable to rail, then we get no price competition. Is this "wrong"? Perhaps not. But our notion of pricing has been to have a competitive market set the prices and the competitive market no longer sets prices. What do we do? OUR choice was to– in some circumstances– regulate in some cases and break up in some other cases. But the decisions to regulate and who to regulate end up quite complicated.
Now, we could start to argue whether other forms of transportation might not be sufficient competition. Once we had the highway system, trucks ARE competition for rail. To *some* extent, in some places, riverboats were always *some* competition to rail. I think these "other" forms need to be considered.
But I do think some products and services at *some* point in history are natural monopolies and we need to think carefully about what to do in the event of excess market domination. We might not all come to the same undertanding of what to do, but I do think we need to recognize there is *something different* in the way market economy works with some industries.
I'll go think about that for awhile.
Thanks lucia.
mark,
What if the railroad makes it far more difficult to get the produce to market by horse and wagon? The old-fashioned way probably depended on many businesses: inns, stables, turnpikes, ferries, blacksmiths. So if the railroad builder starts out with low prices, drives all the old-fashioned businesses into bankruptcy, then raises rates to a ruinous level, the farmers are worse off than before the railroad.
That is often how monopolies work: by using unfair practices to destroy competition, then ruthlessly exploiting the resulting advantage. Eventually things might right themselves but not until after great damage is done.
Mike,
My thinking runs along the lines of – people ought to look out for their own interests intelligently. If they do not, government regulation will not save them anyway. There is more (in my view) to intelligent self interest than following a greedy algorithm to do a local profit optimization at one instant in time.
.
I would not put my life in one guy's hands if I could possibly help it. I don't really see why anybody else ought to think that's a great idea either.
.
I've got more to my argument but I'll have to get back to it later if I have time.
Thanks Mike.
mark,
People cease to have the power to look out for their own interests intelligently when monopolies have power to take a huge number of choices away. One of the benefits of competition is to create a market place that permits multiple choices. Only when a range of reasonable choices exists is it possible to expect people to look after their interest by making choices.
The other thing competition does is encourage competing industries to innovate and offer choices people pick of pay more money for.
As I wrote before: it's not clear exactly when we want to regulate away "monopoly". It's definitely not useful to have government picking winners and losers. But there are situations where free enterprise, technology and investment can result in a situation where people don't have much in the way of reasonable choices because someone (the monopoly) acquires such an lock on options that they can take choices away from others.
mark bofill (Comment #175038): "There is more (in my view) to intelligent self interest than following a greedy algorithm to do a local profit optimization at one instant in time."
Sure, but what has that got to do with it? I can get my produce to market by train for 1/10 of what it costs you by horse and wagon. Your intelligent self-interest gives you one choice. The same for every other farmer and for the innkeepers, ferry operators etc. It has nothing to do with greed or shortsightedness.
Sure, but what has that got to do with it?
–
Pretend it's you Mike. You understand that if you and everybody else gets their produce to market solely by train for 1/10'th of what it costs by horse and wagon, the train proprietor is going to gouge you once he's secured his monopoly.
I got it that you can't compete moving your produce by horse and wagon. Yep. Maybe it's time to diversify. Maybe it's time to look for some sidelines, or another line of work altogether, because it's dumb to know how monopolies work and walk right into getting screwed by one.
.
Maybe back in the day people really had no other options. I'm not sure what was true then is still true today.
.
[Edit: Heck, maybe it's time to talk to your neighbors and competitors about what's coming and what you guys can do to deal with it. Maybe it's possible for people to organize, make agreements and take steps *without* involving the government. ]
MikeM, Frank Fisher wrote about predatory pricing myths 30 years ago. The basic problem is the amount being invested isn't likely to pay off with profits on the back end.
https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://duckduckgo.com/&httpsredir=1&article=2748&context=cklawreview
The thing is, you can't have it both ways. There can't be *one* sensible choice (shipping by train) that simultaneously *isn't* the sensible choice because it leads to a monopoly where everybody gets screwed. Getting screwed by the monopoly isn't in anybody's best interest.
lucia,
Maybe that's the simplest answer. Certainly it's the answer we've gone with historically. *shrug*. It's a solution to a problem.
mark bofill (Comment #175043): "The thing is, you can't have it both ways. There can't be *one* sensible choice (shipping by train) that simultaneously *isn't* the sensible choice because it leads to a monopoly where everybody gets screwed."
Of course there can be such a situation. There are a number of idioms that apply: "between a rock and a hard place", "between the devil and the deep blue sea", "d@mned if you do, d@mned if you don't".
—————–
mark bofill: "Getting screwed by the monopoly isn't in anybody's best interest."
But that does not mean there is a practical alternative, at least not in the real world.
Mark,
First the issue isn't merely that the monopolist might "gouge". The bigger issue is that once the monopoly exists, there is no incentive to innovate. The monopolist can prevent alternatives from existing because of their head start. This is not the sort of economic system *we want to have*.
What we want is an economic system that drives prosperity for people who are willing to work. For the most part, a capitalistic economic system does that; an over regulated or communal system does not. That's the argument in favor of capitalism.
Your focus on "gouging" makes me suspect you are losing sight of the fact that we are often discussing the choice of economic systems– free market, regulated, communal property. When we do so, we don't focus on "gouging". The important question is *what is most beneficial* for everyone. I think mostly free with some regulation is most beneficial for everyone– and that includes the people who don't manage to become monopolists. You may think other wise. Perhaps you think we shouldn't pick economic systems based on what benefits socieiy. That's fine.
But do think that we pick based on what works for society as a whole and that happens to be capitalism with *some* regulation.
*"The thing is, you can't have it both ways. There can't be *one* sensible choice (shipping by train) that simultaneously *isn't* the sensible choice because it leads to a monopoly where everybody gets screwed."*
Of course there can be one "sensible" choice short term which is a not sensible choice long term. We saw it in "company towns" with "company stores". The company owned everything withing commuting distance to the workers. Short term, the only sensible choice for people living in the area was to buy overpriced food, clothing and so on at the company store. The long term involved a person "owing their soul to the company store" (and perhaps only escaping by writing and recording a break out country song.)
Lucia makes an excellent point about the overall economic harm done by monopolies due to their tendency not to innovate. But monopolies also tend to suppress innovation by others. And the price gouging not only harms individuals, but also the economy as a whole by transferring resources to relatively unproductive uses, such as the monopoly using their resources to protect their position.
.
mark bofill (Comment #175030): "I think without government games monopolies usually exist at the sufferance of the populace".
But one thing that monopolies *always* do with their resources is to try to buy off the government.
It sounds like what baffles mark is that he is assuming that all people are always completely rational and always have the knowledge, money, and time to implement whatever the rational plan they might come up with. That seems to be the core assumption of libertarians, but that is not the real world.
Looked at one way, the mice voting to bell the cat is perfectly rational. But in fact, it is irrational since the mice don't actually have any way to bell the cat.
———-
I think that, in general, we should not regulate or break up businesses just because they are successful, big, and dominate market share. But which such businesses, we should be alert to practices that suppress competition and/or subvert the government. Such practices should bring a strong response.
The situation with some of the tech companies has reached that point.
mark bofill (Comment #175030): "Here's a fun related article.
https://fee.org/articles/41-rockefellers-standard-oil-company-proved-that-we-needed-anti-trust-laws-to-fight-such-market-monopolies/"
The problem with that article is that the author starts with two false assumptions. One is the false dichotomy that monopolies are either "efficiency monopolies" or "coercive monopolies". The other is that government power is the only source of coercion.
Those assumptions might well be valid as to how monopolies or near monopolies form. But efficiency monopolies inevitably transform into coercive monopolies. For a monopoly, the coercive power can come from both co-opting the government and misusing its market power.
——–
p.s. – I say "inevitable" since I can't think of an efficiency monopoly that maintained its position for more than a generation, if that long, without becoming coercive. Maybe there are examples that I can not think of.
Mike M,
Yes, not having time or money to get out of the situation that amounts to "selling their soul to the company store" is a problem. Also, in this case, the government holding them to contracts (here debt) is an issue. The person, who early on, may not have seen the danger is now in a hole. They can't escape the hole by just running away from the debt, so they are sort of stuck. There are no viable options for *that* person other than continuuing to work for "the company". It's a problem.
I think it's also worth nothing that we regulate lots of economic activity that attempts to prevent competition. It's not just "monopolistic" behavior. For example, our system enforces quite a few contractual provisions between employers and employees. BUT, there are limits. So for example, an employee and employer can enter an employment contract that contains a non-compete clause. But we have laws limiting the extent of the terms. For example: the non-compete agreement can't say the employees will never be able to work anywhere at all afterwards. There is always some limitation about (1) duration, (2) location and (3) field of employ and so on.
Currently, there is quite a bit of discussion about unfair non-competes because companies will try to push this. Some employers also want ridiculous provisions in writing even if they know a court will through them out– because they know employees with small budgets don't want to risk going to court. So, for example, Jimmy Johns "had barred departing employees from taking jobs with competitors of Jimmy John’s for two years after leaving the company and from working within two miles of a Jimmy John’s store that made more than 10 percent of its revenue from sandwiches."
Note this says "a" Jimmy John's store– not just the one the employee worked at. In population dense locations around here, there's a jimmy johns within 2 miles of almost anywhere! So if enforced, a former employee probably couldn't accept a job in any fast food joint anywhere in DuPage county!
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/22/jimmy-johns-drops-non-compete-clauses-following-settlement.html
This is, of course a *ridiculous* non-compete as applied to *sandwich delivery* people and people who did nothing more than make sandwiches in the restaurant. Non-competes ought to be valid only to protect the restaurant against potentially unfair behavior by former employees– like actually stealing customers. But sorry…. people who make sandwiches or flip burgers at Jimmy Johns, Panera, Burger King and so on, aren't in a position to steal customers or company secrets!
You might suggest that the sandwich maker looking for his first job after dropping out of high school should have the sense to read the "no compete" and look elsewhere for a job. But honestly, he might not have that many options.
So, our legal system recognizes there are some asymmetries here, and we do set up some regulations to prevent someone like Jimmy Johns from basically making a former fast-food employee unable to find work making fast-food in anywhere in all of DuPage county merely because he formerly made or delivered sandwiches for Jimmy Johns.
In New York, courts deemed the clause unenforceable. As the AG noted
“Noncompete agreements for low-wage workers are unconscionable,†Eric Schneiderman, New York’s attorney general, said in a statement. “They limit mobility and opportunity for vulnerable workers and bully them into staying with the threat of being sued. Companies should stop using these agreements for minimum wage employees.â€
Jimmy Johns is getting coverage and lots of criticisms. The AG in Illinois has filed suit. If the AG doesn't win, let's hope the legislature changes laws to recognize such a non-compete is unconscionable and should never be enforced. I'd be for permitting punitive damages in cases where a non-compete is both unconscionable and aimed at minimum wage employees who one can be pretty sure will never have money to risk filing a suit themselves.
(There are cases where the clause might be iff– but this one was ridiculous.)
On the Jimmy Johns issue: After the IL AG filed the lawsuit, Jimmy Johns has agreed to pay $100K to "to create education and outreach programs to promote best practices by employers, prosecutors said.". I'm guessing the best practices do not include the sort of non-compete clause that got Jimmy Johns sued. 🙂
Also
"Beginning in January 2017, the Illinois Freedom to Work Act will prevent businesses from having non-compete agreements for employees who make less than $13 an hour, prosecutors said."
https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/jimmy-johns-settlement-non-compete-405356736.html
I have a question for the libertarians types here. Should people be able to use the internet without having Google track what they are doing?
Note, that I am not asking if people should be able to use Google without having Google track them. I am asking if they should be able to use sites like this one without having Google track them. And, if they have such a right, how much trouble people should have to take to do that.
"..the coercive power can come from both co-opting the government and misusing its market power."
Mike you might want to define coercive power as you relate it to a free market situation. Certainly governments have coercive power with fines and imprisonment, but consumers in the market place are not "coerced" to purchase items – unless there is government involvement like in the original ACA where government had the coercive power over purchasing.
Mike M. (Comment #175052)
I think before you attempt to illicit a response here you should be clearer and more detailed in what you mean by Google tracking internet activity and what it is that Google is currently doing that you find illegal or unscrupulous.
lucia (Comment #175049)
In how many instances did Jimmy John's attempt to enforce the non compete agreement with a former employee. I thought those agreements with fast food workers and other workers at those levels would not be enforced in court.
One of the rarer occurrences of a government retracting some of its power and interference in the private sector was the gradual and partial deregulation of the railroad, trucking and airline industries over a three decade period. Studies had shown that the regulations were primarily beneficial to the existing corporations and unions in these industries and were hurting the consumer through lack of competition. Despite what the studies showed there was a lot of resistance by the politicians in Washington to any changes – as is invariably the case in these matters.
https://web.stanford.edu/~moore/MovingAhead.html
https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/TruckingDeregulation.html
Of interest to this thread's subject is how regulation in effect prevented entry into an industry, such as trucking, by the government and how bizarre some of these regulations can become.
illicit should have obviously been elicit. Sorry Mike.
MikeM
*I am asking if they should be able to use sites like this one without having Google track them.*
I don't think people should have this as a "right".
I don't happen to run google ads, or anything like that. So Google can't track you here. But I pay for the server time and so on for this site. If I made money with ads, I think *I* ought to have the right to refuse to allow people to visit if they won't load ads. That means the entity serving ads will be able to track you. That entity would likely be google.
I think you would have a right to not visit my site.
Kenneth,
*In how many instances did Jimmy John's attempt to enforce the non compete agreement with a former employee. *
I don't know. To elaborate: I neither know the number of instances
(a)an employer *alluded* to the non-compete when dealing with an employee who had signed nor
(b) an employer alluded to the non-compete when an employee was fired or quite nor
(c) the number of times an employee decided to go ahead, violate the contract and got sued.
But I think having the clause in the contract is outrageous even if the company's intention is to never enforce it. The clause can have an inhibiting effect by merely existing. I know this *for a fact* because I read the contracts for tutoring platforms that help tutor's find students. I've sometimes seen clauses which I *strongly suspect* are unenforceable and I suspect the company would not pursue them for this reason. But (a) I don't know if they are unenforceable and (b) I can't rely on my "guess" that the company will not enforce the provision *in my case*. If I were desperate for a job and signed that, knowledge that the provision exists in the contract would affect my mental state when I want to do things like negotiate a raise, threaten to quit, look for a job elsewhere and so on.
So, these provisions are despicable *even if* the company only puts them in the contract but claims they would never enforce them. If the company does not enforce the provision, it should not be in the contract.
* I thought those agreements with fast food workers and other workers at those levels would not be enforced in court.*
Indeed. The court threw them out. The difficulty is they provisions bully the workers even if they are never enforced. They should not be in the contract. I'm glad Illinois went after them and Jimmy Johns is now paying $100K.
Kenneth,
I agree government regulations often lead to inefficiencies and often help established companies keep out competitors.
Having said that: the regulations you are pointing to were NOT intended to break up monopolies. The fall in a category similar to licensing for hair braiders, manicurists, florists, interior decorators and all sorts of "businesses" that either should either never have been regulated in the first place (hair braiders) or become ridiculously over regulated (interior decorators). These were never to break up monopolies and generally are accompanied with claims of "protecting publich health" or some such thing.
(I know some of you are thinking… interior decorators. Well, it turns out SOME interior decorators are involved in building safety. So picking out flame proof materials, layouts for safe exit and so on is useful. There is *some* potential why these people might need some training and certification. However, this should not be an excuse for forcing licensing on people who help you pick the color of throw pillows in private residence.)
Anyway, these sorts of regulations are often bad and inefficient. It does not follow that ALL regulations are bad or inefficient. That the ones regulating trucking were less than wonderful doesn't mean regulations to break up trusts and monopolies are bad.
lucia (Comment #175058): I don't happen to run google ads, or anything like that. So Google can't track you here."
Well, gmodules.com wants to run a script when I access this site. That is Google. I don't know what it does, but that specific script does not seem to be involved in tracking.
.
lucia: "But I pay for the server time and so on for this site."
Thank you.
.
lucia: "If I made money with ads, I think *I* ought to have the right to refuse to allow people to visit if they won't load ads."
I agree. I have no problem with ads.
.
lucia: "That means the entity serving ads will be able to track you. That entity would likely be google."
I think that is true. But ads need not require tracking. And sites never say that the user needs to permit tracking, only that the user needs to enable ads. I object to that. If they want to track me, they should get my permission for that. If I then refuse to give permission and that blocks access to otherwise free sites, so be it.
.
This site wants to run two scripts. One is from Google and blocking it seems to cause me no trouble. If I had to choose to either enable that or not use the site, that is my choice.
.
But there are sites that *I pay for* that want to run dozens of scripts belonging to who knows who and doing who knows what. Many of those are often from Google. With most sites that I pay for, there are not so many and it is easy to see which scripts are legitimate. But not always. And the bad ones tend to be ones for which I have little choice. I object.
.
I have a problem with one single firm being pretty much everywhere on the internet and tracking pretty much everyone. That is not good for society.
MikeM… hmmm… I wonder if it's the gravitars? (Images by some names?) I don't know what it would be. I could take it off if I knew.
*This site wants to run two scripts. * What other script? Obviously, it should run wordpress.
Ok… the other script just puts time somewhere on the page. I'll have to see if I intentionally have the script call to gmodules or if that's a wordpress thing.
lucia,
The other is rankexploits.com. If you don't know about it, it must be something set up by WordPress for your site.
I have absolutely no problem with something like gmodules.com on a site like this. It is a free site, so I take what I get. I can block that script if I like. With only a couple of scripts (I suppose that really means domain names for scripts), it is easy to figure out what is needed and what is not.
MikeM
Well… rankexploits.com is a dynamic page. So it does run a big php script to deliver the blog. There's no getting around that.
I just don't remember what gmodules does.
The gmodules script looks to be calling with google's custom search engine api coding. It looks pretty innocuous to me. Regardless,the script call is returning a 404 error on my machine so it's not actually loading anything. FWIW Line 63 is returning a jQuery not defined error also which means a jQuery script load is likely missing.
Regulatory capture is the term used when the large incumbents manipulate the regulatory bodies created to protect public interest to instead promote their interests instead.
Kenneth F: "I think before you attempt to illicit a response here you should be clearer and more detailed in what you mean by Google tracking internet activity and what it is that Google is currently doing that you find illegal or unscrupulous."
I don't know where to start. For instance: "A portion of the fringe domains list was shared with The Daily Caller. On it are the American Spectator, Breitbart, Breaking911, the website of pastor Brian Jones, the website of Bring Your Bible to School Day, Consortium News (published by Robert Parry), St. Philip the Deacon Lutheran Church, speakerryan.com, The Franklin Society (a cryptocurrency blog), Free Thought Project, The Gateway Pundit, and The Gorka Briefing.
In addition, several blogs critical of conservatives are on the fringe domains blacklist, including Breitbart Unmasked and Spencer Watch, a blog critical of Jihad Watch’s Robert Spencer.
Google CEO Sundar Pichai told Congress in December that the company does not “manually intervene on any particular search result.†(RELATED: Google Fires Republican Engineer Who Spoke Out Against ‘Outrage Mobs’)
But in fact Google does manually intervene in several different types of special search results, as The Daily Caller revealed in April, through their news blacklist. The web answers blacklist is more evidence that they do manually intervene in particular search results." https://dailycaller.com/2019/06/11/revealed-two-google-blacklists-fringe-domains-special-search-results/
……
Also, if you Google Climategate, the first result is "Skeptical Science" Then after wiki (which won't even call it Climategate) you have something by the Union of Concerned Scientists, several articles by the Guardian and an article by Nature. Obviously, these results have a Left-wing tilt.
…..
Gmail drives me crazy. It has a very good spam filter, but it arrogantly tries to manipulate the way you use it. For instance, about a week ago Google started (without telling me as far as I know) putting certain files in an "important" label/file using an unknown filter and keeping these files out of my inbox. People were emailing me stuff and I had no idea where it was going. Now knowing what they are doing, I am sure that they are trying to refine their data harvesting (spying) techniques. The last thing I want is Google telling me what is important and keeping it out of my inbox.
Also, about 5 years ago, Google changed its compose feature (over the vehement objections of 98% of commenters) and took away about 80% of the users' ability to configure compose. (For example, you weren't even ALLOWED to change the subject line in writing a reply initially). Hundreds of complaints used to be located here, but, of course, Google recently got rid of the the record of the complaints. https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topicsearchin/gmail/compose$20ronna%7Csort:date%7Cspell:true/gmail/fkjFJpV2hBE
I got so mad at Google for arrogantly screwing up compose (It eventually walked back a fair amount of changes over time) that I switched to the Bing search engine, with no complaints. I have a work-around for Google's latest arrogant manipulation — there is an all mail box, which I can use to skip my now worthless inbox. I realize many of my complaints are not antitrust related, but Google is huge, arrogant and biased, and I do think it needs to be regulated. I would switch to the web based Outlook, but I was told by a Microsoft employee one time that the reason Outlook is so slow is that Microsoft doesn't have enough servers devoted to it.
JD
Google well may make mistakes and have a political bias in its operation, but if it is not doing anything illegal and there is no restraint on the governments part to prevent by regulation entry of direct or indirect competitors then the market place will eventually sort out the mistakes that negatively affect the consumers. Government involvement and regulations in these matters tends to keep in place the innovation that has already been monetized and greatly inhibits future innovation. Some observers might be surprised by the tendency of corporate giants welcoming regulation and even the kind like anti-trust that protects their already realized innovations against future innovators.
I think the link below puts anti-trust regulation reasoning or the lack of it in good perspective. Of particular importance to me is the dynamic view elucidated by the article referencing Hayek below:
"Hayek, however, saw competition as a discovery process, and the ideal way to encourage that process is to favor dynamic competition — and thus more realistic competition — over perfect competition. Many now recognize this, but antitrust authorities and the economic literature has long encouraged the perfect competition model, and sometimes they still do.
Antitrust and Innovation
Modern high-tech markets have characteristics which may give Hayek’s contribution to antitrust law a new meaning. As of today, antitrust authorities do not fully consider all aspects of “innovation†because they do not give dynamic efficiencies the place they should. For instance, the fact that disruptive technologies could emerge at anytime is not integrated in most antitrust analyses, which tend to confirm that these authorities are still running, at least in part, on the model of perfect competition.
High-tech markets consistently demonstrate unstable equilibrium and this should lead antitrust authorities to give a lesser importance to the concept of “network effects†which imply that a product with a large market share may have an insurmountable advantage over competing products. The possibility of the emergence of new products and innovations that constantly reshape the marketplace show us that barriers to entering an existing market are not the main issue since new technologies often create a new market. As a consequence, and as recent history undoubtedly shows us, market shares move faster and most so-called natural monopolies — those created without public intervention — disappeared as soon as they appeared. In other words, these markets better resemble Hayek’s spontaneous order than any perfect competition model.
Antitrust authorities have already been forced by new realities to take this into consideration. For instance, in the Microsoft anti-trust case, the Department of Justice recognized the temporary nature of domination in high-tech markets. American and European courts have also done so in several cases since then. The European Commission, in its Microsoft/Skype merger decision of 2011, addressed the fact that “market shares only provide a limited indication of competitive strength in the consumer communications services markets" and other “dynamic markets.†And recently, European Commissioner for Competition Margrethe Vestager underlined that Google operates in “fast moving markets.†Yet, regulators continue to place a tremendous emphasis on the barriers to enter a market because of the existence of “network effects,†as American and European legal experts did at the time of the Microsoft case.
Practical Reforms
Instead of aiming at preserving a specific structure of the market regulators should be seeking to get out of the way of new technology breakthroughs. Yet, antitrust authorities often favor “sustaining innovations†over new disruptive ones. For instance, when the European Commission ruled that Microsoft must ensure that its products were broadly compatible with other products in the market, the Commission was simply seeking to sustain the current market that exists rather than facilitating the creation of new markets and new products.
Nevertheless, the anti-trust regulators remain focused on “switching costs,†“lock-in,†and “barriers to entry,†and continue to put emphasis on the old concept of “market shares†while the market is making such concepts less relevant by constantly changing the rules of the game.
As Hayek shows us, it is the dynamic emergence of new products and new markets that create true competition and prevent the creation of effective monopolies in an unhampered marketplace. Obviously, the perfect competition model has little to tell us about how these real-world markets work." Regulators would do well to acknowledge all of the consequences related to the relinquishment of the perfect competition model. If they did, it would shift how companies are competing with each other because regulations and court decisions have often shaped companies’ behaviors and strategies. Entrepreneurship would then be enhanced and high-tech markets would be more competitive and innovative than ever.
https://mises.org/library/perfect-competition-and-antitrust
Kenneth F,
“… then the market place will eventually sort out the mistakes that negatively affect the consumers.â€
.
The problem is that political bias in reporting news (or the results of web searches) distorts the political process. When a search result is effectively political propaganda, that is simple dishonesty. The distortion can (and I think has) made the gathering of accurate information from Google (or the MSM outlets) on *any* politically important question very difficult or impossible. Such distortion has real-world consequences: if people vote for politicians based on biased information, then while they are making what they think is the ‘correct’ political choice, in fact it may not be. The biasing of factual information by Google (and other media sources), and worse, active suppression of any information contrary to Google’s owners POV, make Google a real threat to democracy. IMO, Google needs to be regulated very severely to eliminate political bias (and straight-out dishonesty) in their ‘product’. They are a bad organization doing bad things, as their cooperation with the Chinese government and firing of anyone who holds a different political POV so clearly show. “Crushed like a bug†sounds like a just and reasonable outcome for Google.
On a related note, Jordan Peterson announces 'ThinkSpot'.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jun/12/jordan-b-peterson-launching-anti-censorship-platfo/
I haven't looked at it yet.
.
[Edit: looks like trying to sign up gets you put on a waiting list. It claims to still be in beta. *shrug*]
Kenneth Fritsch (Comment #175068): "the market place will eventually sort out the mistakes that negatively affect the consumers."
But Googles's primary customers are corporations. Google's massively dominant position re the data of internet users is tremendously advantageous for their customers. The negative consequences are born by the users and society. In such a case, there is one and only one way for the people to protect their rights.
Correction: One non-violent way.
.
Thought experiment: Go back to the days when AT&T controlled virtually the entire phone system. Imagine that circa 1970 AT&T decided to listen in on people's conversations and sell the resulting information. It would seem that Kenneth's position is: That is just fine; if people don't like it they can just avoid using telephones. Note that it would be nearly impossible for a competitor to exploit the market opening since they could only provide communication between people not using AT&T.
Mike M,
>>It sounds like what baffles mark is that he is assuming…
>>It would seem that Kenneth's position is…
.
Could you not do that? It's irritating.
mark bofill (Comment #175072): ">>It sounds like what baffles mark is that he is assuming…
>>It would seem that Kenneth's position is…
.
Could you not do that? It's irritating."
What part is irritating? Why? Real questions.
Question for the libertarian types: How does the *marketplace* protect the rights of third parties who are not directly involved in a transaction but who are impacted by it?
I think that the answer in real societies is that those rights are protected by the government via both criminal and non-criminal law.
It's great to restate someone's position to them and ask to be sure you understand them properly.
Without that verification though, it's very easy to misrepresent what the other person is saying, or to omit important qualifications or nuance. It's also possible to get the gist completely wrong.
Mike M.
That's a very odd question. Here is my answer.
Just as "being edible" is not the role of "building materials", "protecting rights" is not the role of "the marketplace". Both "building materials" and "the marketplace" have great utility nevertheless.
MikeM,
YOu wrote this
*It sounds like what baffles mark is that he is assuming that all people are always completely rational and always have the knowledge, money, and time to implement whatever the rational plan they might come up with. That seems to be the core assumption of libertarians, but that is not the real world. *
I think what mark objects to is that (a) he is NOT assuming that all people are always (and etc.) .
I would add this is NOT the core assumption of libertarians. It is not even AN assumption of libertarians.
It's fine to point out that assumption would be wrong, but it's rather unfair to claim libertarians are therefor wrong since, as far as I can tell, most *agree with you that it is wrong*.
——-
You also wrote
*t would seem that Kenneth's position is: That is just fine;*
Exceptwhat you wrote before this sentence doesn't seem to be Kenneth's position AT ALL. He didn't discuss eaves dropping, privacy or tracking at all. He discussed breaking up trusts and monopolies *which is a different thing*.
The government could perfectly well regulate 'tracking' , 'invasion of privacy' or 'selling of private information' without breaking up Google's near monopoly on search (or dominance in advertising). It's hardly as if invasion of privacy becomes ok merely because it's done by an entity with a smaller market share. If something needs to be done to protect privacy, that *has little to do with the "monopoly" issue.*
I'm pretty sure what Mark finds annoying is you are putting words and positions in other people's mouths. You are often entirely wrong– in the sense that people haven't said anything remotely similar to what you claim they "seem" to be saying. It is very time wasting for someone to have to explain that "no I didn't say anything like that."
lucia (Comment #175077): "I'm pretty sure what Mark finds annoying is you are putting words and positions in other people's mouths."
I certainly find it annoying when people put words in my mouth. I am guessing that is what Mark was complaining about. But note that one could argue that you just put words in Mark's mouth, for the second time in your post: "I think what mark objects to is …"
I see nothing objectionable in what you wrote, since you preceded your interpretation with "I'm pretty sure" and "I think" thus making allowance for the possibility that you are misinterpreting and inviting possible correction. But I thought I did the same: "It sounds like …" and "It would seem that …". Maybe I need to be clearer.
Lucia, thanks for clarifying. I'd prefer to move on, I think this is a dumb thing to dwell on.
Thanks Mike.
lucia (Comment #175077): "I would add this is NOT the core assumption of libertarians. It is not even AN assumption of libertarians."
It is certainly not an explicit assumption. But I think it is often an implicit assumption, even if the arguer is not aware of the assumption. At least, I often see libertarian arguments that seem to me to only hold water if you make that implicit assumption.
I am guessing that something like 99% of all arguments (including the ones I make) rely on implicit assumptions that are not consciously recognized by the person making the argument. Causes all sorts of trouble on those occasions when the other party does not make the same assumption.
lucia (Comment #175077): "He didn't discuss eaves dropping, privacy or tracking at all. He discussed breaking up trusts and monopolies *which is a different thing*."
It seems to me that Kenneth made an all inclusive statement and then discussed a subset of specific examples. Perhaps I misinterpreted him. He is free to correct me. In that case, I will apologize to him since, on reflection, I think my wording may have been overly aggressive.
SteveF (Comment #175069)
I have not found in my experiences a major problem with obtaining information that is useful for me from the Google or the MSM. It is a matter of filtering that information and always being skeptical of the first reading of information from an individual source. Biases have existed in the presentation of information since time immemorial. Those who are not willing to put forth the effort to filter and be skeptical will always be subject to biases. For that matter a lot of history is presented in a bias matter to satisfy the historians own political biases.
I have a difficult time seeing the connection between your remedy and the problem. Regulators and those proposing and imposing regulations have biases and with governments coercive powers that can be a bigger problem than dealing with the biases of a private entity.
Kenneth F,
To amplify my earlier comment: I became interested in climate ‘science’ for the same reasons I object to the biases of Google, Facebook, and the MSM: blatant dishonesty. Those involved in climate ‘science’ were (and are) mostly people who are motivated by their personal preferences and politics: green, left, and willing to force their political views on everyone via the “emergency†of global warming. The common thread with social media and Google is the willingness to bias information presented to the public to achieve desired political outcomes, and to discount (or outright withhold) information deleterious to implementing their preferred policies. They present themselves as ‘neutral’, when they anything but neutral. They are strongly and consistently politically biased. I don’t expect accurate information or balance from politicians, but I do expect those things from people claiming to be neutral, and even more from people claiming to be scientists presenting ‘factual information’. Both groups fail miserably to live up to their obligations, do so and willfully.
lucia (Comment #175076): "Just as "being edible" is not the role of "building materials", "protecting rights" is not the role of "the marketplace". Both "building materials" and "the marketplace" have great utility nevertheless."
I agree. But some libertarians argue that the marketplace *is* the solution to pretty much everything. I got the impression that Kenneth was making an argument akin to that. Perhaps I misinterpreted him.
Kenneth F,
“Those who are not willing to put forth the effort to filter and be skeptical will always be subject to biases.â€
.
Sure, but how much effort should be required to get factually accurate information? (Real question.) I think people in China simply can’t get accurate factual information on lots of subjects, no matter how they try. A democratically elected government that allows media giants and dominant internet based companies to effectively hide information and suppress political views they dislike is not so different from the situation in China. Sure, heroic efforts may allow someone to filter the rubbish get actual facts, but I don’t think that matters much to most people…. they won’t expend the required effort. Dishonesty in business is unlawful, as well as unprincipled, and I think a perfectly suitable subject for regulation.
The original intent of non-competes was to prevent someone from buying a restaurant from an owner and then have the owner open up a new restaurant right next door a week later. The buyer assumed he was buying the customers and reputation of the restaurant. This original intent has been twisted as so often happens.
.
I've read a lot of independent contractor contracts and they are mostly boiler plate standard contracts. After you read a bunch of them weird stuff like non-competes and indemnification (never, ever, ever, ever sign that one) stand out like a sore thumb.
.
It's pretty rare to see non-competes and I ask to have them removed and they generally just remove them. There are cases where it makes some sense when the business is going to be exposing some significant trade secrets and are teaching something of high value in a specific industry. Trade secret sections of a contract already covers this but I can live with a non-compete in a very specific industry if the job is lucrative enough. Most non-compete verbiage is very vague and unacceptably generic, so needs to be updated. Some states don't allow them period.
.
I "think" it is pretty rare for someone to try to enforce a non-compete and usually there is emotional entanglement between the company and the individual when this happens. I also "think" judges are hesitant to enforce these things as well. This doesn't account for people willingly avoiding employment because of them and in theory you should be informing a new employer of the existence of the non-compete.
MikeM:
Listening in on a telephone conversation where privacy is expected is different than extracting information from a public forum where privacy is not an expectation. However, if the organization collecting information has given the individual the option to not allow the collector to use that information or pass it on to other organizations and does so over the individual's taking that option, the collecting organization has violated a contractual agreement and is liable for all that implies. If the collecting organization has implied outside a contractual agreement that information will not be passed on but then allows that to happen, a legal case could be made against the collector.
Again, Mike you would have to give me a detailed case in order for me, as a libertarian, to judge what I think is a proper handling of the case. JD Ohio gave some detailed examples of what he does not like about Google as did SteveF and both suggested regulation. My problem there is seeing a connection between the problems and the remedy.
I think some of this thinking goes back to the idea of perfect competition and perfect (in some viewers eyes at least) behavior of organizations and when this high standard is not met that government must step in with regulations. There are problems with this view and a large one is that government regulations are far from perfect. This in no way means that organizations are above the law when it comes to protecting individual rights.
1. Large barrier of entry to market
2. Price gouging
3. Crushing potential competitors with your enormous piggy bank.
.
This is just the natural path of what a monopoly does. It's not necessarily evil when you look at it as expected behavior. I may be a small L libertarian but there is a role for government in the free market. Enforce contracts and regulate anti-competitive behavior. How heavy handed this should be is debatable, I am not in favor of preemptive action, but would expect very bad things to happen if the government stepped out of the business of regulation. Let's just say Google would probably be sending out thugs to collect "protection" money from everyone and there would be a lot unexplained fires at Microsoft server farms.
MikeM,
*But some libertarians argue that the marketplace *is* the solution to pretty much everything.*
Who? No one here seems to be arguing that.
'
I'm sure "some" libertarians argue any sort of thing just as "some" school teachers argue increase in teachers pay is a solution to almost everything and "some" democrats argue that extremely heavy regulation is the solution to pretty much everything. If we put "some" in front of any large amorphous group we can make a wild claims about the group that are atypical of claims of the group in general. That means the statement, while possibly true, is rather uninformative. Even if untrue, the statement also becomes impossible to falsify because no one can identify every single (libertarian/teacher/democrat), ask them what they think and prove no one thinks that.
Tom
*I've read a lot of independent contractor contracts and they are mostly boiler plate standard contracts. After you read a bunch of them weird stuff like non-competes and indemnification (never, ever, ever, ever sign that one) stand out like a sore thumb.*
Oh… I'm going to have to post one I did not sign! It was like "wow! Oh… wow!"
The company's name came up on a tutoring forum.
Iran. WTF. The history of countries trying to pick a fight with the US typically ends up with them succeeding in that effort and not coming out ahead. Taunting the Great Satan is unwise. I'm old enough to remember well the Iran Hostage Crisis with the never ending Death To America parades. I suppose the tanker attacks could be a false flag operation by those meddling communist kids or this is just an effort to distract the locals from storming the palace. I doubt planeloads of cash from the Trump administration will be forthcoming as was the case with the prior administration.
.
Fortunately we are not dependent on oil from that region any more, but oil is a global commodity and 40% of oil still comes from that region.
.
Note to Iran, this is how you end up getting your airliners shot down.
I've had contracting companies that do general work write non-competes that would cover any work they do or have done, and even had them forbid working with any of their current contractors or customers in the future. I "reasonably" asked to them to provide a list of all their work areas, contractors, and customers covered by this clause, ha ha. Their lawyer then asked me to provide a list of all my customers, associates, etc. and they would check for me, ha ha. I suppose a law firm gets more billable hours out of such insanity.
.
I should mention the intent here is the middle man contracting company fears that the end customer will bypass the middle man and contract directly with the contractor doing the real work.
Kenneth F,
Of course government regulation can be far from perfect. There is always going to be a balance struck between the (necessary) evil of regulation, and the harm done in its absence. A company discharging vast quantities of raw waste water is regulated to minimize harm. Of course those who do the regulating will want to expand that regulation to the point of insanity (see the proposed ‘waters of the United States’ EPA rule which proposed to regulate every drainage ditch, farm pond and stream as a ‘navigable waterway’). Regulation itself needs to be controlled. But in this specific case, I see huge harm to the social fabric being done by dominant if not monopolistic organizations. I think regulation is definitely needed, or voices like yours and mine will never be given access to any platform; we will have been permanently shouted down by the totalitarian left. With them it is power, and only power, that they want, and by most any means.
I posted a non-compete on a tutor contract.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2019/non-compete-clauses/
I should point out here that most libertarians I know favor the use of torts to cover areas of concern that in our current system use regulations. Regulations are expensive and are aimed at only a portion of the population that might be tempted to violate those laws or the rights of others – and even then when regulations are violated or got around, it often leaves people wondering how the regulations failed.
I think Murray Rothbard's exposition on these issues is well elucidated in "Law, Property Rights and Air Pollution" linked here:
https://mises.org/library/law-property-rights-and-air-pollution .
By the way I am not posting here in the hopes of converting anyone, but rather just to present a point of view on matters that is not necessarily in the current mainstream of thinking and viewing matters.
Kenneth F,
I think tort law is not a good tool for the specific subject we have been discussing. I mean, how could you assign a personal financial damage from a company (eg Google) with politically motivated biases to advance the policy goals of those who control said company? (Not rhetorical.)
.
With regard to convincing people: your take on this possibility is no doubt accurate. Lots of people (including me) are very worried about the active use of bias by large internet based companies and their suppression of alternative (including libertarian!) political views. It is a serious threat to the country that is growing, not subsiding.
SteveF (Comment #175103)
The tort reference was in reply to yours concerning the EPA.