He disagrees with Krugman on government and culture but I disagree with Sumner and agree with Krugman-not the first or the last time that will happen. Scott thinks that 'government brings out the worst in us.'
"Paul Krugman doesn't understand why people think government is bad:
"Why, exactly, are these public functions unquestioned bywords for "something bad"?
"Maybe I'm living a sheltered life here in central New Jersey, but I don't find the Post Office a terrible experience -- no worse than Fedex or UPS. (Full disclosure: I worked as a temp mailman when in college.) And nobody likes going to the DMV, but the one on Rt. 1 I go to always seems fairly well managed."
"And in general: is dealing with these government agencies any worse than, say, dealing with the cable company?"
"The prejudice against government seems to have become free-floating, unattached to any actual experience."
"From my perspective, that's the most eyebrow-raising post I've ever seen Krugman write. It's so at variance with my own personal experience as to leave me almost speechless. Yes, dealing with the cable company can be a bit frustrating, but you can argue with them over the phone without the employee losing their temper. If you so much as raise an eyebrow to a TSA agent, they can and will make you miss your flight (I speak from personal experience.) There is simply no comparison. I thought about Krugman's column the other day when I took my daughter in for her learner permit test. She asked why the lines were so long, even before the DMV office had opened (BTW, at 10am--what's that about?)"
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2015/07/government_brin.html
I don't get it-plenty of private businesses open at 9 or 10 in the morning.
"(The line was even longer; I cropped out people looking at the camera, for privacy reasons.)"
"I told my daughter that government offices don't have to compete for customers as private companies do, so they don't care very much about customer relations. Of course some private monopolies suffer from the same problem."
"After she passed her written exam, she said she noticed that government employees were really mean. This is a sixteen-year-old girl who 1 hour earlier barely understood the difference between the private and public sector, a difference that some Nobel Prize winners still have not noticed. Or maybe it's just her "free-floating prejudice." What do you think? In my view most people find their jobs frustrating, and will take it out on strangers unless competition forces them to be polite."
I couldn't disagree with him more. My experience is like Krugman's-I've had good and bad experiences dealing both with private companies and the government. I don't agree with his universal claim.
I do think it's confirmation bias. He only remembers the experiences that buttress his belief. .I don't get why he's picking on the DMV either. Unless I'm mistaken, he lives in Massachusetts. I can attest at least at the DMV I went to when I lived there it improved over night, It was a horror show in the late 90s. The lines were so long you'd have to wait all the way through the entrance to outside and around the building.
Though I don't agree the reason for this was that it was the government. I just spent the whole day yesterday at the airport travelling from England back home and can tell you, that long lines are not just in government offices.
However, in later years, the DMV really improved. The wait time is much shorter and less frustrating than it used to be. They give you a number-each window puts up a electronic number and when yours comes up you go up. It's not usually longer than half an hour.
My experience tells me that you don't have to be a government entity to either have long lines or be rude.
For instance in my recent visit to Costco, they were very rude. Me and my main man Kev were there to buy a few items-socks and underwear. When we walked in Kev asked the woman barking at everyone to come in-not exactly a 'greeter'-where we find something and she said 'Just come in, you'll find it.'
She wasn't too worried about competition. Then after all that we got on a huge line and it turned out that you have to have a membership. The cashier started talking to us like she's a Customs agent: How did you get in here?! I told her that her useless greeter let us in.
I asked her what it would cost and the answer is $65. Right that's a real savings. Wallmart doesn't have a membership. How long would I have to shop at Costco rather than Wallmart to make up for that?
True, I found my time with the government last year trying to get a passport very frustrating and inconvenient. Even trying to call them is hit and miss-though that's still better than Google who doesn't take phone calls at all.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/07/speaking-of-labor-regulations-in-uber.html
It ended up taking 6 months and $700 dollars. Yet, this is how Sumner's Republican buddies prefer it. They want it to be very difficult to do anything that pertains to citizenship. I am a naturalized American citizen but lost my US citizen certificate in Hurricane Sandy.
So of course, just to prove this I had to walk across broken glass. But overall as to customer service I think it depends-I agree with Krugman it's about the same.
Someone that makes $25 dollars an hour at the Post Office and someone that makes the same at Cablevision has the same basic incentives-they make decent money and don't want to screw up and be fired. My experiences with both seem to be getting better all the time.
What libertarians like Sumner can't seem to imagine is there being any incentive other than the inventive of economic competition. But remember, someone who works at C or the PO don't think of themselves as being a government or private worker just someone with a decent paying job that they had better not screw up.
UPDATE: Now what I do agree with is that customer service is better across the board in England-government or private business because of a much more well-mannered culture.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/back-from-mother-country-some-thoughts.html
"Paul Krugman doesn't understand why people think government is bad:
"Why, exactly, are these public functions unquestioned bywords for "something bad"?
"Maybe I'm living a sheltered life here in central New Jersey, but I don't find the Post Office a terrible experience -- no worse than Fedex or UPS. (Full disclosure: I worked as a temp mailman when in college.) And nobody likes going to the DMV, but the one on Rt. 1 I go to always seems fairly well managed."
"And in general: is dealing with these government agencies any worse than, say, dealing with the cable company?"
"The prejudice against government seems to have become free-floating, unattached to any actual experience."
"From my perspective, that's the most eyebrow-raising post I've ever seen Krugman write. It's so at variance with my own personal experience as to leave me almost speechless. Yes, dealing with the cable company can be a bit frustrating, but you can argue with them over the phone without the employee losing their temper. If you so much as raise an eyebrow to a TSA agent, they can and will make you miss your flight (I speak from personal experience.) There is simply no comparison. I thought about Krugman's column the other day when I took my daughter in for her learner permit test. She asked why the lines were so long, even before the DMV office had opened (BTW, at 10am--what's that about?)"
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2015/07/government_brin.html
I don't get it-plenty of private businesses open at 9 or 10 in the morning.
"(The line was even longer; I cropped out people looking at the camera, for privacy reasons.)"
"I told my daughter that government offices don't have to compete for customers as private companies do, so they don't care very much about customer relations. Of course some private monopolies suffer from the same problem."
"After she passed her written exam, she said she noticed that government employees were really mean. This is a sixteen-year-old girl who 1 hour earlier barely understood the difference between the private and public sector, a difference that some Nobel Prize winners still have not noticed. Or maybe it's just her "free-floating prejudice." What do you think? In my view most people find their jobs frustrating, and will take it out on strangers unless competition forces them to be polite."
I couldn't disagree with him more. My experience is like Krugman's-I've had good and bad experiences dealing both with private companies and the government. I don't agree with his universal claim.
I do think it's confirmation bias. He only remembers the experiences that buttress his belief. .I don't get why he's picking on the DMV either. Unless I'm mistaken, he lives in Massachusetts. I can attest at least at the DMV I went to when I lived there it improved over night, It was a horror show in the late 90s. The lines were so long you'd have to wait all the way through the entrance to outside and around the building.
Though I don't agree the reason for this was that it was the government. I just spent the whole day yesterday at the airport travelling from England back home and can tell you, that long lines are not just in government offices.
However, in later years, the DMV really improved. The wait time is much shorter and less frustrating than it used to be. They give you a number-each window puts up a electronic number and when yours comes up you go up. It's not usually longer than half an hour.
My experience tells me that you don't have to be a government entity to either have long lines or be rude.
For instance in my recent visit to Costco, they were very rude. Me and my main man Kev were there to buy a few items-socks and underwear. When we walked in Kev asked the woman barking at everyone to come in-not exactly a 'greeter'-where we find something and she said 'Just come in, you'll find it.'
She wasn't too worried about competition. Then after all that we got on a huge line and it turned out that you have to have a membership. The cashier started talking to us like she's a Customs agent: How did you get in here?! I told her that her useless greeter let us in.
I asked her what it would cost and the answer is $65. Right that's a real savings. Wallmart doesn't have a membership. How long would I have to shop at Costco rather than Wallmart to make up for that?
True, I found my time with the government last year trying to get a passport very frustrating and inconvenient. Even trying to call them is hit and miss-though that's still better than Google who doesn't take phone calls at all.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/07/speaking-of-labor-regulations-in-uber.html
It ended up taking 6 months and $700 dollars. Yet, this is how Sumner's Republican buddies prefer it. They want it to be very difficult to do anything that pertains to citizenship. I am a naturalized American citizen but lost my US citizen certificate in Hurricane Sandy.
So of course, just to prove this I had to walk across broken glass. But overall as to customer service I think it depends-I agree with Krugman it's about the same.
Someone that makes $25 dollars an hour at the Post Office and someone that makes the same at Cablevision has the same basic incentives-they make decent money and don't want to screw up and be fired. My experiences with both seem to be getting better all the time.
What libertarians like Sumner can't seem to imagine is there being any incentive other than the inventive of economic competition. But remember, someone who works at C or the PO don't think of themselves as being a government or private worker just someone with a decent paying job that they had better not screw up.
UPDATE: Now what I do agree with is that customer service is better across the board in England-government or private business because of a much more well-mannered culture.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/back-from-mother-country-some-thoughts.html
Welcome back Mike. Nice set of posts.
ReplyDeleteSomewhat related to your post above, I thought you might enjoy this: my comment to a John Cochrane post, and his response.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I detect a note of defensiveness on his part (and on the part of commentator "Rich B"). Which surprised me a little. I only asked in the same spirit that the moderator asked much the same kind of question to both participants during this debate. You'll note that Nye answers the question, whereas Ham really doesn't. Like the moderator, I'm really just interested in the epistemology.
Wait, you're not a YECer are you?
It's a good question to ask anyone. Like I've tried to ask Sumner that in the past-which only gets him more hostile.
ReplyDeleteI look at it this way. There are two ways to make an argument-on the level of theory and based on empirical evidence.
Neither is airtight. I might have evidence for my view but I ignore counter evidence that's even stronger against my view. Then again, I agree with Krugman's point in The Accidental Theorist.
http://www.amazon.com/Accidental-Theorist-Dispatches-Dismal-Science-ebook/dp/B0039H35M6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1438639246&sr=8-1&keywords=krugman+accidental+theorist
People who approach you with just evidence and no theory are living in denial that they themselves also have a theory no matter how unacknowledged.
Facts are all well and good but there are also assumptions-ie, theories-on how to interpret these facts.
I see that in Cochrane's response he challenges you or whoever else to provide a list of empirical facts that would show that the regulatory structure works well.
Trying to prove a negative is not so easy-so he gives you a very high hurdle to jump over to show he's wrong.
You could argue that often data is opportunistic that theory is in the driver's seat as it clearly is with Cochrane. He has a model in his mind of how the economy works and that model is less efficient with more regulation. What can disprove this?
This battle could only be won on the theoretical level. Otherwise what ever counter-evidence you send him will only be revised in his model.
Like with Sumner anything you show him that contradicts his model he'll just discover that it actually confirms his view.
ReplyDeleteI do think you did a pretty good job with Cochrane in even getting at least a superficially cordial response.
ReplyDeleteI always laugh at some of the angry comments people send him. He comes back with some cliche about 'I'm sorry you feel that way but do have a pleasant day!'
Now that I think about it, his whole argument is theoretical.
ReplyDelete"The United States’ regulatory bureaucracy has vast power. Regulators can ruin your life, and your business, very quickly, and you have very little recourse. That this power is damaging the economy is a commonplace complaint. Less recognized, but perhaps even more important, the burgeoning regulatory state poses a new threat to our political freedom."
"What banker dares to speak out against the Fed, or trader against the SEC? What hospital or health insurer dares to speak out against HHS or Obamacare? What business needing environmental approval for a project dares to speak out against the EPA? What drug company dares to challenge the FDA? Our problems are not just national. What real estate developer needing zoning approval dares to speak out against the local zoning board?"
His whole argument here is theoretical. He provides no evidence that this is happening at all. Because his theory says that government regulations will hurt the economy and are attacks on freedom.
ReplyDeleteThere's never going to be a time when a Cochrane-or a Rick Roberts, a Sumner, etc-are not going to think this.
Mike, I agree we need both theory (i.e. models) and evidence. Although I'm not a scientist, that's my understanding of how science proceeds. But you don't have to be a formal scientist to use the method. I use the method in my work and my life in general. I expect that my car mechanic does as well when he's fixing my car. I consider this method to be reliable. It's a system to minimize the chance that we fool ourselves and others. This is where I normally insert some Richard Feynman quotes. Like this one. Or this one.
ReplyDeleteJust to be clear, I don't know if John is correct or not. It's just that it strikes me that he's making a bold claim about reality, and he seems very confident in it. In his comment reply to my comment he brings up government competence for example. Well, what if the government were made 1% more competent (however you measure that), how much extra growth does that generate? Is the ONLY way to measure competence of the government by looking at changes in growth? IF that's the case, then there's no way to test this hypothesis, and thus the concept of government competence doesn't add anything in terms of an explanation, and by Occam's razor it should be eliminated from the model. I really just don't know.
My impression (pure speculation) is that economics as a whole hasn't been able or willing to eliminate (through falsification) many hypotheses. Perhaps that's a sign of the immaturity of the field or difficulties with the data. Again, I just don't know. If I ask a biologist or physicist "How would you know if you're wrong?" I'd expect a matter of fact set of examples of conceivable evidence that would demonstrate they're wrong. If I ask a cult leader how he knows if he's wrong, I'd expect indignation, verbal gymnastics, indirection by pointing me to more evidence supporting his claims, snarky comebacks or questions pointed at me, or bold proclamations that he just KNOWS he's right and we're not being "open minded" enough to see it: I'd expect anything but a matter of fact laundry list of conceivable evidences that anyone can check against reality and hold them too. Also I expect a scientist to be honest about what amounts to pure speculation or at least degrees of confidence (0% to 100% for example). And again, this is not the response I expect from the cultist. I'd expect the cultist to express unwavering confidence in their own claims (or the claims they are trying to convince you of anyway).
It's my policy to treat economics as if it's a science, not a cult. However, given the failure of the field as a whole to come to many consensuses and to let hypotheses multiply w/o falsifying many, I like to poke a little and see how these guys know what they claim to know. For example, I'm not asking Cochrane for more evidence here. I'm not questioning that (although you bring up some good points). I'm looking for a scientific type response rather than a cultist response.
DeleteAnd just to save you looking, that 1st Feynman quote is one of my favorites:
"It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty--a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked--to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated. ... Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can--if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong--to explain it."
Do you suppose most economists try like the dickens to falsify their own claims, or at least cast doubt on them (and then be completely honest with the public about their doubts) before making them public? I worry that sometimes they don't because they don't feel the pressure to do so, because none of their peers (for whatever reason) will likely be able to falsify their claims either.... and it'll just turn into another claim in the vast collection out there. Again, that's all speculation on my part, but don't you see a disconnect between Feynman's words and the boldness of some of the claims made in economics?
If the person you're discussing something with doesn't demonstrate that they value belief revision or that there are conceivable evidences which would change their mind, then you might as well save your breath. You're probably talking to a version of Ken Ham.
Interesting stuff, Tom. You know you always in your own way strike me as a good and searching thinker-what I always wonder is what exactly? You've given me some idea now.
DeleteSo everything that you've said seems to confirm my suspicions about Sumner: he's an intelligent, very clever, cult leader.
He and I seem to have reached some level of understanding lately but it's always seemed pretty clear to me that when he answers my genuine questions with a crack about I'm not an economist so why don't I just keep quiet, that's not exactly a worthy attitude of a scientist.
"Sumner: he's an intelligent, very clever, cult leader." ... Lol
DeleteI was just thinking (prior to reading your comment) that perhaps "cult leader" is a little strong. Maybe "rhetorician" is better? Maybe not.
"He and I seem to have reached some level of understanding lately..."
Great! Welcome aboard Mike! Have your received your purple robe yet? And don't forget: goat blood for the newbies at midnight... next full moon. Do you know that Scott really likes you? He likes you. He really likes you. But he's got something in mind for you. Aren't you curious about that? I'm curious. I'm very curious. Are you curious? There's something happening out here, Mike. You know something, Mike? I know something you that you don't know. That's right. The man is clear in his mind, but his soul is mad. Oh, yeah. He's dying, I think. He hates all this. He hates it! But the man's a... He reads poetry out loud, all right? And a voice... He likes you because you're still alive. He's got plans for you. No, I'm not gonna help you. You're gonna help him, man. You're gonna help him. I mean, what are they gonna say when he's gone? 'Cause he dies when it dies, when it dies, he dies! What are they gonna say about him? He was a kind man? He was a wise man? He had plans? He had wisdom? Bullshit, man! And am I gonna be the one that's gonna set them straight? Look at me! Look at me! Wrong! You!
(bonus if you can tell where that's from)
DeleteSee now you're backing away from Cult Leader but I thought you were hitting the mark. That's the other side of you-which can be good I admit. You're very diplomatic.
DeleteWhich shows the GOP would hate you as they don't believe in diplomacy.
I don't mean I agree with Sumner but that when I speak to him now I have learnt better 'framing effects'-it may breakdown again, who knows.
Sounds like some great work of fiction-I'm thinking American fiction? Can't place it for sure though. Not Death of a Salesman? Anything Arthur MIller?
DeleteNot 'Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolf?' It sounds familiar though.
Here it is.
DeleteOr here.
There's a movie I haven't seen but really need to.
DeleteThis clip is better still (perhaps). But you get the idea.
Delete... my favorite line: "The heads. You're looking at the heads. Sometimes he goes too far. He's the first one to admit it!"
DeleteYou've got to realize though that politics is everywhere-certainly in economics. First of all there is the Mainstream Neoclassical Club which is you don't belong to Sumner-or Cochrane-can just dismiss you if you don't belong to.
ReplyDeleteI presume they're scientists rather than rhetoricians until I see evidence to the contrary. It's more fun that way.
DeleteBTW, if they're scientists then they should spend considerable time trying to fine just one piece of evidence inconsistent with their own theories... so they can sh*t can it themselves and save themselves the embarrassment of somebody else doing it for them. Plus a true scientists loves nothing more than to solve puzzles, so falsifying one of their own claims should induce unbridled tears of joy rolling down their face, as they get to transfer one more item to the "unsolved mysteries" bin. (c:
... if that's NOT the case (no tears of joy), and it seems like they'd rather just stick with what they already think they know ('cause figuring out reality is hard!) and it seems like they only find joy in convincing others to believe what they do.... then that's a sure sign of a rhetorician rather than a reliable and trustworthy autism-spectrum scientist ... happy as a clam to sit in the back seat working by himself to solve puzzle after puzzle after delicious human-interaction-free puzzle on that long 47 hour car ride across the Great Plains.
Delete" happy as a clam to sit in the back seat working by himself to solve puzzle after puzzle after delicious human-interaction-free puzzle on that long 47 hour car ride across the Great Plains."
DeleteAre you quoting literature again?
Lol... no, that was just the image in my head. Sorry. ... The autistic kid who loves to solve puzzles and could care less about convincing somebody else. He just cares that they get solved correctly and that he never runs out of puzzles. The ideal scientist? IDK.
DeleteTom this comments threat of yours has led to a new post with your name in the title.
ReplyDeleteThe bloody shirt is raised: are economists scientists? http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/tom-brown-raises-bloody-shirt-are.html
You've also settled it for me-I'm watching Apocalypse Now this morning. I had already meant to watch it but this cinches it for me.
I love the film, even though it is overwrought in places (almost to the point of being like a comic book sometimes... something I'm not a fan of in general). I wasn't a fan of the film the 1st time or two I saw it... and I still have problems with some of the overwrought bits. However, every three or four years, I find myself getting sucked into re-watching it again (I did just last night!). The filmmakers had a great sense of irony. I think the Redux version is worth the extra time (more irony packed in there), but perhaps not on your 1st watching (it is considerably longer, and the length doesn't add anything essential to the plot). I hope you enjoy it, but in either case I'd love to hear your thoughts.
DeleteInteresting-so it grows on you. One movie I loved from the start but had to keep watching it to get it was Donnie Darko.
DeleteYes, it grew on me anyway. Did you read "Heart of Darkness" in high school? Maybe that's the attraction for me. Years later I found a book describing how Conrad likely based that on a real person (or several persons) he encountered or heard about during his time traveling up the Congo River. There's also likely a real American officer who fought in Vietnam that serves as a model for the movie version of Kurtz. I can completely understand somebody hating the film though!
DeleteI've never seen Donnie Darko.