Author Archives: rdmyers75@hotmail.com

Atlas Shrugged vs. Red Plenty

I finally got around to reading Atlas Shrugged (confession: I read an abridged version because life is short). It’s a childish book in many ways. It depicts a naive vision of perfect competition and innovation between large corporations, then suggests that any government interference is a mistake. Government is as incompetent and corrupt as private industry is virtuous and innovative. The government interference in question is not the environmental regulation and anti-trust regulation of today, but rather an extreme form of anti-competitive central planning that sounds very much like the vision that would have prevailed in the Soviet Union at the time. In fact, I think Atlas Shrugged makes the most sense through a Cold War lense. At the time the book was written, the early 1950s, the Soviet model did seem to be producing fast growth, and if it had been able to stay on that trajectory for decades it could have theoretically overtaken the west. Some people probably admired it for this, and some people were terrified of the implications. Ayn Rand was somewhat prescient in foreseeing how such an extreme form of central planning would eventually destroy incentives for productivity and innovation, and she even foresaw the risk of the military industrial complex managing to hijack such a system. Of course, what she gets wrong is the idea that large corporations engage only in perfect competition and innovation. They do their best to avoid competition whenever they can because it is cheaper to buy political influence. This means that capitalism is creating exactly the kind of government corruption that Ayn Rand railed against! It shouldn’t be surprising though, if we look at ecological analogs to how competition actually works. Plants and animals occasionally compete head to head for the exact same resources at the exact same place and time (thing Coke and Pepsi), but more often they try to find and exploit niches where they are complementing or at least not interfering with each other (think Coke itself versus bottlers, trucking companies, restaurants, etc.) Parasitism and gangsterism also are strategies that work pretty well in the natural world. So in summary I think Ayn Rand was prescient for her time on certain things, but overall the book is just childishly dumb and not even all that entertaining.

I’ve just started Red Plenty, which is a historical novel about Soviet central planning in the 1950s. The book tries to capture a moment in history when people were really excited about this model, thought it was working, and didn’t see that it would lead to ruin and military-industrial domination. You know how the story ends, and yet you are sympathetic to the characters (some actual historical leaders, like Nikita Krushchev), and actually pity them because they are so full of hope and have no way of knowing their story will end in tragedy. And unlike Atlas Shrugged, this book is well written and entertaining.

enjoying the festive papal atmosphere

Here is some helpful advice from the state of Pennsylvania (our friends in rural Pennsylvania, I’m thinking) on how to enjoy yourself at the papal visit.

If you get caught up in a crowd of people:

  • Try to walk around crowds, rather than through them.
  • Stay on your feet – do not sit down or bend down to pick up something.
  • If you fall down, get back up on your feet as quickly as possible.
  • Move with the flow of people, rather than against the flow.
  • Carefully and safely make your way toward the edge of the crowd.

It bears repeating – when in the big city, be aware of your surroundings at all times, tuck your wallet into one of your socks, and do not…repeat…do not under any circumstances bend over.

Brad Pitt at the World Meeting of Families

Today was a pretty tranquil scene in Philadelphia. Although parts of the city resembled a sort of soft military occupation – police, uniformed soldiers (who were polite and helpful), TSA and border patrol (who weren’t), it was actually quiet in the absence of traffic and with a lot of people staying home from work. In the morning, people seemed to confine themselves to sidewalks out of habit, then gradually during the day, they fanned out into the streets.
IMG_0296 (2)

Contrast this with what is expected tomorrow…

Okay, so that’s the Philadelphia scene from World War Z… which was actually filmed in Scotland with some Philadelphia landmarks photo-shopped in.

happiness and boredom

In this FInancial Times article, John Kay accuses happy cities of being boring.

Liveability and happiness are complex concepts. The happiest countries identified by the UN are those of “Jante Law”, the stifling conformity described by Danish author Aksel Sandemose: “You are not to think you are anything special, you are not to think you can teach us anything.” Yet there is much that is good about social homogeneity, shared values, peaceful coexistence and honest government. Life in unhappy countries — Myanmar, Syria, Zimbabwe — is not boring, but much of the population desperately wishes it was.

Yet boring is not enough. Security, hygiene, good public transport — the factors that enter the assessment of liveability — are necessary for a fulfilling life, but they are not sufficient for it. That is why so many young people from Melbourne or Toronto go to London or New York in search of the excitement and creativity of the great, rather than the liveable, city. For the technology writer Jonah Lehrer, cities are the knowledge engine of the 21st century. And he wasn’t talking about Düsseldorf.

The most intriguing studies of the determinants of happiness are those of psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. The moments at which people are happiest are when they are in “flow” — when they are engaged in a challenging task and doing it well: the lecture in which you realise the audience is hanging on your ever word, the tennis game in which every shot takes the ball where you want it to go. For many people, bringing up children is a source of endless demands and frustrations, but taken as a whole it is one of the most satisfying experiences of their lives. There is more to the good life than clean water and trains that arrive on time.

I don’t know. I like a little excitement when I travel, but I like a certain calmness and predictability when it comes to the broad strokes of my day in my home city. Then I can enjoy the fun and interesting little happenstances that happen within that larger sea of calmness. Provide some walkable streets, some small-scale commerce, some open space and some contact with nature and I think you can create this atmosphere. And I don’t know why he picks on Myanmar, they might be able to teach us Westerners a thing or two about happiness.

value of levees

This study seems to have had trouble finding any measurable economic value of levees, which is interesting.

The value of levee protection to commercial properties

Ecological Economics

Volume 119, November 2015, Pages 181–188

Levees have historically been a dominant approach to riverine flood control in the United States. Recent investigations have found many levees around the country are in substandard condition, however, and some communities are moving to upgrade and repair their levee systems. Little empirical work has examined how increasing flood protection from levees is valued. We present estimates of the capitalization of upgraded levee protection into commercial property prices in St. Louis County, Missouri. By using controls for surrounding land cover and coarsened exact matching to ensure close distribution between treatment and control on surrounding land cover, we attempt to isolate the price effect of the levee from agglomeration effects that may also be operating. We find that commercial properties protected by a 500-year levee do not have a statistically significant price discount as compared with properties not in a floodplain. We find the selling price of properties with levee protection to be higher (although also insignificant in many specifications) than those in a floodplain without levee protection.

Edward Tufte

Here’s a fun interview with Edward Tufte, insult comic and author of The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Here are a couple of his snappy retorts:

…highly produced visualizations look like marketing, movie trailers, and video games and so have little inherent credibility for already skeptical viewers, who have learned by their bruising experiences in the marketplace about the discrepancy between ads and reality (think phone companies)…

…overload, clutter, and confusion are not attributes of information, they are failures of design. So if something is cluttered, fix your design, don’t throw out information. If something is confusing, don’t blame your victim — the audience — instead, fix the design. And if the numbers are boring, get better numbers. Chartoons can’t add interest, which is a content property. Chartoons are disinformation design, designed to distract rather than inform. Thus they reduce the credibility of your presentation. To distract, hire a magician instead of a chartoonist, for magicians are honest liars…

Sensibly-designed tables usually outperform graphics for data sets under 100 numbers. The average numbers of numbers in a sports or weather or financial table is 120 numbers (which hundreds of million people read daily); the average number of numbers in a PowerPoint table is 12 (which no one can make sense of because the ability to make smart multiple comparisons is lost). Few commercial artists can count and many merely put lipstick on a tiny pig. They have done enormous harm to data reasoning, thankfully partially compensated for by data in sports and weather reports. The metaphor for most data reporting should be the tables on ESPN.com. Why can’t our corporate reports be as smart as the sports and weather reports, or have we suddenly gotten stupid just because we’ve come to work?

It’s a very interesting point, actually, that people are willing to look at very complex data on sports sites, really study it and think about it, and do that voluntarily, considering it fun rather than boring, hard work. It’s child-like in a way – I mean in a positive sense, that for children the world is fresh and new and learning is fun. What is the secret of not shutting down this ability in adults. I think it’s context.

Givewell

GiveWell is an organization that claims it has found the charities that do the most good, and also need the most funding. They have concluded that “serving the global poor” is the way to do the most good and alleviate the most human suffering today.

GiveWell is a nonprofit dedicated to finding outstanding giving opportunities and publishing the full details of our analysis to help donors decide where to give.

Unlike charity evaluators that focus solely on financials, assessing administrative or fundraising costs, we conduct in-depth research aiming to determine how much good a given program accomplishes (in terms of lives saved, lives improved, etc.) per dollar spent. Rather than try to rate as many charities as possible, we focus on the few charities that stand out most (by our criteria) in order to find and confidently recommend the best giving opportunities possible (our list of top charities).

Our top charities are (in alphabetical order):

We have recommended all four of these charities in the past.

We have also included four additional organizations on our top charities page as standout charities. They are (in alphabetical order):

Peter Singer

Here’s an interesting article by Peter Singer, who teaches ethics at Princeton University. It’s an interesting question – if you really want to do the most good, should you work less and spend your time doing something really good, should you try to find a job where you get paid to doing something sort of good, or should you find a job that’s not that good but pays well, and give your money to people who are really good at doing good? Should you help one person who is suffering today, or save your money and effort so you can help more people tomorrow, maybe even people who haven’t been born yet, or even animals or plants. Do you do good things to the point of exhaustion and risk burnout, or do you take a little break and endulge yourself today, thereby conserving your mental fortitude to be good tomorrow? Everybody has to answer these questions for themselves, but the most important thing is that everyone needs to be taught from an early age to be challenging themselves with these questions. We need to think about whether each of our daily decisions and actions is ethical or not, and if not, to at least make the choice consciously and understand and accept the consequences. This may be our best defense against accidentally letting our world fall apart while we are distracted by mindless consumerism.

Two years later Wage graduated, receiving the Philosophy Department’s prize for the best senior thesis of the year. He was accepted by the University of Oxford for postgraduate study. Many students who major in philosophy dream of an opportunity like that—I know I did—but by then Wage had done a lot of thinking about what career would do the most good. Over many discussions with others, he came to a very different choice: he took a job on Wall Street, working for an arbitrage trading firm. On a higher income, he would be able to give much more, both as a percentage and in dollars, than 10 percent of a professor’s income. One year after graduating, Wage was donating a six-figure sum—roughly half his annual earnings—to highly effective charities. He was on the way to saving a hundred lives, not over his entire career but within the first year or two of his working life and every year thereafter…

Effective altruism is based on a very simple idea: we should do the most good we can. Obeying the usual rules about not stealing, cheating, hurting, and killing is not enough, or at least not enough for those of us who have the good fortune to live in material comfort, who can feed, house, and clothe ourselves and our families and still have money or time to spare. Living a minimally acceptable ethical life involves using a substantial part of our spare resources to make the world a better place. Living a fully ethical life involves doing the most good we can.

Most effective altruists are millennials—members of the first generation to have come of age in the new millennium. They are pragmatic realists, not saints, so very few claim to live a fully ethical life. Most of them are somewhere on the continuum between a minimally acceptable ethical life and a fully ethical life. That doesn’t mean they go about feeling guilty because they are not morally perfect. Effective altruists don’t see a lot of point in feeling guilty. They prefer to focus on the good they are doing. Some of them are content to know they are doing something significant to make the world a better place. Many of them like to challenge themselves to do a little better this year than last year.

Coursera has a version of Peter Singer’s Princeton course here.