Category Archives: Web Article Review

Trumponomics

Moody Analytics has tried to take what Trump says and predict what would happen to the economy if he could actually do what he says.

Broadly, Mr. Trump’s economic proposals will result in a more isolated U.S. economy.
Cross-border trade and immigration will be significantly diminished, and with less trade and immigration, foreign direct investment will also be reduced. While globalization has created winners and losers in the U.S. economy in recent decades, it contributes substantially to the ongoing growth of the U.S. economy. Pulling back from globalization, as Mr. Trump is proposing, will thus diminish the nation’s growth prospects.

Mr. Trump’s economic proposals will also result in larger federal government deficits and a heavier debt load. His personal and corporate tax cuts are massive and his proposals to expand spending on veterans and the military are significant. Given his stated opposition to changing entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare, this mix of much lower tax revenues and few cuts in spending can only be financed by substantially more government borrowing.

Driven largely by these factors, the economy will be significantly weaker if Mr. Trump’s economic proposals are adopted. Under the scenario in which all his stated policies become law in the manner proposed, the economy suffers a lengthy recession and is smaller at the end of his four-year term than when he took office (see Chart). By the end of his presidency, there are close to 3.5 million fewer jobs and the unemployment rate rises to as high as 7%, compared with below 5% today. During Mr. Trump’s presidency, the average American household’s after-inflation income will stagnate, and stock prices and real house values will decline.

disgust and morality

This article claims that our natural disgust at parasites and other gross things is the origin of morality.

A ballooning body of research by Pizarro and others shows that moral judgments are not always the product of careful deliberation. Sometimes we feel an action is wrong even if we can’t point to an injured party. We make snap decisions and then – in the words of Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at New York University – ‘construct post-hoc justifications for those feelings’. This intuition, converging lines of research reveal, is informed by disgust, an emotion that most scientists believe evolved to keep us safe from parasites. Marked by cries of ‘Yuck!’ and ‘Ew!’, disgust makes us recoil in horror from faeces, bed bugs, leeches and anything else that might sicken us. Yet sometime deep in our past the same feeling that makes us cringe at touching a dead animal or gag at a rancid odour became embroiled in our most deeply held convictions – from ethics and religious values to political views…

These and related studies raise an obvious question: how have parasites managed to insinuate themselves into our moral code? The wiring scheme of the brain, some scientists believe, holds the key to this mystery. Visceral disgust – that part of you that wants to scream ‘Yuck!’ when you see an overflowing toilet or think about eating cockroaches – typically engages the anterior insula, an ancient part of the brain that governs the vomiting response. Yet the very same part of the brain also fires up in revulsion when subjects are outraged by the cruel or unjust treatment of others. That’s not to say that visceral and moral disgust perfectly overlap in the brain, but they use enough of the same circuitry that the feelings they evoke may sometimes bleed together, warping judgment…

From this point in human social development, it took a bit more rejiggering of the same circuitry to bring our species to a momentous place: we became disgusted by people who behaved immorally. This development, Curtis argues, is central to understanding how we became an extraordinarily social and cooperative species, capable of putting our minds together to solve problems, create new inventions, exploit natural resources with unprecedented efficiency and, ultimately, lay the foundations for civilisation.

This has interesting implications for the idea that there might be a “common morality”, akin to “common sense”, that just naturally applies to all rational people, although rational people might disagree about exactly what is included, just as scientists argue about the nature of reality but agree there is a single reality that can eventually be discovered. This is powerful because we can’t rely on reason alone as a guide to morality – there are sometimes things we could do that would be rational, but almost everyone would agree are wrong. Obvious examples would be if you could benefit yourself by lying, cheating, stealing, or killing, and be sure you could get away with it. In this case your gut tells you this is wrong even though it might be strictly rational, and that will be enough to deter most people. But if that gut sense of common morality is based partly on biological impulses shaped by past conditions that no longer apply, then maybe we should rely more on reason and less on our gut impulses of what is right and wrong.

Trump and organized crime

Here’s a long article on BillMoyers.com, with links to a lot of other articles, about Donald Trump’s alleged mob links.

While there are some financial subjects on which the media has dared to grill the billionaire — ABC’s George Stephanopoulos last month got Trump to deliver a blunt “no” when he asked about the Republican nominee-apparent’s repeated refusal to release his recent tax returns, something every other recent presidential candidate has done — there has been remarkably little interest shown in some of Trump’s less-than-savory connections.

One of the exceptions is Johnston, who, over the course of 27 years, has had ample occasion to pay attention to Trump’s finances and mob ties. He was not the first investigative reporter to do so. In 1992, Johnston favorably reviewed the longtime Village Voice reporter Wayne Barrett’s highly unauthorized biography, Trump: The Deals and the Downfall, which, in Johnston’s words, “asserts that throughout his adult life, Donald Trump has done business with major organized-crime figures and performed favors for their associates.” As Barrett said not long after Trump declared for the presidency last year, Trump’s life “intertwines with the underworld.” Barrett updates his treatment of Trump in a new digital edition calledTrump, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Deals, the Downfall, the Reinvention…

Beyond ABC News’ Ross, TV has been even less eager to press inquires about Trump’s history of relations with organized crime. Nor have questions of Trump’s mob ties been much explored in other major news outlets. A notable exception: Johnston, who, in Politico last month, raised yet more questions. One was why Trump relied on ready-mix reinforced concrete construction (mob-controlled) to build his eponymous Fifth Avenue tower and subsequent New York buildings, although steel girders were the usual choice. Another was why, when seeking a license to build casinos in Atlantic City, Trump received special treatment from New Jersey gaming investigators, “Thanks in part to the laxity of New Jersey gaming investigators,” Johnston wrote, “Trump has never had to address his dealings with mobsters and swindlers head-on.” Wayne Barrett calls Trump Tower “a monument to the mob.” He writes of the “sweetheart deals” that delivered the concrete, and the special tax abatements that have continued to roll in for Trump. There, so far as the public is concerned, the matter has rested. Why do the major media, ordinarily eager to fight for their own angles on big stories, lag? Why do the dogs not bark and the chambers not echo?

more cold war redux

Here are some more disturbing rumblings of U.S.-Russia confrontation in western Europe. But I also like the quote below by a German foreign minister.

More than 31,000 troops from 24 nations took part in Nato’s Anaconda-16 exercises in Poland, from 7 to 17 June.

The day after they ended, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier warned Nato against “sabre-rattling and warmongering”, calling for exercises to be replaced with more dialogue and co-operation with Russia. “Whoever believes that symbolic tank parades in Eastern Europe bring more security, is mistaken,” he told Bild newspaper.

transportation, electricity, and carbon emissions

It’s interesting that as the U.S. has made the switch to more natural gas and less coal, the carbon emissions of electricity generation and transportation have drawn essentially even, where power plants were the much larger emitter in the past. But you can imagine that if transportation begins to electrify on a significant scale, this distinction will be harder to make.

where the money goes

I am somewhat familiar with how the U.S. federal government spends its money, but it is still instructive to see it broken down occasionally. Once social security, medicare, and interest are taken care of, the discretionary spending that is left is less than a third of the total. Of that, more than half is military. Veterans’ benefits make up another sizable chunk, nuclear weapons are partially funded under the energy budget, and it is not clear (to me at least) where intelligence and homeland security funding fall, so the real total for military and security is even larger than it appears.

cars vs. meat

This study attempts to find a hypothetical case where a person who bikes to work has a higher carbon footprint than a person who drives to work. I’m drastically oversimplifying, I’m sure, but what I gather is that if a vegetarian with a very fuel efficient car lived the same distance from work as a person who eats a huge amount of meat but bikes to work, the person who bikes to work could have a slightly higher carbon footprint. It is surprising, but I don’t think the right way to spin it is to say biking is bad. For one thing, people who bike to work are going to live much, much closer to work on average than people who drive to work. I also bet people who drive a lot eat more meat, on average, than people who don’t. Because steak and SUVs just go together. But I think the right take home message is that driving and meat are both pretty bad, environmentally speaking. If you want to help the environment, these are probably the two things you can limit or give up that will do the most good.

Philadelphia soda tax

Taxes on sugary drinks have been tried and failed in a few cities, partly because the soda industry has mounted big ad campaigns against them. Now a tax has passed in Philadelphia, partly because Michael Bloomberg funded a pro-tax ad campaign. I watched this unfold in Philadelphia in real time and never heard about the Bloomberg thing until I read it in the national media just now. I guess it’s a victory over special interests, of sorts. I generally support the idea of taxing things that hurt people and using he revenue to help people. That should be what taxation is all about. It should replace less productive taxes on good things like work, saving and investment. That’s not the case in Philadelphia. They just keep raising and raising and raising, and it can’t go on forever.

the Phillips machine

Here’s a 2009 New York Times column about a hydraulic model of the economy.

In the front right corner, in a structure that resembles a large cupboard with a transparent front, stands a Rube Goldberg collection of tubes, tanks, valves, pumps and sluices. You could think of it as a hydraulic computer. Water flows through a series of clear pipes, mimicking the way that money flows through the economy. It lets you see (literally) what would happen if you lower tax rates or increase the money supply or whatever; just open a valve here or pull a lever there and the machine sloshes away, showing in real time how the water levels rise and fall in various tanks representing the growth in personal savings, tax revenue, and so on. This device was state of the art in the 1950s, but it looks hilarious now, with all its plumbing and noisy pumps.

When it debuted back in November 1949, the leading thinkers at the London School of Economics crammed into the seminar room, some having come just to laugh, others gaping in amazement at the thing in the middle of the room, which had been cobbled together in a garage, with a pump cannibalized from an old Lancaster bomber.

Maybe it shouldn’t be quite so surprising. Before there were digital computers, there were “analog computers”, essentially circuits that could simulate various types of systems at equilibrium. Different types of systems have analogous building blocks and processes, like storages, flows, and resistances. As Howard T. Odum showed us, you can use these basic building blocks to model all types of systems, from physical to biological to socioeconomic.