Tag Archives: U.S. politics

technological unemployment

This New York Times Magazine article about an American returning home after living abroad is mostly fluff, but it did contain these few interesting paragraphs on technological unemployment.

One day, I drove down Highway 101 to Silicon Valley to meet Reid Hoffman, a partner at the venture-capital firm Greylock and the chairman of LinkedIn, the professional-social-networking company, which was then in the process of being sold to Microsoft for $26.2 billion. Hoffman founded LinkedIn the same year I left for Beijing; now he was a billionaire. He is politically active, having supported and advised Obama and raised money for and donated money to Hillary Clinton. I mentioned how the election had become a referendum of sorts on globalization and trade, yet there had been little discussion about the next big earthquake — artificial intelligence, or the approaching world of self-driving cars, smartphones that can diagnose a melanoma and much more. Globalization may have ravaged blue-collar America, but artificial intelligence could cut through the white-collar professions in much the same way.

Hoffman said the reactions to artificial intelligence range from utopian to dystopian. The utopians predict huge productivity gains and rapid advances in medicine, genetic sequencing, fighting climate change and other areas. The dystopians predict a “Robocalypse” in which machines supplant people and, possibly, threaten humanity itself. “My point of view,” he said, “is that it is a massive transformation and does really impact the future of humanity, but that we can steer it more toward utopia rather than dystopia with intelligence and diligence.”

Either way, another major economic shift is coming, perhaps sooner than people realize. Hoffman said that many of the jobs in today’s economy will change fundamentally during the next 20 years. On the same day I met with Hoffman, Uber announced a pilot program to test self-driving vehicles in Pittsburgh. It also bought a company developing self-driving trucks. “We have to make sure that we don’t have a massive imbalance of society by which you have a small number of people that own the robots and everyone else is scrambling,” he said.

If the current political upheaval in the U.S. and elsewhere is caused by the onset of technological unemployment, we could truly be in trouble, because not only is it going to get worse, it is being completely misdiagnosed. When an illness is misdiagnosed, it can be treated in ineffective or even completely counterproductive ways. If underemployment caused by technological progress is the root of our current problems, the solutions have to lie in providing people with the skills they need to work with the new technology, helping people to build an ownership stake in the technology, lowering barriers to startups and innovators, and providing a safety net for those still left behind through no fault of their own. Instead, we are talking about subsidizing outdated technologies and industries, blaming mythical internal and external enemies for our problems, and removing the limited safety net we have fought so hard to build up until now.

Washington State carbon tax voted down

I wrote recently about a carbon tax referendum in Washington State. Sadly (in my view), it was voted down.

The carbon tax initiative (I-732) garnered only 42 percent of the vote in Washington State. The tax was supposed to be revenue neutral by lowering the state sales tax by 1 cent and provide tax rebates of up to $1,500 per year to 460,000 low-income households. The initial $25 per ton would have boosted the price of gallon of gas by about 25 cents, and added 2.5 cents to each kilowatt-hour of coal-fired electricity, and 1.25 cents to electricity generated by natural gas. Interestingly, the proposal which aimed to cut emissions of carbon dioxide that are contributing to man-made global warming was opposed by many leading environmentalist groups. Why? Largely because of the tax’s revenue neutrality. The climate activists wanted to use the revenues to “invest” in various projects such as subsidizing solar and wind power schemes, mass transit and job training for folks put out of work by climate policies.

It’s unfortunate. Let’s review: Taxes on externalities (which occur when the activity of Group A results in a profit while unfairly imposing a cost on Group B) are a good thing for at least three reasons. First, they give Group A to engage in less of the offending activity because they now have to pay the cost rather than imposing the cost on someone else. Second, if Group A decides the activity is still worthwhile, revenue is raised for the government which it can spend on some worthy cause, like helping Group B. Third, the revenue raised by taxing bad things can be used to reduce taxes on good things, like work and savings and investment and making a profit without hurting other people. All this is good for people and the economy as a whole. The only party hurt is Group A, which had no right to profit at everyone else’s expense in the first place. The reason we don’t do this more is that Group A is able to use some of its profits to buy off politicians and mount propaganda campaigns to convince the public to vote against their own interests.

Washington State’s carbon tax vote

Washington State voters are considering a carbon tax. The proceeds would be used to offset other taxes, making it revenue neutral. This could be a national model, if we weren’t all so allergic to the word tax.

The proposal is strikingly simple and refreshingly bipartisan. According to Yes on I-732.org, I-732 would:

  • Directly address climate change by adding a tax of $25/ton on carbon emissions;
  • Reduce the statewide sales tax by 1%;
  • Add a tax credit of $1500/year for low-income households; and
  • Lower the Business and Occupation (B&O) tax on manufacturers to .001%.

This type of fossil fuel tax would be first of its kind in the United States, though it has been implemented elsewhere. According to the World Bank, 15 countries currently tax carbon. Sweden’s policy is the most aggressive, at rate of $168/ton. Closer to home, a carbon tax has been in place in British Columbia, Canada, since 2008, which has resulted in a 5-15% reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. BC’s tax is much lower than Sweden’s, at a rate of $30/ton.

my election prediction

I have a little election prediction spreadsheet. It takes the poll averages for swing states as reported by RealClearPolitics, generates a random number for each with a 4% standard deviation, and runs 1,000 trials in about 10 seconds. Go to Nate Silver or other online sites for a much more professional and sophisticated approach. I do this just for fun and to help me understand how the system works. So without further ado, here is how I think Tuesday night might unfold. The poll closing times are the earliest closing times in a given state according to ballotpedia, so you would expect some numbers to start tricking in at that point. I’m writing Sunday around noon, just in case there is some big development between now and Tuesday.

Based on RealClearPolitics, if both candidates win the states they lead in right now, Hillary would win with 298 electoral votes to 240 for Trump. Nate Silver predicts 290-247, and puts the odds at 65-35. Betfair puts it at 323-215 and the odds at 80-20. My spreadsheet comes up with an electoral college average of 295-243 and odds of 85-15.

Here is one way the evening could unfold to get in the ballpark:

First, I assume Clinton and Trump have both won all the states considered relatively safe by RealClearPolitics. This means Hillary starts off with 218 and Trump with 165. Seems unfair, doesn’t it? But these are the demographics, and why the breathless media coverage of swing states is a bit misleading. If Trump is leading half the swing states on a given day, that doesn’t mean the race is anywhere near tied.

7:00 p.m. EST

  • Results start to trickle in from Florida, Georgia, Virginia and New Hampshire.
  • The night starts off with a bang for Clinton with wins in Florida and Virginia.
  • Trump gets Georgia and New Hampshire.
  • Clinton leads 247-185.

7:30 p.m. EST

  • North Carolina and Ohio
  • I’ll throw both to Trump.
  • 247-218. Getting slightly interesting.

8:00 p.m. EST

  • Pennsylvania and Michigan
  • I don’t think Trump has a realistic shot at either. They go to Clinton.
  • 283-218. It’s over!

9:00 p.m. EST

  • They split Arizona (Trum) and Colorado (Clinton).
  • 292-229

10:00 p.m. EST

  • Iowa and Nevada
  • I’ll throw both to Trump. I’ll also throw him New Mexico to look like slightly less of a loser.
  • 292-246

This is what I expect to happen. Of course, the votes get counted slowly, and we can pretend there is some suspense as they are counting votes in states that are not expected to be close. Still, I think we might all be in bed at 10 p.m. on the east coast knowing who the next President. And this is what I want to happen. Although I would enjoy some suspense on some level, rationally I know it is better not to live in interesting times.

For Trump to win, a lot of unlikely things have to fall into place, but here is a plausible scenario: Trump starts the night with a huge bang, winning Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, New Hampshire, and Ohio. Clinton gets Virginia. Trump would be up 252-218. By the way, I gave Clinton New Mexico to start off this time. Clinton wins Pennsylvania and Michigan, going up 254-252. They split Arizona and Colorado (263-263!). Trump gets Iowa and goes up 269-263. It comes down to Nevada. Right now it looks like Nevada is reasonably solid for Clinton, so it comes down to a 269-269 tie. The House of Representatives casts the deciding vote, picking Trump for President. The National Guard is deployed in some states to ensure order.

So Florida is a big deal, obviously. We knew that.

my final case against Trump

I write this two days before the election. Trump has announced that he intends to cancel all spending to deal with climate change if elected. The evidence that we need to deal with climate change is so clear, and it is so clearly an existential threat to our civilization, that this is completely unethical. If I liked everything else about Trump, it would be enough, by itself, to cause me to reject him. (For the record, I like nothing about him.) Combine it with the completely unacceptable bigotry, racism, and religious intolerance, and it is just completely unacceptable. Finally, the lack of universal health care continues to be an international disgrace for our country. But we are closer thanks to Obama’s efforts to take on a Congress bought and paid for by the finance industry. Trump has vowed to destroy this progress and replace it with…nothing. Completely unacceptable.

Speaking of the finance industry, if a complex crisis like the 2007-8 financial crisis were to arise, we can’t trust Trump to understand it or to seek out advice from people who understand it. I don’t expect Hillary Clinton to take bold action to support long-term financial stability, which is what we need, but I do trust her to keep a cool head in a crisis, seek out competent advice, and make rational decisions. Similarly, in case of geopolitical crisis, I don’t expect her to be a strong force for peace, but I trust her to keep a cool head, seek out competent advice, and make rational decisions. Trump doesn’t have the ability to understand complex issues, yet he is overconfident and doesn’t know what he doesn’t know, and if he seeks out the advice of others at all, I wouldn’t trust him to know whose advice to seek. Finally, he does not appear to be rational at times. I think he could easily make some horrible mistake if and when he is confronted by a crisis.

I don’t think either candidate will take bold action on campaign finance reform. Bernie Sanders was the candidate for that. Prove me wrong, Hillary!

R code to read Nate Silver’s data

Thanks to Nate Silver for posting all his polling data in a convenient text file that anyone can read! It’s a nice thing to do. Even though not many of us can do as interesting things with it as Nate Silver, it is a fun data set to play and practice with. Here is an R-bloggers post with some ideas on how to play with it.

 

ranked choice voting

Larry Diamond on BillMoyers.com talks about a referendum in Maine that could lead to ranked-choice voting being used in that state in the future. The basic idea is that if no candidate gets a majority of first-place votes on the first ballot, then votes from the lower-ranked candidates get redistributed based on how people ranked all the candidates. Ultimately, this results in a winner who is acceptable to a majority of the voters even though they may not have been the top choice of a plurality of voters. This could encourage a Bernie Sanders or Ralph Nader (or Ross Perot or future Donald Trump) to run as a third-party candidate rather than competing for a major-party nomination.

…the issue at stake in Question 5 (a citizen-initiated referendum) is whether Maine will adopt a system called ranked-choice voting (RCV) in all its elections. If they approve the measure, Maine voters will have a unique opportunity to showcase the transformative potential of US democracy and to send a much-needed signal for reform at a crucial moment.

In RCV, voters select not just one candidate, but a list of candidates in order of preference. If no candidate gets a majority of first-preference votes when tabulating the results, the least popular candidate is eliminated and the second-preference votes of his or her supporters are redistributed to the other candidates. The process continues until someone gets a majority.

The ability to rank all the candidates running for office, rather than voting for only one, is intrinsically more democratic. But, because it forces candidates to try to appeal to a broader cross-section of the public, RCV also makes it much more likely that the winner will be open to moderation, compromise and building governing coalitions…

How often do we have a Presidential winner who did not get a majority of the popular vote? George W. Bush and Bill Clinton are the obvious examples from my lifetime, but it has happened before. This article on History News Network answers the question.

Seven of the Presidents who won without a majority were Democrats—Polk, Buchanan, Cleveland both times, Wilson both times, Truman, Kennedy, and Clinton both times. Six of the Presidents who won without a majority were Republicans—Lincoln, Hayes, Garfield, Benjamin Harrison, Nixon, and George W. Bush. One Whig, Zachary Taylor, and one Democratic-Republican, John Quincy Adams, finish the list.

JFK and drugs

Has there ever been a case where a politician used drugs to improve their performance in a debate? Well, according to a 2013 story in the New York Post:

The night of the first Kennedy-Nixon debate, Kennedy met with Jacobson just a few hours before he took the stage. The senator was “complaining in a voice barely above a whisper of extreme fatigue and lethargy,” the authors write. Jacobson plunged a needle “directly into Kennedy’s throat and pumped methamphetamine into his voice box.”

The result was clear within minutes, and an artificially energized Kennedy changed American history that night by upstaging Nixon.

the GOP’s “Growth and Opportunity Project”

After their 2012 election loss, the Republican Party made some surprisingly candid admissions and drew some surprisingly logical conclusions. I could almost begin to support a party that focused on sound, evidenced-based policies to create accelerated economic growth and true equal opportunity, while preserving a minimal but effective safety net for people who need it through no fault of their own.

We are the Party of private-sector economic growth because that is the best way to create jobs and opportunity. That is the best way to help people earn an income, achieve success and take care of their families.

But if we are going to grow as a Party, our policies and actions must take into account that the middle class has struggled mightily and that far too many of our citizens live in poverty. To people who are flat on their back, unemployed or disabled and in need of help, they do not care if the help comes from the private sector or the government — they just want help.

Our job as Republicans is to champion private growth so people will not turn to the government in the first place. But we must make sure that the government works for those truly in need, helping them so they can quickly get back on their feet. We should be driven by reform, eliminating, and fixing what is broken, while making sure the government’s safety net is a trampoline, not a trap.

Too bad their primary voters resoundingly rejected these reasonable ideas in favor of bigotry, science denial, and downright childishness. I doubt I will so much as glance in their direction again, even though I get frustrated with the subserviance to big business, warmongering and relatively narrow range of policies in consideration by the Democrats.