Tuesday, February 28, 2006
How Low Can Bush Go?
At the end of 2005 there was widespread consensus that the President's approval ratings had bottomed out. It was unlikely, in a deeply polarized electorate, that Bush could lose many of the 40% who were supporting him in December. To put it more cynically, if Katrina, wiretapping, social security privatization, and Iraq couldn't convince these people to turn on Bush, then nothing could.
Well that was before 2006 rolled around. In the first two months of the year, the Vice President has mistaken a 78 year old man for a bird, ports have been leased to the United Arab Emirates (I sympathize with Bush here but the political damage is immense), and Iraq has taken one step closer to the civil war that its critics have long been predicting.
Yesterday CBS released a poll with approval numbers at 34%. These are numbers that are starting to enter Carter/Nixon territory. If the American public begins to doubt Bush on terrorism related issues (this is the biggest significance of the Dubai deal), then he could theoretically sink further. Congress will ignore his preferences and start fighting for their own political lives. The impact on the fall elections could be significant.
Nicholas Kristof had a column (subscription required)last week with sage advice for the President. Reagan and Nixon both found themselves in similar positions. Reagan changed his staff, negotiated with Congess to agree to tax reform, and signed an arms control agreement with Gorbachev. Nixon hunkered down, fought Congress, and blamed the liberal media for his problems. History tells the rest.
Bush's m.o. is to take the Nixonian approach without the scowling. Unless circumstances change drastically, this will not work. The Democrats have been criticized for not having a coherent message. If Bush gets back to 45% then this lack of message will hurt them. If he stays at 34 or drops, then the President is doing the Democrats' job for them.
Well that was before 2006 rolled around. In the first two months of the year, the Vice President has mistaken a 78 year old man for a bird, ports have been leased to the United Arab Emirates (I sympathize with Bush here but the political damage is immense), and Iraq has taken one step closer to the civil war that its critics have long been predicting.
Yesterday CBS released a poll with approval numbers at 34%. These are numbers that are starting to enter Carter/Nixon territory. If the American public begins to doubt Bush on terrorism related issues (this is the biggest significance of the Dubai deal), then he could theoretically sink further. Congress will ignore his preferences and start fighting for their own political lives. The impact on the fall elections could be significant.
Nicholas Kristof had a column (subscription required)last week with sage advice for the President. Reagan and Nixon both found themselves in similar positions. Reagan changed his staff, negotiated with Congess to agree to tax reform, and signed an arms control agreement with Gorbachev. Nixon hunkered down, fought Congress, and blamed the liberal media for his problems. History tells the rest.
Bush's m.o. is to take the Nixonian approach without the scowling. Unless circumstances change drastically, this will not work. The Democrats have been criticized for not having a coherent message. If Bush gets back to 45% then this lack of message will hurt them. If he stays at 34 or drops, then the President is doing the Democrats' job for them.
Thursday, February 23, 2006
The End of Summers
Larry Summers is an economist by training so I am inclined to be sympathetic with the way he looks at problems. He is one of the best economists in the world and so I am inclined to give him a great deal of respect. It is therefore with considerable disappointment that I view his forced resignation from the presidency of Harvard University.
Summers has his faults. He is famously brusque and intemperate with his views. Fifteen years ago when he worked at the World Bank he wrote a memo outlining the argument for encouraging polluting industries to move to the developing world (basically his argument was that developing countries need development more than clean air because development will do much more to increase lifespans). His views were controversial but worth debating. The debate was overshadowed however by the tenor of the memo which many interpreted as Summers saying that lives in developing countries were not worth as much as those in the developed world.
This accurately foreshadowed Summers' tenure at Harvard. A host of what appear to be (at least to the relatively uninformed eye) very good initiatives are undone by the furor of a few intemperate remarks. Of course it didn't have to be that way. Even at the World Bank, Summers was retained after his controversial memo and eventually became Secretary of the Treasury under President Clinton.
Ah but here Summers wasn't dealing with the public, politicians or bureaucrats, he was dealing with a much more insidious foe, the Harvard faculty. And the faculty had it in for Summers from the moment he arrived at Harvard. As President of the university, he had the temerity to believe that he could effect change. But the faculty didn't like change (I find it amusing how many of Summers' enemies now say that his changes weren't the problem) so over the course of five years they undermined his authority.
Summers gave them the ammunition they needed. It is possible that a more skilled politician can still move Harvard into the 20th Century (the 21st is too much to hope for). But for those of us who believe large scale changes are needed at universities across the country, the fate of Summers is a dour lesson. Getting faculty to accept changes is like threading a needle. One mistake and your cause is lost.
Summers has his faults. He is famously brusque and intemperate with his views. Fifteen years ago when he worked at the World Bank he wrote a memo outlining the argument for encouraging polluting industries to move to the developing world (basically his argument was that developing countries need development more than clean air because development will do much more to increase lifespans). His views were controversial but worth debating. The debate was overshadowed however by the tenor of the memo which many interpreted as Summers saying that lives in developing countries were not worth as much as those in the developed world.
This accurately foreshadowed Summers' tenure at Harvard. A host of what appear to be (at least to the relatively uninformed eye) very good initiatives are undone by the furor of a few intemperate remarks. Of course it didn't have to be that way. Even at the World Bank, Summers was retained after his controversial memo and eventually became Secretary of the Treasury under President Clinton.
Ah but here Summers wasn't dealing with the public, politicians or bureaucrats, he was dealing with a much more insidious foe, the Harvard faculty. And the faculty had it in for Summers from the moment he arrived at Harvard. As President of the university, he had the temerity to believe that he could effect change. But the faculty didn't like change (I find it amusing how many of Summers' enemies now say that his changes weren't the problem) so over the course of five years they undermined his authority.
Summers gave them the ammunition they needed. It is possible that a more skilled politician can still move Harvard into the 20th Century (the 21st is too much to hope for). But for those of us who believe large scale changes are needed at universities across the country, the fate of Summers is a dour lesson. Getting faculty to accept changes is like threading a needle. One mistake and your cause is lost.
Monday, February 20, 2006
Steroids and Baseball (Again)
Sammy Sosa retired quietly this week. Within the next few weeks, it will become apparent that Rafael Pameiro's career is over. Barry Bonds has announced that he will retire at the end of the season, but not before passing Babe Ruth and chasing Hank Aaron's home run record. And then, next January, Mark McGwire is eligible for the Hall of Fame for the first time.
In a year when steroid testing is supposed to rid baseball of the plague of the 1990s, the "achievements" of that juiced up decade will get as much attention as they ever have. Of course, anyone who thinks performance enhancing drugs are on their way out even with the advent of meaningful testing and punishments is hopelessly naive. Players with little in the way of brains or access will try the old drugs and hope they don't get caught. Players with both brains and access to the newest technologies will find chemicals that help them for which tests have not yet been devised.
The incentives for the players are too great. If use of performance enhancing drugs means the chance at millions and fame, then there will always be those who try them. Don't get me wrong, the new policies are good things. Raising the cost of cheating will decrease cheating, it will not eliminate it, just as stiffer jail sentences do not eliminate crimes.
What then are we to think about Sosa, McGwire, Bonds, and Palmeiro. While many (including me) suspect that Sosa and McGwire took illegal substances during their epic home run chases, we have no proof that they did so. While their records will never be viewed the same way, both should and will eventually enter the Hall of Fame. It wouldn't surprise me if one day we get tearful penitent confessions from one or both of them but even absent these, I believe their enshrinements are inevitable.
Bonds is harder for two reasons. First he was clearly a Hall of Famer even before his late career home run binge. Second, unlike Sosa and McGwire, he is an absolute jerk. I think Bonds knows that he won't catch Aaron this year and by retiring without the home run record, hopes (perhaps correctly) that he will leave the game with some reservoir of good will. Like Sosa and McGwire, he too is an eventual Hall of Famer. Perhaps unlike them, he will make it as soon as he is eligible unless he tests positive this year.
Palmeiro is not the talent (juiced or not) of the other three players. He is also the only one to actually test positive. The fact that he did so after testifying before Congress that he had never used roids makes his public image even worse. His Hall of Fame chances have probably disappeared, at least until memories of this era have long faded. While it wouldn't bother me if he went in, I have no problem with him being kept out either. We know he broke the rules, and while he was one of many to do so, getting caught means something.
While the steroid testing will get the headlines this year, the even larger impact might be the new testing for amphetamines. By some estimates, 80% of major leaguers took "greenies" to keep them "up" for the long season. Again, many will find substitutes or try to skirt the rules but the testing should decrease usage. How this will impact the play on the field (particularly in July and August) is perhaps the biggest unknown about the season ahead.
In a year when steroid testing is supposed to rid baseball of the plague of the 1990s, the "achievements" of that juiced up decade will get as much attention as they ever have. Of course, anyone who thinks performance enhancing drugs are on their way out even with the advent of meaningful testing and punishments is hopelessly naive. Players with little in the way of brains or access will try the old drugs and hope they don't get caught. Players with both brains and access to the newest technologies will find chemicals that help them for which tests have not yet been devised.
The incentives for the players are too great. If use of performance enhancing drugs means the chance at millions and fame, then there will always be those who try them. Don't get me wrong, the new policies are good things. Raising the cost of cheating will decrease cheating, it will not eliminate it, just as stiffer jail sentences do not eliminate crimes.
What then are we to think about Sosa, McGwire, Bonds, and Palmeiro. While many (including me) suspect that Sosa and McGwire took illegal substances during their epic home run chases, we have no proof that they did so. While their records will never be viewed the same way, both should and will eventually enter the Hall of Fame. It wouldn't surprise me if one day we get tearful penitent confessions from one or both of them but even absent these, I believe their enshrinements are inevitable.
Bonds is harder for two reasons. First he was clearly a Hall of Famer even before his late career home run binge. Second, unlike Sosa and McGwire, he is an absolute jerk. I think Bonds knows that he won't catch Aaron this year and by retiring without the home run record, hopes (perhaps correctly) that he will leave the game with some reservoir of good will. Like Sosa and McGwire, he too is an eventual Hall of Famer. Perhaps unlike them, he will make it as soon as he is eligible unless he tests positive this year.
Palmeiro is not the talent (juiced or not) of the other three players. He is also the only one to actually test positive. The fact that he did so after testifying before Congress that he had never used roids makes his public image even worse. His Hall of Fame chances have probably disappeared, at least until memories of this era have long faded. While it wouldn't bother me if he went in, I have no problem with him being kept out either. We know he broke the rules, and while he was one of many to do so, getting caught means something.
While the steroid testing will get the headlines this year, the even larger impact might be the new testing for amphetamines. By some estimates, 80% of major leaguers took "greenies" to keep them "up" for the long season. Again, many will find substitutes or try to skirt the rules but the testing should decrease usage. How this will impact the play on the field (particularly in July and August) is perhaps the biggest unknown about the season ahead.
Friday, February 17, 2006
Doctors, Risk Aversion, and Tort Reform
I am currently teaching health economics to a class of undergraduates. We began this week, and will continue next week, studying the market for physician visits. One of the key aspects of this market is the principal-agent relationship between doctor and patient where the patient (usually) has to trust that the doctor will recommend what is in the patient's best interest but the doctor may have other concerns besides the patient's welfare.
Of course economists like to assume that profits are the doctor's primary concern. However recent interactions with various doctors has made me wonder whether an intense risk aversion has overtaken the medical field and is driving much of what doctors tell their patients. One doctor in particular prefers to tell us all the possible diagnoses and is loath to recommend any particular course of action too strongly.
I recently spoke to a friend of mine who recently graduated medical school and this did not surprise him at all. He cited the training he has received to be as thorough as possible in eliminating possible diagnoses combined with a fear of malpractice suits that older doctors pass on to younger ones as the key factors leading to my doctor's behavior.
Tort reform in general, and medical tort reform in particular has been on the national agenda for several years. At least one bill (transferring lawsuits from state courts to federal ones) passed last year. I am deeply skeptical of these bills mostly because I do not trust their sponsors. However I wonder if we are not past the time when something has to be done in this area.
I would not want to be a doctor. The amount of new information that becomes available daily (calcium is good for you . . . no it isn't) is overwhelming and the responsibilities to process that information and make decisions can be as well. I do want my doctor however to be able to do this as capably as possible and give me the most honest and best advice they can. If tort reform helps make that happen (without unduly increasing malfeasance by doctors) then it might not be such a bad idea.
Of course economists like to assume that profits are the doctor's primary concern. However recent interactions with various doctors has made me wonder whether an intense risk aversion has overtaken the medical field and is driving much of what doctors tell their patients. One doctor in particular prefers to tell us all the possible diagnoses and is loath to recommend any particular course of action too strongly.
I recently spoke to a friend of mine who recently graduated medical school and this did not surprise him at all. He cited the training he has received to be as thorough as possible in eliminating possible diagnoses combined with a fear of malpractice suits that older doctors pass on to younger ones as the key factors leading to my doctor's behavior.
Tort reform in general, and medical tort reform in particular has been on the national agenda for several years. At least one bill (transferring lawsuits from state courts to federal ones) passed last year. I am deeply skeptical of these bills mostly because I do not trust their sponsors. However I wonder if we are not past the time when something has to be done in this area.
I would not want to be a doctor. The amount of new information that becomes available daily (calcium is good for you . . . no it isn't) is overwhelming and the responsibilities to process that information and make decisions can be as well. I do want my doctor however to be able to do this as capably as possible and give me the most honest and best advice they can. If tort reform helps make that happen (without unduly increasing malfeasance by doctors) then it might not be such a bad idea.
Thursday, February 09, 2006
The Glut of Ph.D.'s
I recently stumbled upon this essay about the market for doctoral students. I do not know anything about the author but the essay rings very true. It also agrees with an assertion made by a friend of mine (and commenter on this blog) that there are just too many damn doctoral students out there.
The basic argument is that it is in the interest of current professors to recruit as many doctoral students as possible. The students can serve as research assistants, they provide the basis for increased budgets for academic departments. This creats a large supply of Ph.D.'s. The demand for Ph.D.'s comes nowhere near the supply. Academic departments do not hire many tenure track professors and those doctoral students who do not get jobs in academia find themselves "overqualified" for many non-academic jobs. These newly minted Ph.D.'s find they have wasted 5-10 years.
The behavior of established academics over-recruiting doctoral students is very irresponsible. However as North points out, professors are reacting to the incentives that the current academic system has created for them. More doctoral students means more prestige and more money. It also gives a degree of psychological satisfaction to professors. Since many of them believe that academic research is the pinnacle of the human experience (why else would they have devoted so many hours to it?), it is natural to encourage your favorite students to pursue that goal.
Nothing will change the psychological incentives. As I've written before however, the system itself is deeply in need of reform. The mission of universities, particularly public ones, needs to be reconceived as primarily education rather than research based. Professors should be paid and promoted primarily based on their teaching rather than their research. This would both draw people to the field who are interested in teaching and drop the incentives for professors to create a cadre of research minded doctoral students.
Would this create a shortage of research? I think this is highly unlikely. Without studying the issue, it is my gut feeling that the worst 50 journals in each field could go out of business with little loss to human knowledge. The top private universities could still be focused on research. In addition the private sector would still conduct research particularly scientific research. Perhaps institutions solely devoted to research could spring up if there was a demand for more research. Then the vast majority of universities could do what the vast majority of the public wrongly believes they currently do: educate.
The basic argument is that it is in the interest of current professors to recruit as many doctoral students as possible. The students can serve as research assistants, they provide the basis for increased budgets for academic departments. This creats a large supply of Ph.D.'s. The demand for Ph.D.'s comes nowhere near the supply. Academic departments do not hire many tenure track professors and those doctoral students who do not get jobs in academia find themselves "overqualified" for many non-academic jobs. These newly minted Ph.D.'s find they have wasted 5-10 years.
The behavior of established academics over-recruiting doctoral students is very irresponsible. However as North points out, professors are reacting to the incentives that the current academic system has created for them. More doctoral students means more prestige and more money. It also gives a degree of psychological satisfaction to professors. Since many of them believe that academic research is the pinnacle of the human experience (why else would they have devoted so many hours to it?), it is natural to encourage your favorite students to pursue that goal.
Nothing will change the psychological incentives. As I've written before however, the system itself is deeply in need of reform. The mission of universities, particularly public ones, needs to be reconceived as primarily education rather than research based. Professors should be paid and promoted primarily based on their teaching rather than their research. This would both draw people to the field who are interested in teaching and drop the incentives for professors to create a cadre of research minded doctoral students.
Would this create a shortage of research? I think this is highly unlikely. Without studying the issue, it is my gut feeling that the worst 50 journals in each field could go out of business with little loss to human knowledge. The top private universities could still be focused on research. In addition the private sector would still conduct research particularly scientific research. Perhaps institutions solely devoted to research could spring up if there was a demand for more research. Then the vast majority of universities could do what the vast majority of the public wrongly believes they currently do: educate.
Monday, February 06, 2006
The Radicalization of the Moderates
One of the problems with writing a blog, is that by the time you both have an idea for an entry and time to write it, someone else has probably already done so and done so better than you would have. I've solved that problem by not checking other blogs nearly as often as I used to. Still the other day, I checked one of my old favorites, "Legal Fiction" and saw an entry that perfectly captures a lot of what I have been recently thinking.
As I've mentioned several times recently (perhaps because it has been bothering me), despite my constant criticism of this administration, I think am I just a bit to the left of the center of the U.S. electorate: a moderate. Despite this, recently any time that I read either a quote or a description of an action taken by the Administration or by Republican leadership in Congress I find myself appalled and depressed.
Five years of this has led me to become a more partisan Democrat than at any time in my life (even moreso than at the end of the Reagan Administration). I find myself nodding in agreement as Kos advocates win-at-all-cost strategies for this November. I find myself desolate when I see the Democrats screw up like they did in the Alito confirmation hearings.
While partisanship has a long history in U.S. politics, it always makes most people including me uncomfortable. However, to quote Publius (the author of Legal Fiction), "And so that brings me back to my Machiavellianism. I don’t particularly like being associated with a party, and I’ve never really wanted to be blindly loyal to a party in the way that, say, Kos is. But at this point – I guess I’m ready to try. I so thoroughly reject practically everything the government is doing right now that I just want them out. Any branch will do, but some other party has to get veto power /somewhere/. And so, for 2006 anyway, I just want someone else to win. And whatever the Democrats need to do to win one branch, then that’s what they should do. They can't be worse."
In 2000, I did not think Bush's election was that big a deal or would make that big a difference in this country. Starting with its effect on my own views, I couldn't have been much more wrong.
As I've mentioned several times recently (perhaps because it has been bothering me), despite my constant criticism of this administration, I think am I just a bit to the left of the center of the U.S. electorate: a moderate. Despite this, recently any time that I read either a quote or a description of an action taken by the Administration or by Republican leadership in Congress I find myself appalled and depressed.
Five years of this has led me to become a more partisan Democrat than at any time in my life (even moreso than at the end of the Reagan Administration). I find myself nodding in agreement as Kos advocates win-at-all-cost strategies for this November. I find myself desolate when I see the Democrats screw up like they did in the Alito confirmation hearings.
While partisanship has a long history in U.S. politics, it always makes most people including me uncomfortable. However, to quote Publius (the author of Legal Fiction), "And so that brings me back to my Machiavellianism. I don’t particularly like being associated with a party, and I’ve never really wanted to be blindly loyal to a party in the way that, say, Kos is. But at this point – I guess I’m ready to try. I so thoroughly reject practically everything the government is doing right now that I just want them out. Any branch will do, but some other party has to get veto power /somewhere/. And so, for 2006 anyway, I just want someone else to win. And whatever the Democrats need to do to win one branch, then that’s what they should do. They can't be worse."
In 2000, I did not think Bush's election was that big a deal or would make that big a difference in this country. Starting with its effect on my own views, I couldn't have been much more wrong.
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Knickerbocker Misery
If there is any group of individuals having a worse couple of weeks than the Senate Democrats, it would be the New York Knicks and their fans. After a six game winning streak gave us a ray of hope at the beginning of January, they have lost 9 of 10 games, their GM has been accused of sexual harassment, they've had a player go into the stands to defend his wife, and the team's future looks darker than ever.
I've been a Knicks fan since I was three. While my life as a Yankee fan has been an easy one, I often joke that it is my reward for being a Knick fan. My rooting for the Knicks is unadulterated by mixed feelings about Steinbrenner, so while I love the Yankees, the Knicks are my favorite sports team.
While there have been many down times in the 30+ years I have rooted for the Knicks (the mid 1980s stand out in particular), the current era is rapidly taking its place among the worst in Knick history. Scott Layden devastated the team from 2001-2003 with a series of trades designed to ensure that the Knicks would be above the NBA salary cap well into my years of social security eligibility.
Isiah Thomas brought a ray of hope. He made a series of moves that made the team younger and while the salary cap problems got worse, at least some of the players seemed to have potential. He hired Larry Brown, a hall of fame coach to help guide the talent he assembled. Unfortunately it turned out that very few of the players Thomas brought to the Knicks know the first thing about defense or passing the ball. Brown is aging by leaps and bounds as he realizes that the team is largely uncoachable. On Monday they lost to Atlanta, the worst team in the league by 20 points. Last night Kobe Bryant and four people from the Madison Square Garden crowd (I exaggerate, but not by much) beat them by 30.
Now Thomas stands accused of sexual harassment of a female employee who was fired two weeks ago. Whatever the truth in the case is, this will linger on for a long time and provide furhter distraction. Perhaps distraction from on the court happenings isn't a bad thing. As for me, I got a DVD on the Knicks history for the holidays. I'll be watching that as San Antonio or Detroit gets itself another NBA championship.
I've been a Knicks fan since I was three. While my life as a Yankee fan has been an easy one, I often joke that it is my reward for being a Knick fan. My rooting for the Knicks is unadulterated by mixed feelings about Steinbrenner, so while I love the Yankees, the Knicks are my favorite sports team.
While there have been many down times in the 30+ years I have rooted for the Knicks (the mid 1980s stand out in particular), the current era is rapidly taking its place among the worst in Knick history. Scott Layden devastated the team from 2001-2003 with a series of trades designed to ensure that the Knicks would be above the NBA salary cap well into my years of social security eligibility.
Isiah Thomas brought a ray of hope. He made a series of moves that made the team younger and while the salary cap problems got worse, at least some of the players seemed to have potential. He hired Larry Brown, a hall of fame coach to help guide the talent he assembled. Unfortunately it turned out that very few of the players Thomas brought to the Knicks know the first thing about defense or passing the ball. Brown is aging by leaps and bounds as he realizes that the team is largely uncoachable. On Monday they lost to Atlanta, the worst team in the league by 20 points. Last night Kobe Bryant and four people from the Madison Square Garden crowd (I exaggerate, but not by much) beat them by 30.
Now Thomas stands accused of sexual harassment of a female employee who was fired two weeks ago. Whatever the truth in the case is, this will linger on for a long time and provide furhter distraction. Perhaps distraction from on the court happenings isn't a bad thing. As for me, I got a DVD on the Knicks history for the holidays. I'll be watching that as San Antonio or Detroit gets itself another NBA championship.
