I have sort of an odd theory of political fund raising bouncing around in my head, and I want to get it down on the internets before I forget, or I babble it to someone a little more desperate for a thesis topic and they write it and get it published and I get nothing. (The former is more likely...)
There is a fairly strong correlation between who has the most money to spend on campaigns and who wins that election. On average, winners get more money than losers (as compiled here.) Now, that alone doesn't mean a lot, as there are elections that buck the trend, but ok, those with more money win more elections. Just like how basketball players who get paid more win more games.
Wait... what? That's not true. In fact, it is pretty likely the opposite, winning more games leads to being paid more. Do we know that is not true with politics as well, that the candidates more likely to win get more money?
Well, there are a few stories that would make that make sense.
If you are a business or some other actor who has a stake in the rules politicians might enact upon you, it makes sense to spend some money to support (read: bribe) a politician even if you don't particularly like him. However, it does not make sense to bribe one you think has little chance of winning; they are not likely to pay off your investment. Likewise, it then makes sense to bribe both candidates or parties if they seem about equally likely to win, or at least reasonably likely. That perhaps explains why so many with a lot of skin in the game support both parties, despite the fact they ostensibly will favor different policies.
This also explains why companies don't bother to throw cash at candidates like Ralph Nader. In a general probabilistic sort of way, even if Nader was very unlikely to succeed, if his policies were likely to be sufficiently anti-business (seems likely) it would still be worth a bit to bribe him a little if you thought it at all likely to matter. Turns out one of those probabilities is considered to be zero, and my guess is it was his chances of success.
Sort of an edge case, but this theory also explains why politicians generally are against betting markets for elections, even if they don't involve real money. Theoretically there is little reason to believe that betting on an election makes any difference at all, as terribly few are even close, and really the media probably has infinitely more effect anyway, as people who vote apparently don't care about whether their vote matters, but rather that they are supporting their team. All a betting market would do is inform those who happen to be paying attention as to what experts* think the outcome will be. Since voters can hardly be bothered to pay attention to anything more than a few weeks before the election, who cares? Only those who care enough about the election to spend money bribing potential winners. A betting market might go a long way towards lowering campaign donations to candidates who are less likely to win, taking money out of their pockets.**
Now, I don't think that most money is straight up bribes. I think a fair bit comes from organizations and especially individuals that support the stated beliefs of politicians. However, that isn't itself against the theory, and my little theory actually explains pretty well why people only donate to certain candidates and not every candidate who espouses similar beliefs: they only back the ones they think will win.***
I wouldn't be surprised to find that money does help get elected since at least you need a bit to get started and afford to run for office. However, I suspect most of the causality there is in fact the other way around, and getting more money implies those donating think you have a high chance of victory.
*Or at least those who are willing to put their money where their mouth is, which even at very small values is a powerful mental inducement to be honest.
** Literally. Most states (I think all in fact) allow candidates to keep the remainders of their election funds after the election. Ever wonder why Al Sharpton ran for office so many times despite the fact he had zero chance of success? Here's a hint: he is now a millionaire.
*** Or they push that decision to the party heads by donating to the DNC or RNC.
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Interactions of Levels
Alright, so why is it useful to think of rules as existing on different, yet interacting, levels? Mostly because of which take precedence and how they influence each other, but also because of how we treat them.
Precedence should be obvious, but really people have a lot of trouble with this one. Consider Natural Rules: in all cases, they reign. No rules we humans try and create can trump them; there is no clause that says "Gravity always accelerates two masses towards each other, unless the legislature of a recognized state declares otherwise."* Humans can not ignore these rules if we don't like them, only work around them. So for instance, if we decide it gets too bloody cold in Virginia in November, we don't pass a law that says it does not, but rather build houses keeping the other rules of nature in mind as to how insulation and heating works. We could pass a law, of course, but it wouldn't do anything. Similarly, passing anti-gouging laws will not make more products available during an emergency, though they often can result in the opposite.
In the case of Social and Governmental Rules, the case is actually a bit more fuzzy. While neither can change Natural Rule, they both do affect each other. Generally this seems to happen in the direction of Social Rules dictating Governmental Rules, as tenants of the former become codified with enforcement procedures in the latter. In fact, many of the same tendencies between Natural Rules and the human rules apply within the types of human rules. Generally legislation that has no social analogue simply does not get enforced. Consider sales tax laws among those ordering from out of state, or the various sodomy laws in most states. Whether people are unaware of the laws or simply don't care, neither gets enforced often. In fact, generally when such cases of Governmental only rules get enforced it is in an uneven manner, directed against an individual or minority group that those in power wish to target for some unrelated punitive reason.**
However, unlike the one way effect of Natural Rules on human rules, Governmental Rules sometimes do affect the Social Rules they overlay. It is not unheard of to meet people who consider anything illegal to be wrong because it is illegal, with little regard as to whether that legislation itself is right or wrong. Even beyond that corner case, however, long durations with certain rules and systems in place tend to make people begin with the presumption of their rectitude. The US Drug War has been going on for decades, and while on a pure cost/benefit basis it is obviously a huge net negative on society it remains a popular point for politicians and ending the prohibition of even marijuana has been a long and arduous battle. Similarly, one finds many references to how in times past the idea of taking charity was abhorrent to many people, and those who needed to were ashamed to do so. Right or wrong, after many years of governmental welfare and unemployment programs it seems to be no more shameful than a traffic ticket.***
That's probably enough for now; anything I would add would take away from the mechanics to dynamics post, which is rapidly snowballing.
*Well, there might be, and we just don't know which definition of state is recognized...
** I will mention this later when talking of dynamics.
*** No doubt this is partially also due to the feeling among those that worked before receiving unemployment that they paid for the insurance aspect. However, those receiving SSI or other benefits probably can not make this argument, and in either case it is not entirely relevant to the argument that society's feelings toward the practice have shifted.
Precedence should be obvious, but really people have a lot of trouble with this one. Consider Natural Rules: in all cases, they reign. No rules we humans try and create can trump them; there is no clause that says "Gravity always accelerates two masses towards each other, unless the legislature of a recognized state declares otherwise."* Humans can not ignore these rules if we don't like them, only work around them. So for instance, if we decide it gets too bloody cold in Virginia in November, we don't pass a law that says it does not, but rather build houses keeping the other rules of nature in mind as to how insulation and heating works. We could pass a law, of course, but it wouldn't do anything. Similarly, passing anti-gouging laws will not make more products available during an emergency, though they often can result in the opposite.
In the case of Social and Governmental Rules, the case is actually a bit more fuzzy. While neither can change Natural Rule, they both do affect each other. Generally this seems to happen in the direction of Social Rules dictating Governmental Rules, as tenants of the former become codified with enforcement procedures in the latter. In fact, many of the same tendencies between Natural Rules and the human rules apply within the types of human rules. Generally legislation that has no social analogue simply does not get enforced. Consider sales tax laws among those ordering from out of state, or the various sodomy laws in most states. Whether people are unaware of the laws or simply don't care, neither gets enforced often. In fact, generally when such cases of Governmental only rules get enforced it is in an uneven manner, directed against an individual or minority group that those in power wish to target for some unrelated punitive reason.**
However, unlike the one way effect of Natural Rules on human rules, Governmental Rules sometimes do affect the Social Rules they overlay. It is not unheard of to meet people who consider anything illegal to be wrong because it is illegal, with little regard as to whether that legislation itself is right or wrong. Even beyond that corner case, however, long durations with certain rules and systems in place tend to make people begin with the presumption of their rectitude. The US Drug War has been going on for decades, and while on a pure cost/benefit basis it is obviously a huge net negative on society it remains a popular point for politicians and ending the prohibition of even marijuana has been a long and arduous battle. Similarly, one finds many references to how in times past the idea of taking charity was abhorrent to many people, and those who needed to were ashamed to do so. Right or wrong, after many years of governmental welfare and unemployment programs it seems to be no more shameful than a traffic ticket.***
That's probably enough for now; anything I would add would take away from the mechanics to dynamics post, which is rapidly snowballing.
*Well, there might be, and we just don't know which definition of state is recognized...
** I will mention this later when talking of dynamics.
*** No doubt this is partially also due to the feeling among those that worked before receiving unemployment that they paid for the insurance aspect. However, those receiving SSI or other benefits probably can not make this argument, and in either case it is not entirely relevant to the argument that society's feelings toward the practice have shifted.
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Rules in levels
One of my interests, and thus a recurring theme here, is the interactions between various types and layers of rules. I am constantly working out different models of how various rules affect behavior and our interactions. Much of my time here is going to be writing essays, in the classic "trying" sense, to figure out how different levels and layers work, as well as trying to come up with a better nomenclature than "rules levels."
What do I mean by rules levels? Surprisingly, it isn't in reference to game systems, though the inspiration came from there. I mean that there are different types of limitations on our actions that matter, and they come from different sources and behave in different ways. For example, let me get started with three:
1: Natural rules. (I like Natural Law, but that is already taken...) Basically the rules of the universe, of reality. They just are, and try as we might we can't change them. Yes, you can kill people, but no, you can't bring them back. Or go faster than the speed of light apparently. The key points about these rules are that they are absolute, no breaking or bending, we have to discover them, we can't create or destroy them, and generally society is indifferent to us figuring out ways to work around them. For example, we generally don't mind when someone figures out that the rules work differently than we thought, for instance that hearts can be restarted by electricity sometimes, though we might draw the line at straight up necromancy.
2: Social Rules (Often referred to as Natural Law.) These are the emergent rules we follow in our social behaviors, the unwritten rules (though they can be written down.) Rules like "if someone's stuff is on a chair, the chair is claimed and it is not ok to move the stuff and sit down," "don't wear white after Labor Day," or "murdering your neighbor and stealing his house is bad." These rules cover all human interaction and behaviors, because we socially care about such things. However, they can vary widely from culture to culture, group to group and even within groups between individuals. They also change and evolve over time to match the needs, situations and tastes of the people utilizing them. Some key points are that they are socially created, but not by any individual, and that they can be broken, but only at a greater or lesser social cost.
3: Governmental Rules (Often called laws, but better "legislation" I think.) These are the rules that governing bodies of people make to control those they govern. Sometimes they are simply codifications of Social Rules, such as the prohibition against murder, and usually define the process for punishment of such offenses. However, they also cover a large span of behaviors that the society is not actually against with their own rules, such as gambling, selling toilets that use more than one gallon per flush, etc. That is an important distinction, as it is entirely possible for Governmental Rules to be contrary to society's rules, and conflicts to emerge. Another key difference is that legislation is created by either an individual dictator or a relatively small group of legislators, instead of emerging from social norms of many individuals. They further also have more severe penalties than social norms, as the power of the state rests on lethal force, whereas societal punishments have a broader spectrum of punishments from simple social status loss, to the usual death.
That's it for now; I will save some of the interesting interactions for a later set of posts.
What do I mean by rules levels? Surprisingly, it isn't in reference to game systems, though the inspiration came from there. I mean that there are different types of limitations on our actions that matter, and they come from different sources and behave in different ways. For example, let me get started with three:
1: Natural rules. (I like Natural Law, but that is already taken...) Basically the rules of the universe, of reality. They just are, and try as we might we can't change them. Yes, you can kill people, but no, you can't bring them back. Or go faster than the speed of light apparently. The key points about these rules are that they are absolute, no breaking or bending, we have to discover them, we can't create or destroy them, and generally society is indifferent to us figuring out ways to work around them. For example, we generally don't mind when someone figures out that the rules work differently than we thought, for instance that hearts can be restarted by electricity sometimes, though we might draw the line at straight up necromancy.
2: Social Rules (Often referred to as Natural Law.) These are the emergent rules we follow in our social behaviors, the unwritten rules (though they can be written down.) Rules like "if someone's stuff is on a chair, the chair is claimed and it is not ok to move the stuff and sit down," "don't wear white after Labor Day," or "murdering your neighbor and stealing his house is bad." These rules cover all human interaction and behaviors, because we socially care about such things. However, they can vary widely from culture to culture, group to group and even within groups between individuals. They also change and evolve over time to match the needs, situations and tastes of the people utilizing them. Some key points are that they are socially created, but not by any individual, and that they can be broken, but only at a greater or lesser social cost.
3: Governmental Rules (Often called laws, but better "legislation" I think.) These are the rules that governing bodies of people make to control those they govern. Sometimes they are simply codifications of Social Rules, such as the prohibition against murder, and usually define the process for punishment of such offenses. However, they also cover a large span of behaviors that the society is not actually against with their own rules, such as gambling, selling toilets that use more than one gallon per flush, etc. That is an important distinction, as it is entirely possible for Governmental Rules to be contrary to society's rules, and conflicts to emerge. Another key difference is that legislation is created by either an individual dictator or a relatively small group of legislators, instead of emerging from social norms of many individuals. They further also have more severe penalties than social norms, as the power of the state rests on lethal force, whereas societal punishments have a broader spectrum of punishments from simple social status loss, to the usual death.
That's it for now; I will save some of the interesting interactions for a later set of posts.
What am I doing?
So, I am finally getting my bleg together. I have been knocking around the idea to write down the excess of things in my head for a while now, but past the post there about cats and economics written in early June or so I hadn't gotten anything done. Thanks and blame go to Josh Wojnilower for having his own blog and giving me someone to talk to at length about stuff before and after class. Go read some of his stuff if you like macro and finance. He is teaching me a lot, at least.
So yea, general plan here, posted after the the first post (*sigh*) is to write down some of the stuff that pulls my brain in different directions, mostly econ, cats and general "why do people do stuff?"
So yea, general plan here, posted after the the first post (*sigh*) is to write down some of the stuff that pulls my brain in different directions, mostly econ, cats and general "why do people do stuff?"
Things loved, but unwanted
So I had a dream the other night, in which I was given great insight into our lives. Granted, the insight came about as a function of teaching Lt. Data glass blowing instead of being handed down by a nebulous god head, but still. Just because watching a lot of ST: TNG on Netflix and eating chorizo before bed dictates my auguries doesn't mean they are less relevant. I hope. (Note to self: No more spicy sausage before bed.)
At any rate, the key point of this half remembered dream was that just as many things are the results of human action but not human intention, so too are many of the things we care most about beyond our ability to plan for their aquisition. We have a pretty vague idea about what will make us happy, or what we want. There is a quote I can not find at the moment, roughly how every dog can be loved, so long as he is not too ordinary. It is the little quirks that make him special and lovable.
That's all well and good, we all know that we are supposed to love things for what's wrong with them (or something.) So, obviously, when we went to adopt a new kitten, we asked for a Siamese that had a chronic sinus infection, short, stubby legs, a love of sleeping with his balls in the air, a whining cry and the mental capacity of a lamb with fetal alcohol syndrome. Wait... no, that's what we received. Our list of wants was essentially "Siamese, female, friendly, not dead and OOOOOH THIS ONE HAS WHITE FEET!" Turns out female was not so important, nor was friendly seeing as how we adopted him sight unseen, and it took little High Chancellor Pudding Cup about five months to recognize us after we changed pants.
So, why did we keep him? I am left with the conclusion that although he fulfills only 2.5 of our 5 criteria (he is very friendly for about 10-20 minutes a day, or when you are in the kitchen or holding a bag that might contain treats) it is all the things we didn't intend that make him special to us. Even though his little snot explosions are kind of gross to find splattered on the walls, they are pretty funny otherwise. Likewise, his exploits in not understanding how things like "walls" work make for amusing stories. (At least to crazy cat people like us.) Even his "good" points are surprising, such as how he curls his feet up when he sleeps on his back, and how the fact he is actually a little standoffish is a bit refreshing, considering our previous complement of cats had to be on top of you at all times. We now are very attached to a little cat that is very different from what our initial list of requirements suggested.
So, is this just an extended cat story, or is there an economics point here? The economics point is this: economics often assume that they can get at the true preferences of people in their models. In fact, everyone sort of assumes they know what other people really want. In truth though, we only have a vague notion of what we want ourselves, much less any sort of mathematical certainty about what would maximize anyone else's utility. As another example, no one really knew they wanted an iPad until it was released. At best they want something that does X,Y and Z and maybe looks like something out of Star Trek, but not an iPad until it actually existed. For me, this suggests a few implications:
1: Utility is constantly being updated in our subconscious, not only with regard to deciding whether we like things we are aware of or not, but also factoring in things we were not aware of.
2: We can not come up with even rankings of wants or desires that are meaningful for anything but the extreme short term. We can only guess at how much various things will make us happy, and only based on existence as we know it at the time of the list.
3: Planning, let alone optimizing, our choices long term is largely impossible. At best, we can plan for broad categories of actions and wants, and then leave space for changes within each category.
In effect, our knowledge even of ourselves is so limited that our best plan is to not plan, but rather to simply ensure we have the flexibility to react to our wants in the future.What seems like a complete list, or even a good idea, now is very likely to seem terrible weeks, months or years from now. Raise your hand if you bought a house between 2000 and 2008, if you wish you had bought Microsoft in the '80's, or graduated with a degree in IT in 2003. I hope you didn't invest heavily in a life time supply of clothes in the '90's.
This is in part why free markets are so important. We have very little idea what is a good idea now, much less what will be. The best idea seems to be to keep open the most possibilities. Markets do this by allowing people to find and invent others desires by creating new products and services, and letting people pick as they come up. Planning is involved, but it is a multitude of small plans, not a huge overarching plan about how much of everything to dedicate resources to. It can take a while before the actual attributes of something are even known, much less assessed for their relative value by people, and that will doom any economic plan to failure.
Come to think of it, maybe sausage before bed is not so bad after all...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)