Banter Blitz

Something that’s fun for chess patzers like me is watching really good players play blitz and seeing how much further their chess intuition goes. This is normally savoured at live tournaments but I just discovered Banter Blitz which pits grandmasters against patzers like me – and quite good players as well. Anyway, the reason I checked this out is that the grandmaster is David Smerdon who is Australian and indeed works for the Australian Treasury – or did. Anyway, apologies for those who don’t like this kind of thing – it’s not such an imposition – they don’t have to check it out. But for those who might enjoy it – enjoy.

Yanis Varoufakis’s latest blog post

I remember being excited when Barack Obama was elected, but largely because he was such a fine orator and black and reasonable. I didn’t hold out very much expectation that this ‘change’ that we were supposed to be believing in would be all that exciting, though of course politics is full of surprises, and so I was intrigued and didn’t entirely prejudge the possibility that he might be able to change politics in some way that we might look back on as being transformative. But I didn’t know what that would look like and I didn’t rate it as much of a chance.

As it is, I think he’s done pretty well achieving health reform in an increasingly dysfunctional political culture, and have been pretty frustrated with his penchant for ‘negotiating with himself’ as Paul Krugman calls it – his tendency to begin negotiating with The Stupid Party by doing the initial negotiating for them and presenting them with an entirely reasonable proposition which they then denounce as socialist and treat as an ambit claim.

I’m more genuinely excited by Yanis Varoufakis. That’s not because I share his worldview. I’ve read most of his book The Global Minotaur and while I enjoyed being reacquainted with big picture painting of the evolution of the global financial architecture after the Bretton Woods system was established in the late 40s, I found a lot of it unconvincing with conspiracy claims (about how the Americans were controlling things) many of which were interesting and worth considering particularly in the 1950s, but many for which little evidence was presented.

But what’s exciting about Varoufakis is firstly his remarkable style with the media. This is important to me because, as I argued earlier on Troppo, we live in an age of such domination of the style of communication that it takes great insight and skill to cut through with a different approach on the media.

Secondly the message he has is the simple response of economic orthodoxy to the VerySeriousPersonOnomics that has Europe in its grip. Indeed it’s hard to see what’s so left wing, what’s so radical about his most recent post most of which I reproduce below. Yes, he omits some of the other side of the debate – represented in this comment on the post – as most people putting a case do. But it’s compelling stuff IMO.

So the change Varoufakis wants us to believe in is the commonsense of economic orthodoxy (before the VSPs got hold of it in or around 2010). #WTNTL?

Of course there is the question of Varoufakis’s chances. Well as another commenter on his blog mentions, they seem pretty slim and Robert Preston in this BBC column (make sure you read the associated letter from Tsipras to Merkel) makes seem slimmer still.
Continue reading

Our ABC: some great Radio National listening

Scales of JusticeI drove for the best part of 11 hours over the last few days giving a Do Lecture (would you believe?) which was fun. In any event I listened to some seriously great radio.

Inside the drug court

I was riveted by three 50 minute docos on the NSW Drug Court. It really is a tragedy that our media overlords have decided that this innovation is ‘soft’ on crime compared with the traditional system. I think it’s much better understood as simply breaking down the interface between prison and out of prison in a more thoughtful way than the traditional system does. The traditional system exercises various sentencing and post-sentencing discretions. All the NSW Drug Court does is design a system of discretion and resources so that the incentives in the prison system actually work in the short term – where we know from research (and commonsense) that stimulus-response mechanisms work much more effectively.

The NSW Drug Court operates by suspending the sentences of prisoners and bringing them into a regime where their progress and their liberty is reassessed every week in a court hearing before a judge. This is combined with some counselling resources and drug tests three times weekly. They must attend all appointments on time, and they must self-declare all breaches of their conditions in their weekly court hearing. When they acquire 14 ‘sanctions’ or recorded failures to meet these conditions (and with their chaotic lives they often they acquire several in a single week) they are sent back to prison detox unit for 14 days and so the process goes on until they either graduate to stages two and three which involve progressively less intense supervision after which they graduate altogether. The alternative throughout is that they simply lose their place in the program and complete their prison sentence.

As you can see, it’s hardly ‘soft’. Just a sensible adaptation of the prison system and its resources to the challenge which the radio programs show you is an immense one, of rebuilding the life of a person who’s leant on drugs to get them through their life for often at least one, and frequently two or more decades, while their life has fallen further and further apart, while what semblance there was of order in their lives has been thoroughly white-anted, whose whole identity and social network is built on their life on drugs and outside the law.

So it’s pretty much out of the fire of prison and into the frying pan of a Skinner box of active operant conditioning. It still struck me how legally based the program still was. I have no problem with the legal architecture. A court hearing once a week might make a lot of sense, but it seemed to me the program, as good as it seemed to be was still crying out for more peer support mechanisms such as those we build in TACSI, in addition to – and probably in replacement of some – of the professional support.

The three programs were made over 14 months and take you inside the process and into the lives of four or five people who go through the process. If you don’t have three hours listen to one of the programs. (This is an order from Troppo Headquarters - your internet address has been logged).

I found them gripping. You’ll love and despair at some of the characters. The programs, in order are here, here and here.

The vagabond

Fascinating story of an eccentric Melbourne man who set himself up as The Vagabond, (presumably) Australia’s first ‘embedded’ journalist reporting from the front-line of various institutions of Melbourne that would have been, without him, out of sight out of mind. Here’s the link.

Peter Sculthorpe

I’m not much of a fan of modern ‘serious’ music and so have not listened to Peter Sculthorpe.  Indeed, after listening to him being interviewed and loving doing so, I’m curious to listen to some of his music which I will, though I don’t have any strong expectation that I’ll even like it. But the moment you hear his voice you can hear that he’s a certain kind of older person. Centred, thoughtful, humble, insightful about his life and the world around him. I love listening to such people. His music wafts beautifully mostly in the background. Here’s the link.

 

Note: All these programs other than the last are on a new program called Earshot which seems to simply scoop up all sorts of docos on just the kinds of subjects that interest me. It also seems to have absorbed the ABC’s religious program Encounter, which I’ve always liked, though some of the programs I listened to on my drive were pretty disappointing. One on Volunteer Tourism took an awfully long time to get to the point of what was wrong with it beyond vague generalities and the second program in three on Faith, reason and the three Abrahamic religions – on Islam which let radical Islamic spokespeople off way too lightly IMO.  They all claimed to be non-violent and I presume they were, but the scene was set with references to Australian Muslims demonstrating with signs calling for the death of those who ridicule the prophet. The Muslims in the program were not even asked to say what our attitude or policy should be to such conduct or required to confront it as a problem.

The episode on Christianity interviewed some very interesting people – like poet Christian Wyman. It offered a reasonable alternative view to schoolboy atheism, but having set up the dichotomy between atheism and belief drifted into a comfortable “we’re among Christians here” mood offering the alternative view without going to the trouble of offering anything that would have any chance of at least slightly unsettling the schoolboy atheists they’d framed the program around (many of whom are readers of this site).

How Big Ideas are Built: Rowan Gibson, ‎Innovation Thought Leader gives us the lowdown

How Big Ideas are BuiltOh well I guess snark can be justified as necessary to keeping standards above some rock bottom. Anyway, I did wonder whether this article on the Renaissance and innovation was the silliest thing written on either. Even ignoring the fact that he is about half a millennium out in equating the mediaeval period with the ‘dark ages’ there’s a deeper deliciousness to the way in which he imagines that, by describing a period he has explained it. “It wasn’t just a change of culture that made Western Europe so conducive to innovation at that time. It was also a change of mindset”. Innovation thrived in the Renaissance because of its more innovative culture – not only that but it’s more innovative mindset. The sedative worked because of its dormative qualities.

Anyway, for your delectation it is reproduced below: Continue reading

Insiders, faux insiders, efficiency and equity in the stockmarket: with a thought experiment and an abstract

We’ve gone from the assumption that there’s a necessary tradeoff between efficiency and equity to a state in which it’s almost de rigueur to point out the ways in which inequity can harm efficiency with quite some speed. Why even the OECD, while it hands homilies about how ‘reform’ is always the answer even if it’s relative absence pretty obviously not the central problem, now publishes papers which claim to calibrate the negative impact of income inequality on growth. Meanwhile at Troppo we’ve always been interested in those beautiful ways in which human utility and solidarity – efficiency and equity – competition and cooperation - can grow together.

One thing that’s always bothered me about the efficiency of the financial markets is the extent to which they privilege those with inside information. So we have a source of inequity – insiders capturing large rents on the information they have – and also inefficiency involving insiders investing resources, both physical and intellectual bandwidth in getting information ahead of rivals. I suspect most people see this as a bit of a boutique problem. A barnacle perhaps, to use the current vernacular, but the price of all that dynamism of financial markets. Continue reading

Cutting tax on dividends: a mugs game (if you wanted to improve economic efficiency that is)

Image result for death and taxesJust as happens with dividend imputation in Australia, corporate structures are remarkably robust to seeing things from the shareholder perspective, leading Troppo’s self-appointed Chief Economist and Joint Pontificator In-Chief to conclude that tax cuts to dividends offer the worst possible combination of equity and efficiency. Lots more inequity, no more efficiency.

Capital Tax Reform and the Real Economy: The Effects of the 2003 Dividend Tax Cut
by Danny Yagan – #21003 (CF PE)

Abstract:

Policymakers frequently propose to use capital tax reform to stimulate investment and increase labor earnings. This paper tests for such real impacts of the 2003 dividend tax cut–one of the largest reforms ever to a U.S. capital tax rate–using a quasi-experimental design and a large sample of U.S. corporate tax returns from years 1996-2008. I estimate that the tax cut caused zero change in corporate investment, with an upper bound elasticity with respect to one minus the top statutory tax rate of .08 and an upper bound effect size of .03 standard deviations. This null result
is robust across specifications, samples, and investment measures. I similarly find no impact on employee compensation. The lack of detectable real effects contrasts with an immediate impact on financial payouts to shareholders. Economically, the findings challenge leading estimates of the cost-of-capital elasticity of investment, or undermine models in which dividend tax reforms affect the cost of capital. Either way, it may be difficult for policymakers to implement an alternative dividend tax cut that has substantially larger near-term effects.

Fair trade coffee: so much more (or less) than it seems, depending on your point of view

From the latest Journal of Economic Perspectives

Fair trade coffee is a cup half full, according to
Raluca Dragusanu, Daniele Giovannucci, and
Nathan Nunn in “The Economics of Fair Trade”
(Summer 2014, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 217–36). We are
not persuaded.
The authors barely mention the fees imposed
upon current and prospective fair trade coffee
growers by FLO-CERT, the organization that
verifies and certifies fair trade products. By not
spelling out the fees, the authors may leave readers
with a mistaken impression that the fees are
trifling. Elliott (2012) summarizes nicely the latest
fee structure. For cooperatives of poor producers,
the initial application fee is €525, and fees for the
first inspection vary from €1430 to €3470 depending
upon a cooperative’s size. While certifications
are good for three years, annual fees range from
€1170 to €2770 and include interim surveillance of
growers’ practices. In short, Fairtrade International
requires farmers in low-income countries to pay
thousands of dollars in order to participate in a network
presumably intended to offer poverty relief
to its producer organizations as well as protection
from allegedly ruthless local monopsonist coffee
buyers, called coyotes. The existence of these large
and explicit costs to growers casts some doubt on
the relatively optimistic conclusions of this paper.
As the authors acknowledge, only a small fraction
of coffee grown by fair trade producers is able to be
sold as fair trade coffee, but readers should also
be clear that applying to join the fair trade network
does not guarantee a willing buyer on the other
side of the market. As Fridell (2007) notes, newcomers
to fair trade production are the least likely
to benefit because they cannot compete on an
equal footing with established cooperatives in
an already saturated market. Fridell cites Martinez
(2002), who in turn describes the plight of a certified
producer organization that searched for eight
years to locate a willing buyer.

There’s plenty more here in the whole letter to the JEP.

Metaphor alert on data: should it be anyone’s property?

Prof. Dirk Helbing on the opportunities provided by big data: Will information become the key resource of this century? | T-SystemsMonday’s column in the Fin published as “Debate should be on best-use, not ownership of public data”

Data is in the news but we’re still working out how to think about it. Ladies and Gentlemen, we’ve got the Wrong Metaphor. Let me explain.

There’s endless argy-bargy about who ‘owns’ firms’ customer data – them or their customers? And the government wants access to stored ‘metadata’ on our internet activities – what sites we’ve been to, who we’ve communicated with. Then there’s all that data governments collect through the five yearly census – next due in 2016 – which the government recently wondered aloud whether to scrap. (Should it really cost the best part of half a billion when most citizens could be surveyed online?)

As governments gear up their surveillance armoury and we disgorge terabytes of data to Facebook and Google, we’re jealous of our privacy – as well we might be. In our commercialised age, this becomes a debate about who should ‘own’ data. Yet notions of property arose to help us think about and control physical things – like personal possessions and land. Subtle traps await those using the metaphor of property to deal with incorporeal things like ideas and data. Continue reading