Risk, Utility, and Iraq

Each person has a different amount of aversion to risk. The level of aversion to risk also varies by subject. For example, someone may ride motorcycles but be unwilling to fly in airplanes, even knowing the exact rational probabilities of injury or death from the two different activities.

In utility theory, risk is subjective, but can be quantified. After the risk is quantified, tools can be used to analyze problems to arrive at optimal solutions.

As an example of how risk aversion might be characterized for a given individual for a given subject, consider the following. Let's say an individual is 50 years old with total net worth of $500,000 and is trying to balance their portfolio in order to maximize his or her risk adjusted return, where the risk reflects his or her subjective utility as opposed to standard risk adjustment methods based on volatility. The individual might be asked if they would bet their entire net worth for a 99% chance at 10 times that net worth. Then a 90%, 50%, 25%, etc. chance. Then for a chance at 8 times, 5 times, etc. the net worth. Then the bet limited to a half, quarter, etc. of the net worth. Different time frames for the bet would also have to be explored.

From these number, a multi-dimensional risk profile can be created, which then allows an objective analysis to maximize the expected risk adjusted return of the portfolio going forward. The general idea is that some individuals assign such low utility to any approach that can produce outcomes with any losses at all that it makes sense for them to invest very conservatively. Others aren't concerned in the least with downside, and for them a maximally aggressive strategy is optimal.

Neither investing approach is inherently correct, better, or right for everybody. The approach is and must be based on subjective preferences. It is also important to understand that if by the above analysis an individual rationally chooses a highly aggressive investment strategy, it was the right choice, even if it turns out that the investment strategy produced large losses going forward. It doesn't mean that the individual was stupid or crazy, just that the individual was unlucky.

Now consider Iraq. Invading Iraq had/has many potential downsides, many of which were/are horribly catastrophic. Invading Iraq also had/has potential upsides. In this case, each voter wants to optimize his or her utility with respect to invading Iraq and vote for representatives based on that utility.

Like the above financial example, the utility profile of an individual voter with regard to our approach to Iraq could be estimated. Unlike the above financial example, once the utility profile is created, we can't restrict ourselves to objective mathematics to find the optimal solution (i.e., whether or not to invade, occupy, assist, etc.) since the information regarding the likelihood of each outcome is extremely sparse and unreliable, forcing intuitive and subjective analysis.

However, the point is that even if the information regarding Iraq were perfect and the analysis perfectly rational, the utility to each individual voter regarding our approach to Iraq and the possible outcomes would still vary substantially because of each person's subjective risk profile for this subject. Also, even if Iraq ends catastrophically, it doesn't mean it was the wrong thing to do. Vice-versa, if it ends well, it doesn't mean invading Iraq was the right thing to do. The decisions are inherently affected by subjective utility.

Boots Bails on Blogging

That's too bad. I thoroughly enjoyed Jim's input and have the utmost respect for him. However, if the benefits of participating are insufficient for Jim, I certainly support his decision to end his participation in this blog. On the other hand, he's obviously welcome to return in the future if he so chooses.

I don't find Jim's perspective off-kilter. We're both Democrats and are voting for Kerry. We agree on drug policy, almost completely agree on what things government should spend money on, and agree on a variety of other things. I find it much more interesting to discuss topics where I don't agree with others so our differences have been accentuated.

I will certainly continue to blog. I thoroughly enjoy writing and the blog allows me to organize and archive my thoughts.

I am also contemplating recruiting other participants. We'll see who I can dig up over time.

Stay tuned!

Weak Employment Numbers

Reuters report U.S. Employment Growth Surprisingly Weak in July:

U.S. employers added a paltry 32,000 workers to payrolls last month, the government said on Friday in a report far weaker than expected that will come as unwelcome news for President George W. Bush ahead of the presidential election.

The Labor Department also cut its tally of job growth for May and June by a combined 61,000.

An Illogical Perspective

I had difficulty following a ContraCostaTimes article Jim linked and requested that he point me at the paragraphs he found most interesting. He responded with these:

In October 2002, the CIA told Congress "the Brits have exaggerated this issue." The same month, CIA Director George Tenet told the White House to remove a reference to African uranium from a key speech because the reporting behind it "was weak." Key documents on sales of Niger uranium were found to be forged.

We still don't know why the White House included the discredited reference to Iraq and African uranium in the State of the Union. Maybe Iraq would have liked to purchase African uranium, but there's still no solid evidence to back this up. And you won't find new evidence in the Senate report.

I've read Lord Butler's report on the matter as well as numerous other articles that strongly refute and discount the above paragraphs. I'll show my analysis sentence by sentence (though not in order):

Key documents on sales of Niger uranium were found to be forged.

Documents were indeed found to be forged. However, they were not "key." From the Butler report:

The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Nigers exports, the intelligence was credible. [...]

The forged documents were not available to the British Government at the time its assessment was made, and so the fact of the forgery does not undermine it.

In other words, the forged documents had no impact on the assessment.

In October 2002, the CIA told Congress "the Brits have exaggerated this issue."

Though the article doesn't provide context, I recall that there was some exaggeration regarding whether or not uranium was actually purchased, but Bush only claimed that it was "sought," not purchased.

The same month, CIA Director George Tenet told the White House to remove a reference to African uranium from a key speech because the reporting behind it "was weak."

True. However, the CIA had learned about the forged documents at about that time and possibly didn't understand the extent of the British Intelligence at the time. In any case, note that the most damning that could be said was that it was weak, not that it was false. Also, I personally give higher credibility to British Intelligence than our own.

We still don't know why the White House included the discredited reference to Iraq and African uranium in the State of the Union.

It looks to me that it only remains "discredited" to those who hate Bush. From the standpoint of pure logic, I can't find an analysis that leads me to the same conclusion.

Maybe Iraq would have liked to purchase African uranium, but there's still no solid evidence to back this up. And you won't find new evidence in the Senate report.

We can debate what it means for evidence to be "solid", but ironically, even the Niger travel report by Joe Wilson, who was and is one of Bush's fiercest critics, shows up "new" in the Senate report and supports the assertion that "Iraq would have liked to purchase African uranium:"

The Senate report said Wilson brought back denials of any Niger-Iraq uranium sale, and argued that such a sale wasn't likely to happen. But the Intelligence Committee report also reveals that Wilson brought back something else as well -- evidence that Iraq may well have wanted to buy uranium.

Wilson reported that he had met with Niger's former Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki, who said that in June 1999 he was asked to meet with a delegation from Iraq to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between the two countries.
Based on what Wilson told them, CIA analysts wrote an intelligence report saying former Prime Minister Mayki "interpreted 'expanding commercial relations' to mean that the (Iraqi) delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales." In fact, the Intelligence Committee report said that "for most analysts" Wilson's trip to Niger "lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal."

So the two paragraphs from the ContraCostaTimes, like the rest of the article, makes a series of assertions that look to me to be false and/or irrelevant. And that's why I had trouble following the article.

Remember, I'm voting for Kerry. I'd be quite happy if I could find more convincing (to me) evidence that I should do that. Sadly, that evidence is extremely thin.

Me 'n Zell

See Y'All in New York
Why I skipped the Boston convention.

BY ZELL MILLER Saturday, July 31, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

Twelve years ago, I delivered one of the keynote addresses on the first night at the Democratic National Convention in New York. It was a stinging rebuke of the administration of George H.W. Bush and a ringing endorsement of Bill Clinton. This summer I'll again be speaking in New York, but it will be to the Republican Convention that renominates George W. Bush.

Many have asked how I could have come so far in just over a decade. Frankly, I don't think I've changed much at all. At 72, I don't feel much need to change my opinions. Instead, the reason I didn't attend the Democratic Convention in Boston is that I barely recognize my party anymore. Most of its leaders--including our nominee, John Kerry--don't hold the same beliefs that have motivated my career in public service.

In 1992, I spoke of the opportunity and hope that allowed me, the son of a single mother growing up in the North Georgia mountains, to become my state's governor. And I attributed much of my success to the great Democratic presidents of years gone by--FDR (a hallowed man in my home), Truman and JFK. The link these men shared was a commitment to helping Americans born into any condition rise to achieve whatever goal they set for themselves.

I spoke of Americans who were "tired of paying more in taxes and getting less in services." I excoriated Republicans who "dealt in cynicism and skepticism." I accused them of mastering "the art of division and diversion." And I praised Bill Clinton as a moderate Democrat "who has the courage to tell some of those liberals who think welfare should continue forever, and some of those conservatives who think there should be no welfare at all, that they're both wrong."

Bill Clinton did deliver on welfare reform, after a lot of prodding from the Republicans who took hold of Congress in 1995. But much of the rest of the promise I saw in his candidacy withered during his two terms in office.

Today, it's the Democratic Party that has mastered the art of division and diversion. To run for president as a Democrat these days you have to go from interest group to interest group, cap in hand, asking for the support of liberal kingmakers. Mr. Kerry is no different. After Hollywood elites profaned the president, he didn't have the courage to put them in their place. Instead, he validated their remarks, claiming that they represent "the heart and soul of America."

No longer the party of hope, today's Democratic Party has become Mr. Kerry's many mansions of cynicism and skepticism. As our economy continues to get better and businesses add jobs, Mr. Kerry's going around America trying to convince people that the roof is about to cave in. He talks about "the misery index" and the Depression. What does he know about either?

And when it comes to taxes and services, you'd be pressed to find anyone more opposed to the interests of middle-class Americans than John Kerry. Except maybe John Edwards. Both voted against tax relief for married couples, tax relief for families with children, and tax relief for small businesses. Now Mr. Kerry wants to raise taxes on hundreds of thousands of small-business owners and millions of individuals. He claims to be for working people, but I don't understand how small businesses can create jobs if they've got to send more money to Washington instead of keeping it to hire workers.

Worst of all, Sens. Kerry and Edwards have not kept faith with the men and women who are fighting the war on terror--most of whom come from small towns and middle-class families all over America. While Mr. Bush has stood by our troops every step of the way, Messrs. Kerry and Edwards voted to send our troops to war and then voted against the money to give them supplies and equipment--not to mention better benefits for their families. And recently Mr. Kerry even said he's proud of that vote. Proud to abandon our troops when they're out in the field? I can hear Harry Truman cussing from his grave.

I still believe in hope and opportunity and, when it comes right down to it, Mr. Bush is the man who represents hope and opportunity. Hope for a safer world. And opportunity for Americans to work hard, keep more of the money they earn, and send their kids to good schools. All the speeches we heard this week weren't able to hide the truth of what today's Democratic Party has become: an enclave of elites paying lip service to middle-class values. Americans looking for a president who understands their struggles and their dreams should tune in next month, when we celebrate the leadership of George W. Bush.

Mr. Miller is a Democratic senator from Georgia.

An Interesting Political Quote

From a roundup of foreign newspapers opinions of John Kerry's chances in November by the BBC:

To a great degree there is no Democratic party candidate John Kerry. There is an abstract "anti-Bush" candidate who has been compelled, in accordance with the US electoral system, to take on human form and assume a human name...

The quote is apparently from some Russian rag call Russky Kuryer.

I'd agree with that description. Nonetheless (or perhaps because of this), I'm still following my usual voting algorithm. First I vote for split government. Since the House and/or Senate are quite likely to be Republican, I will support the "abstact anti-Bush candidate" who has taken on the "human form" of John Kerry. However, if he is winning by a wide margin in California when I go to vote (I always vote just before the polls close), I will vote for Bush to help keep California "in play". The concept is that if political contests are close in a given state, both parties pay more attention to the needs of that state.

An Interesting Hayek Quote

"It may indeed prove to be far the most difficult and not the least important task for human reason rationally to comprehend its own limitations."

Yet More Economic Good News

"Consumer Confidence Soars, Housing Strong" according to a Reuters article:

U.S. consumer confidence surged to a two-year high this month on hiring hopes while new home sales in June posted a smaller decline than expected, according to two reports on Tuesday that signaled the economy may be picking up after a brief hiatus.

The Conference Board, a private forecasting group, said its consumer sentiment gauge climbed in July for the fourth straight month to 106.1 from an upwardly revised 102.8 in June, outpacing Wall Street forecasts.

Cut taxes, get growth!!!

Media Bias

I've written previously about the media making errors and making stuff up, but generally I've stayed away from the topic of media bias. That's because the question I immediately have is "biased compared to whom"? Who is the center point?

However, a recent study has come up with a measurement methodology that limits the amount of subjective analysis required (though choosing the methodology itself is inherently subjective). The journalists don't have to rate themselves, nor does anybody else have to rate them. The only rating that occurs is that of the liberal lobbying group Americans for Democratic Action which regularly grades politicians from 0 to 100 based on their votes on selected issues, with the most liberal members of Congress earning 100 (a perfect score).

The paper describes the next step as:

The web site, www.wheretodoresearch.com lists 200 of the most prominent think tanks in the U.S. Using the official web site of Congress, http://thomas.loc.gov, we and our research assistants searched the Congressional Record for instances where a member of Congress cited one of these think tanks. We looked for instances where the legislator cited a view or a fact stated by a member of the think tank. We then counted the sentences in the citation. We also recorded the average adjusted ADA score of the member who cited the think tank.

From this they "computed the average adjusted ADA score of the legislators who cited" each of the think tanks and then "split the think tanks into a liberal group and a conservative group, based upon whether the average score of legislators citing the think tank was above or below 42.2, the midpoint of the House and Senate averages."

A similar analysis was done for media outlets (Fox News' Special Report, Drudge Report, ABC World News Tonight, Los Angeles Times, NBC Nightly News, USA Today, CBS Evening News, and the New York Times):

Specifically, for each media outlet we list the percentage of sentences that it cited from the liberal group of think tanks. From this percentage, we can compute a back-of-theenvelope estimate of the media outlet s adjusted ADA score.

Note that only "news" reporting was considered, not opinion pages or letters to the editor or things like that.

The results are that every media outlet studied, except for Fox News, was more liberal than the median of the House of Representatives. Since the median Representative should roughly reflect the views of the median citizen, this implies that most of the major media is more liberal than the median citizen. Or as the authors conclude:

Although we expected to find that most media lean left, we were astounded by the degree. A norm among journalists is to present both sides of the issue. Consequently, while we expected members of Congress to cite primarily think tanks that are on the same side of the ideological spectrum as they are, we expected journalists to practice a much more balanced citation practice, even if the journalist s own ideology opposed the think tanks that he or she is sometimes citing. This was not always the case. Most of the mainstream media outlets that we examined (ie all those besides Drudge Report and Fox News Special Report) were closer to the average Democrat in Congress than they were to the median member of the House.

The authors make no attempt to explain their findings. In addition, it's far from clear to me that citations counts are a good measure of liberalism/conservatism. Nonetheless, I found their approach novel and creative and their results interesting.

9/11 Commission Excerpts

Courtesy of the WSJ Opinion Journal, here are a few excerpts of their excerpts of the 9/11 Commission's report:

So the doctrine of pre-emption has its uses, after all. In a world of conflicting intelligence, uncertain consequences and potential foreign opposition, it is still sometimes necessary for America to attack an adversary before it attacks us.

That, reduced to its essence, is the main conclusion of yesterday's 567-page report from the 9/11 Commission. The September 11 attacks may have been a shock, it says, but they never should have come as a surprise. Our government--and the entire political class--knew enough to act against al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, but it did not because of "failures of imagination, policy, capability, and management." Though the bipartisan report can't quite bring itself to use the words, it would seem that the Bush anti-terror doctrine lives. [...]

Beginning in 1997, the U.S. tried diplomacy to get the Taliban to drop al Qaeda and Pakistan to drop the Taliban, but the efforts failed. We now know that only an ultimatum turned Pakistan, and only military force toppled Mullah Omar.

The report discloses that the CIA failed to infiltrate the terrorist Islamic network with even a single spy. The FBI failed to share crucial information about terrorist suspects. In other words, our security bureaucracies became hidebound and self-protective over the years, and their cultures need a thorough shaking up. [...]

Notably, the Commission performs a service by defining the threat we now face in refreshing fashion. "The enemy is not just 'terrorism,' " it says. "It is the threat posed specifically by Islamic terrorism." Bush Administration officials say the same thing privately, but they have been reluctant to state this publicly lest they offend the broader body of peaceable Islam. But it is hard to defeat an enemy without defining who it is. And the fact that Islam has a problem with its radical factions is something that Muslims themselves have to face up to.

This failure to speak candidly has ramifications at home, too, specifically in the Transportation Department's continued failure to endorse racial profiling in airport security checks. The policy reduces the government's credibility among ordinary Americans who understand that the policy defies common sense. Commissioner John Lehman noted at one hearing that any airline that set aside more than two Middle Eastern-looking passengers for secondary security clearing at any one time still faces large anti-discrimination fines. [...]

As for Iraq, the final report retreats from its interim judgment that there was no "collaborative relationship." The Commission now says it found no "collaborative operational relationship" to attack the U.S., but it does record extensive and troubling contacts. This includes the news that Richard Clarke, the former NSC aide, himself believed that Iraq had ties to the chemical plant in Sudan that was linked to al Qaeda and bombed by Bill Clinton. The report quotes Mr. Clarke as speculating to a superior about an "Iraq-al Qida [sic] agreement" on the chemical plant. Our readers may recall that Mr. Clarke more recently said there was not a shred of evidence of such ties. [...]

The details, however, should not obscure the Commission's larger message about the dangers of not acting against a looming threat. After a year of recriminations against a President who chose to act against another threat, in Iraq, the report may even do some good.

I hope to read the whole thing eventually, but at 600+ pages, it will be awhile.

Ranting

In the earlier, wild-west days of the Internet, I participated in several news groups whose topics included Open Source Software and software patents. In those groups, if you weren't good at ranting (also known as "flaming"), you would sometimes be marginalized by those who were. As a result, I learned to rant with the best of them.

Jim claims I was ranting in a recent post:

Frankly, Bret, it's hard to take your rants against F9/11 seriously since you haven't (and won't) see the movie.

The rant is the "last three sentences" of the post:

Wish I could say the same for Michael Moore.

As I say, it's easy to make someone look bad by making stuff up. And that is what Joe Wilson and Michael Moore are doing, nothing less, nothing Moore.

That's not a rant. For a comparison, let me show you a real RANT...

...Flame On!!!...

Frankly Jim, it's hard to take seriously the implication that because I "haven't (and won't) see the movie," my opinions regarding the movie should be ignored. Never mind that unfortunately I wasted my time reading the transcript. Never mind that detailed reviews of the movie keep popping up in front of me like beastly belches after a bad breakfast, of which I've read several. But the concept that you can't discuss or have opinions about something you don't have first hand experience with is laughably ludicrious. Following that approach, since you've never been a Republican, we certainly won't take your opinions about Republicans and their policies seriously. You've never personally talked with Bush, so we will just have to dismiss what you have to say about him as silly rants. You've never been to Iraq, so don't dare to have an opinion about what's going on there, or what our policy regarding Iraq should be.

The thing that's especially humerous and rich in irony is that because I haven't personally experienced the movie, I've now been criticized for being critical of a movie which criticizes U.S. actions in Iraq, made by a film maker who has never been to post-Saddam Iraq (I don't think he's ever been to Iraq, but I'm not sure). That's why he doesn't appear in the Iraq portions of the movie. So it's okay for Moore to criticize things he hasn't experienced personally and knows nothing about, but if I criticize Jim's overly inflated impudent idol, I must be ranting. Moore's not ranting, Jim's not ranting, just Bret. Yeah sure, whatever you say Jim.

Jim seems to also think that he's the only person I know who's seen the crockumentary. Nope, not true. I know more than ten other people who have seen it and commented to me about it. Less than half thought it worthwhile to see and those that did are unabashed, apoplectic, irrational Bush-haters. People who would seem to prefer that the country and world be destroyed rather than see Bush re-elected. People who would rather sell their souls than have Bush re-elected. People who would certainly rather have Saddam in power than Bush in power. The people I've talked to who don't have huge hate for Bush thought that the movie sucked big time, plain and simple. You're out-voted Jim, give it up!

There's a long scene (or at least a lot of the words in the transcript are dedicated to it) where a mother whose son has been killed in Iraq shows her grief. What utter bullshit propaganda. No doubt you could have found a mother during WWII to say the same things. Does that mean we should have left Hitler and the Emperor in power? Same for the Civil war and the American Revolution? People die in wars and their mothers are bummed. And not only in wars. People die all the time and families are bummed. This has no bearing on optimal policy in Iraq or on whether or not Bush should be re-elected.

And as long as bummed mothers are shown in the movie, what about the mothers of the 300,000 Iraqis in mass graves? How come there are no shots in the mockumentary of those Jim? Oh I forgot, Saddam sent those mothers to the mass graves as well. Well, where are grieving mothers of the Kurds who were gassed? How about the mothers of the Iraqis and Iranians who died in that war? How about the mothers whose children had their eyes gouged out in front of them by Saddam's torturers? How about the mothers of Israeli children whose body parts were splattered all over the walls of various pizza parlours and markets because of the suicide bombers whose families Saddam paid? Why are there no shots of any of these mothers in the movie? Why Jim, Why? Because the whole damn transcript is one-sided, perverted, bullshit propaganda by a self-loathing, arrogant, money grubbing, deranged, fat, slovenly, stupid, abusive asshole. That's why, and anybody who thinks otherwise is a self deluded moron who makes Bush look like a genius by comparison.

...Flame Off!!!...

So that's an example of what I would write if I were ranting. I assume you can tell the difference relative to the "last three sentences". If you can't tell the difference, or don't care, let me know and I'll use my ranting style more often!

Bush Didn't Lie!

Lord Butler's report into the British pre-war intelligence on Iraq, "Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction" has just been released. The inquiry is critical of the procedures of UK intelligence services, though it essentially aquits Tony Blair from charges that he misused or misrepresented intelligence and has this to say regarding uranium, Iraq, and Africa:

45. From our examination of the intelligence and other material on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa, we have concluded that:

a. It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999.
b. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger’s exports, the intelligence was credible.
c. The evidence was not conclusive that Iraq actually purchased, as opposed to having sought, uranium and the British Government did not claim this.
d. The forged documents were not available to the British Government at the time its assessment was made, and so the fact of the forgery does not undermine it. (Paragraph 503)

Remember, Bush's "Big Lie" from his State of the Union Address was:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Well, it sure seems to me that Bush's statement is perfectly accurate and not misleading in the least. Especially given that the Butler report also confirmed (in paragraph 474) that the Iraqi regime:

a. Had the strategic intention of resuming the pursuit of prohibited weapons programmes, including if possible its nuclear weapons programme, when United Nations inspection regimes were relaxed and sanctions were eroded or lifted.

b. In support of that goal, was carrying out illicit research and development, and procurement, activities, to seek to sustain its indigenous capabilities.

c. Was developing ballistic missiles with a range longer than permitted under relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions.

Speaking of lying, how about Joe Wilson, the former ambassador sent by the CIA to Niger whose evidence (or lack thereof) was used to promote Bush's "Big Lie" accusation?

Instead of assigning a trained intelligence officer to the Niger case, though, the C.I.A. sent a former American ambassador, Joseph Wilson, to talk to former Niger officials. His wife, Valerie Plame, was an officer in the counterproliferation division, and she had suggested that he be sent to Niger, according to the Senate report.

That finding contradicts previous statements by Mr. Wilson, who publicly criticized the Bush administration last year for using the Niger evidence to help justify the war in Iraq. After his wife's identity as a C.I.A. officer was leaked to the news media, Mr. Wilson said she had not played a role in his assignment, and argued that her C.I.A. employment had been disclosed to punish him.

And while we're on the subject of lying and deceit, Dave Kopel, who writes for the National Review Online, has identified Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11, and points out:

Moore's reasonable defenders have made two main points:

First, notwithstanding the specific falsehoods, isn't the film as a whole filled with many important truths?

Not really. We can divide the film into three major parts. The first part (Bush, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan) is so permeated with lies that most of the scenes amount to lies. The second, shorter part involves domestic issues and the USA PATRIOT Act. So far, I've identified only one clear falsehood in this segment (Rep. Porter Goss's toll-free number). So this part, at least arguably, presents useful information. The third part, on Iraq has several outright falsehoods--such as the Saddam regime's murder of Americans, and the regime's connection with al Qaeda. Other scenes in the third part--such as Iraqi casualties, interviews with American soldiers, and the material on bereaved mother Lila Lipscomb--are not blatant lies; but the information presented is so extremely one-sided (the only Iraqi casualties are innocents, nobody in Iraq is grateful for liberation, all the American soldiers are disillusioned, except for the sadists) that the overall picture of the Iraq War is false.

Second, say the Moore supporters, what about the Bush lies?

Well there are lies from the Bush administration which should concern everyone. For example, the Bush administration suppressed data from its own Department of Health and Human Services which showed that the cost of the new Prescription Drug Benefit would be much larger than the administration claimed. This lie was critical to passage of the Bush drug benefit bill. Similarly, Bush's characterization of his immigration proposal as not granting "amnesty" to illegal aliens is quite misleading; although the Bush proposal does not formally grant amnesty, the net result is the same as widespread amnesty. As one immigration reform group put it, "Any program that allows millions of illegal aliens to receive legal status in this country is an amnesty."

But two wrongs don't make a right, and the right response to Presidential lies is not more lies from his political opponents. Moreover, regarding the issues presented in Fahrenheit 9/11, the evidence of Bush lies is extremely thin.

Note that Dave Kopel is not a hard core Republican. In fact, Like Michael Moore, in 2000 he endorsed and claims to have voted for Ralph Nader. However, Kopel seems to be more interested in the truth than in smearing Bush, even though he personally dislikes Bush. Wish I could say the same for Michael Moore.

As I say, it's easy to make someone look bad by making stuff up. And that is what Joe Wilson and Michael Moore are doing, nothing less, nothing Moore.

My Favorite Kerry For President Slogan (so far)

Mickey Kaus (at MSN's Slate) writes:

we survived Carter and we'd survive Kerry (though it will be a long, hard slog!)

Yeah, that's the ticket! That's exactly why I'm voting for Kerry! Since I don't hate Bush, I haven't thought of a better reason yet.

Iraq

I think things are actually going quite well in Iraq. For example, there's this:

Al Qaeda operations in Iraq have encountered unexpected problems. Iraqis have become increasingly hostile to al Qaeda's suicide bombing campaign. Religious leaders, which al Qaeda expects to get support from, have been openly denouncing these bombings. Iraqis, aware that they are more likely, than American soldiers, to be victims of these attacks, are providing more information on where the al Qaeda members are hiding out. Most of the al Qaeda in Iraq are foreigners, and easy for Iraqis to detect. As a result of this, many of the al Qaeda men have moved back to Fallujah, which has become a terrorist sanctuary. The interim government is trying to convince the tribal and religious leaders of Fallujah to back a military operation in the city to clear out the various al Qaeda, criminal and Baath Party gangs. But the gangs of Fallujah are quick to threaten any local leader that shows signs of supporting the government. While the Fallujah leadership is intimidated, many residents of Fallujah are not, and are providing information to the coalition, which has led to attacks, with smart bombs or coalition and Iraqi troops, on buildings used by al Qaeda, or other gangs, as headquarters.

Al Qaeda has found the atmosphere even more hostile elsewhere in Iraq, and many of the terrorists have returned home. This is especially true of those who came from Saudi Arabia (and other Gulf nations, particularly Yemen) and Syria. Few, if any, al Qaeda came from Iran, which is Shia Moslem. Al Qaeda is dominated by Sunni Moslems who are often violently anti-Shia. While the hundreds of returning al Qaeda veterans are still determined to achieve al Qaeda's goals of world domination, they are also more realistic. Fanaticism was not sufficient to chase the foreigners from Iraq, and the Arab media's sensational, and largely false, reporting of the impact of al Qaeda's attacks contributed to the disillusionment.

Knowledge and Productivity

I recently wrote a couple of posts (here and here) about knowledge and its importance in economic growth and wealth creation.

I believe the basic feedback loop is:

Knowledge ==> Productivity ==> Economic Growth ==> Knowledge ...

Interestingly, productivity has been making huge gains lately. Brad DeLong, a professor of economics at UC Berkeley (and ally of Paul Krugman), writes:

On the structural side, the American economy has been growing fast over the past four years. The productive potential of the American economy has grown at an extremely rapid pace. But the rapid growth has not been the result of high investment (more capital). In fact, the rate of investment has been markedly slower than in the late 1990s. It has also not been the result of any action taken by the Bush Administration. Instead, the rapid growth is the result of:

(a) learning to efficiently use the information-technology capital put in place in the late 1990s
(b) becoming smarter about organizing production processes, and
(c) speeding up the pace of work.

This story of positive structural changes in the American economy - the very rapid growth of potential output - is the big story about the economy during the past four years. It's important both at the macro level - why is output-per-man-hour 20 percent higher than it was five years ago? - and at the micro level - how are people today doing their jobs and being 30 percent more productive than their predecessors of a decade ago? The news media aren't covering this well. Yet it's the really big story about the economy in the Twenty-First century.

Note the use phrases "learning" and "becoming smarter" which support the idea that knowledge drives the whole cycle.

Arnold Kling, an economist with a Ph.D. in economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, elaborates:

Productivity is probably the single most important economic statistic. Productivity is what determines our standard of living. In the long run, productivity is what determines how much workers are paid.

(In the short run, wage growth sometimes diverges from productivity growth. If there is a sudden surge in productivity, it usually takes a couple of years for this increase to work its way into wages. Conversely, if there is a productivity growth slowdown, as in the 1970's, it takes a while for wage growth to slow down to match.)

Sustained high productivity growth would cancel out any possible economic worry. Global competition from low-wage workers? High productivity would protect our standard of living. Rising costs from Medicare? As I pointed out in The Great Race, high productivity would make the welfare state affordable (although not optimal). Environmental quality? High productivity would give us the resources to devote to addressing any challenge. On the other hand, low productivity growth would mean that our incomes will be low, our tax burden to pay for entitlements will be high, and environmental issues will be much harder to address.

The excellent productivity news is very important. It may give us a way out of our Medicare and Social Security trap and lift millions out of poverty - and more effectively and painlessly than any set of imposed government policies.

And Now For Something Really Important...

The title of the sixth Harry Potter book will be "Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince":

Rowling made the announcement on her Web site, JKRowling.com, although it took some knowledge of her site by dedicated fans to reveal the title. The path to find the title was explained on a fan's site, WizardNews.com, and was confirmed Tuesday by her literary agent, Christopher Little Agency, which was reached in London by CNN/Money.

Rowling is still in the process of writing the book and no release date has been set, according to her agent. The fifth book in the series, "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix," was published in 2003, and is due out in paperback version in Britain on July 10 and in the United States on Aug. 10.

Go Harry!!!

Rich Presidents

According to Forbes, starting with FDR, the three richest modern day presidents have been FDR, JFK, and LBJ. John Kerry is richer than all but JFK. John Kerry with John Edwards as a running mate may be the richest president/vice-president ticket of all time.

It's amusing to me that all of these very rich presidents are democrats. Why would these spectacularly rich people end up being champions for the common man? Indeed, it seems to me that it would be difficult for them to even to relate to the common man. How would they know what the poor and lower middle class really want for themselves and their children?

My more cynical view is that, like everybody else, their motives were selfish. Since they were already rich and had every material thing they could possibly want, they wanted to further increase their status. They way to do so is to prevent anyone else from becoming rich. The way you do that is to tax high income. It has always struck me that rich-guy populists never propose taxes on wealth. They only propose increasing taxes on high income earners - the exact class of people who might become wealthy and dilute the status of the already rich. Having a high income is not the same as being wealthy.

When they propose a wealth tax of 5% per year on everything over $10M in net assets and 10% per year on everything over $50M in net assets, then I'll believe them when they say they want to "tax the rich."

Economy Set for Best Growth in 20 Years

Despite disappointing job creation in June of only 112,000 jobs, this AP article proclaims:

The economy appears headed for a banner year despite a springtime spike in energy prices and a recent increase in interest rates.

In fact, many analysts are forecasting that the overall economy, as measured by the gross domestic product, will grow by 4.6 percent or better this year, the fastest in two decades.

There were strong 4.5 percent growth rates in 1997 and 1999, when Bill Clinton was president and the country was in the midst of a record 10-year expansion.

But if this year's growth ends up a bit faster than that, it will be the best since the economy roared ahead at a 7.2 percent rate in 1984, a year when another Republican president - Ronald Reagan - was running for re-election.

The slowing jobs growth should be quite worrying for Bush and good news for Kerry.

More on Knowledge

Jim writes:

Precisely because knowledge is so readily accessible (through the Web, etc.), I think the primary issue, as suggested in your subsequent post quoting Huntington, is the institutional infrastructure, i.e., rule of law, evolved regulatory environment (where regulations, e.g., for starting a business, are not bureaucratic), efficient financial mechanisms (stock exchanges, banking system, etc.).

I have a few comments.

Knowledge is required to build the institutional infrastructure to create economic growth and wealth. Though he probably didn't realize it, Jim's quote is actually further evidence to support my thesis on the primary importance of knowledge (relative to other economic factors).

Now for a couple of thought experiments. Let's take our regulatory environment and financial mechanisms today and replace them with those from 100 years ago. Would our productivity and wealth rapidly revert to the much poorer level of 100 years ago? I think not. I think our rate of growth might slow for a bit while we rediscovered the infrastructure knowledge, but I think the institutional infrastructure of the time would have been adequate to support our current level of productivity. After all, there were stock exchanges, futures markets, banks, and a democratic government, and growth did occur 100 years ago.

What if we took today's institutional infrastructure and transplanted it back 100 years? Would the wealth of 100 years ago rapidly converge on what we have today? I think not. They would still have to invent radio, airports, movies, television, computers, cell phones, jets, antibiotics, rockets, satellites, MRI, ICU, IUD, EEG, HTML, internet, interferon, instant replay, remote sensing, remote control, speed dialing, gene therapy, gene splicing, genes, spot welding, heat-seeking, bipolar, prozac, leotards, lap dancing, email, tape recorders, CDs, airbags, plastic, robots, cars, liposuction, transduction, superconduction, dish antennas, step aerobics, smoothies, twelve-step, ultrasound, nylon, rayon, teflon, fiber optics, laser surgery, laparoscopy, corneal transplant, and kidney transplants, to a name a few*. These inventions (knowledge creation) would still have taken many decades.

However, I do agree with Jim that in addition to knowledge, there has to be the will to actually utilize that knowledge. Because knowledge is so freely available, there's only one thing that's keeping every country on the face of the planet from being quite well off within a generation: the will of the people in those countries to utilize that knowledge.

Indeed, that (in my opinion) is the root cause of the extreme Islamic agenda and violence. The knowledge is clear. Using western style institutional infrastructure and technology leads to more economic growth and power than institutional infrastructures compatible with extreme Islam. The jihadis know this. But they want to maintain their current religious beliefs, have an institutional infrastructure that is compatible with those beliefs, yet still be the most powerful culture on earth. There's only one way to achieve that: exterminate everybody in the West. They know that and that's what we're up against.

*The list of technologies copied from a lecture by Michael Crichton.

Why I (Probably) Won't See Farenheit 9/11

There are two reasons I won't go see Farenheit 9/11. First, I simply don't have time and energy. Since Cassia's birth, I virtually never get to see adult movies in the theatres (I think I've only seen maybe two in eight years). I do get to see movies, but they're all kid movies. For example, in the last month I've seen Shrek II and Harry Potter 3, and that's with kids in tow, of course.

Even when it's available as a DVD at Blockbuster, I probably won't watch it. Regarding Farenheit 9/11, Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball of Newsweek write:

But for all the reasonable points he makes, on more than a few occasions in the movie Moore twists and bends the available facts and makes glaring omissions in ways that end up clouding the serious political debate he wants to provoke.

They go on to list some of those bent facts and glaring omissions.

I read "Stupid White Men" by Moore and feel the above quote aptly describes that book as well. I gave him a few hundred pages and a few hours of my time to establish credibility with me, and he failed miserably. Since he has extremely limited credibility in my eyes, it would be rather pointless for me to watch a documentary by him.

After all, it's easy to make someone look bad by making stuff up.