Science vs the Republicans: Part 1 (the US)

John Quiggin23 Comments

I’ve previously observed that it’s now virtually impossible to be an orthodox Republican (or an Australian follower of Republican ideology) and believe in science. To be counted as one of the faithful, it’s necessary to take a party-line view on scientific issues ranging from global warming to epidemiology to evolution. One aspect of this, which I’ve pointed to in the past, is the proliferation of “junk science’ sites, which, while purporting to defend science, act like trial lawyers, selecting (and if necessary distorting) the evidence that supports the party line, while ignoring or libelling any researcher whose findings are politically inconvenient[1].

The eponymous Junk Science site of Stephen Milloy sets the pattern here, but it has largely been eclipsed by Tech Central Station, an Astroturf operation, run by James K. Glassman and featuring such luminaries as David Legates, Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas. A pretty good list of other party-line sites can be found by looking at Stephen Milloy’s recommended links, though by some mistake the list of recommendations includes the (entirely reputable) American Meteorological Society [I didn’t check every single recommendation, so there may be other similar cases, but the majority are clearly advocacy sites].
Read More »

A disturbing letter

John Quiggin15 Comments

The issue of whether the Howard government is, as the Labor party has claimed, the highest-taxing government in Australian history[1] is not only politically contentious, but statistically complicated. A couple of weeks ago, David Bassanese had a piece in the Fin using Australian Bureau Statistics data to argue in support of this claim.

I was disturbed today, to see a letter from Rob Edwards of the ABS, responding to Bassanese and supporting the government line. In particular, the letter accused Bassanese of unspecified errors and argued in favor of relying on cash measures of the deficit (Bassanese used accruals for recent years and “cash converted to accruals” estimates for earlier years). While the ABS has occasionally responded to direct criticism of its figures (for example, my own criticisms of its multifactor productivity estimates), I don’t recall a previous instance where it’s been involved in partisan controversy of this kind.

As readers of this blog will know, the issue is far too complex for simple answers like those put forward by Bassanese and Edwards to be regarded as definitive. But Bassanese is a journalist writing what’s clearly intended as commentary rather than news. He’s entitled to put forward his own views. Edwards is supposed to be a neutral public servant.

It’s been a long time since I took on trust anything coming out of policy departments like Treasury and the Productivity Commission. Under the present government, we’ve already learned we can’t trust statements from the armed forces, the Defence Department or the Electoral Commission. But until now, I’ve never seen any serious evidence of political interference with ABS. This letter suggests that the process has begun.

(The Edwards letter follows).
Read More »

Blair bereft

John Quiggin4 Comments

The day before Tony Blair turns up in Washington to give yet another demonstration of support for the mess Bush is making of Iraq, we have the spectacle of Bush and Sharon tearing up the “roadmap for peace”, one of the key elements on which Blair sold the Iraq war to the British Labour Party, and Bush endorsing Sharon’s plans to annex most of the West Bank. It’s hard to imagine that Blair could stand for such a gratuitous insult, but equally hard to imagine him doing anything about it.
Read More »

Investment and the FTA

John Quiggin14 Comments

At least one reader has asked for my views on the investment aspects of the proposed FTA between Australia and the US. The provisions aren’t that extensive. It appears that the threshold for Foreign Investment Review Board review will be raised, but this will have little direct impact since hardly any proposals are rejected.
Read More »

Manifestation

John Quiggin8 Comments

I’ve been interviewed by the 7:30 report regarding the resignation of Bob Mansfield, the Telstra chairman. Unless something more newsworthy bumps it, some of the interview should go to air tonight. Those who don’t care about the visual component can read my general views on Telstra here, here and here.

On the proposal that led to Mansfield’s downfall, that Telstra should buy Fairfax, my reaction is “What were they thinking!?” Obviously the majority of the board could see howinappropriate this idea was for a company owned by the Federal government and directly controlled by the shareholding ministers. But even if Telstra were fully privatised, it would be a terrible idea for a major regulated monopoly to own large chunks of the press or, as in the previous proposal to buy Channel 9, TV.

More research on speeding and road deaths

John Quiggin4 Comments

Thanks to reader Christoper Short for alerting me to this NBER Working Paper by Orley Ashenfelter and Michael Greenstone which gives more information on speeding and road deaths. Most of the article concerns statistical pitfalls in estimation, but I’ll focus on the bottom line which is their estimate that the implicit value of the time saved per life lost as a result of relaxation of rural speed limits in the US in the 1980s was in the range $1.2 million to $3.2 million in 1997 values.

This sounds like a lot, but it’s lower than most estimates of the value people place on risks to life (for example, looking at stated willingness to accept risk, wage premiums for risky occupations, or costs of medical procedures that are generally accepted as cost-effective). I discuss this a bit more here and you can find more discussion by searching the site for “speeding”[1].
Read More »

JSTOR

John Quiggin5 Comments

Just a note that anyone interested in the issues of intellectual property and the Internet could usefully look at JSTOR: A history by Roger Schonfeld. JSTOR was the first big attempt to put complete series of academic journals (including back issues) online and free[1]. Despite a lot of missteps, JSTOR survived and prospered while well-funded commercial ventures failed. I’m pleased to say the economics profession played a prominent role, with the American Economic Review, Econometrica and others being among the early participants.

The success of JSTOR is an illustration of the proposition, put forward most clearly by Clay Shirky that the economics of the Internet favour the free provision of content by those seeking fame (taken generally to include anyone who has something to say and wants others to read it) over fee-based content created by those seeking fortune.

fn1. Quite a few commentators over at Crooked Timber have pointed out that JSTOR isn’t free or easily accessible to individuals, though it is non-profit and the charges for library subscriptions are modest – less than a single commercial journal in many cases.

Breaking the circuit

John Quiggin7 Comments

Since the situation in Iraq seems to have stabilised momentarily, this might be a good time to think about measures that could prevent a renewed downward spiral. An essential starting point, and a relatively easy measure, would be to dump both Bremer and Chalabhi. Every major decision Bremer has made has been a disaster, from the dissolution of the Iraqi army to the failed attempt at rigged elections based on “caucuses” to the decision to pick a fight with Sadr. The cumulative result is that the Coalition is stuck with a promise to hand over power on June 30 and no-one remotely credible to hand it to. The other party in all of this is Chalabhi, who is still apparently Bremer’s preferred candidate, despite the fact that he has zero credibility in Iraq or, for that matter, anywhere outside the Pentagon. It might not be feasible to remove him from the Governing Council, but he should be dumped from any administrative position he holds, and particularly from his role in the disastrous de-Baathification campaign.

My suggestion for the next step would be to send Powell to Baghdad to take personal charge of the proposed transition. Although he’s been compromised like everyone else in the Administration, he’s by far the most credible person they have.
Read More »

Does Gerard Henderson own a dictionary ?

John Quiggin13 Comments

In today’s SMH, Gerard Henderson writes

Few now disagree with the proposition that the international community should have acted pre-emptively to stop the Rwandan genocide of Tutsis of a decade ago. Few disagree that it was proper for the US-led NATO forces, without the approval of the United Nations, to intervene pre-emptively against Serbia in support of the Muslim Kosovars.

Both the events Henderson refers to showed the international community in a very poor light, for failing to respond to terrible crimes when they were taking place, but, as far as I know, no-one has ever suggested that the countries in question should have been invaded in advance, to forestall the mere possibility that such things might happen. i can only conclude that Gerard has forgotten the meaning of the word pre-emptive.

In relation to Iraq, there would have been a strong case for doing something about Saddam’s worst crimes against humanity in the 1980s. The only problem with such a proposal is that Donald Rumsfeld might have been caught in the crossfire.