Math doesn't lie... Right?

If a bucket has 2 apples in it, and you add 2 more apples, how many apples are now in the bucket?

4 right?

2 + 2 = 4

"Math doesn't lie." Right?

That's true, "Math doesn't lie." But math CAN be wrong.

What if I told you the correct answer is 6?

Would you cry foul and declare your original answer to be true? Would you show me mathematical theorems and proofs that demonstrate that 2 + 2 DOES in fact equal 4?

As I said, "Math doesn't lie.", but math CAN be wrong when it tries to represent the real world. Or, let me rephrase - we are wrong when we assume that the world described by the math, identically represents the world in which we live.

In our scenario, that math didn't lie. In fact, the math wasn't wrong. But we were wrong when we assumed that the math accurately represented the world. What the math failed to take into consideration was that John also added 2 apples to your bucket. Thus, there are now 6 apples in your bucket.

"That's not fair! You never mentioned anything about anyone else." 

That's true, but when we create math to model the world, we aren't TOLD all the characters and variables and the exact scale and nature of their effects. We have to derive them ourselves. Sometimes, in simple systems, we can deduce all of them and the math does accurately reflect that system. However, the more complex the system, the more variables, the more interactions, the more complex the math, the more difficult it is to discover all affected and affecting variables, and the easier it is to miss (or misunderstand) something. Thus, when we create mathematical models to represent extremely complex systems, the potential for overlooking variables (or even simply under or over estimating their effects) is not only possible, it's likely.

In the world described by the math, John doesn't exist. Nobody other than you exists. Therefore, if you only added 2 more apples, there will only be 4 apples in the bucket now. It's simple, it's straightforward, but it'd be wrong. Overlooking John as a variable means that, while the math didn't lie; while the math wasn't wrong, it did not reflect reality. And if we had based our actions on the result of that math, we would have potentially made the wrong decision.

Let's say that we adjust our math, represent John, and based on this math, decide we have enough apples to bake an apple pie. However, what happens to our plans if, because of our mathematical oversight of not considering Sally, we only wound up with only 1 apple in our bucket because our math didn't represent that she removed 5 apples for herself? Based on our math, we would have concluded that we had enough apples, and we would have began preparing to bake. However, at some point, we would have come up very short of apples.

Similarly, when we try to model complex systems like climate or the economy, we can easily draw the wrong conclusions and plan the wrong actions based on, not faulty, but incomplete, math.

Even looking at previous data can be misleading if not all variables are considered. If we look at data that shows that home sales went up at the same time that tax rates went up, we could draw the conclusion that higher taxes cause increased home sales. Based on this conclusion, we could plan to raise them even more in hopes of further increasing home sales. However, by overlooking that a new factory opened up a few miles down the road, our conclusion would be wrong, and our actions would be mistaken. In the end, our wrong conclusion and the following actions might have led to not only the reduction in home sales, but also possibly the closing of the factory.

This type of oversight can happen easily. Looking at some specific economic data, one can easily see how people would conclude that getting into WW2 got us out of the Great Depression. However, the data doesn’t tell the whole picture. Similarly, many economists and politicians will bring up a chart or point out some data that indicates that their prescribed action worked in the past and should be implemented now. But without taking a full, contextual view of that event and that time, it’s difficult to understand all the variables that may have affected things.

“So are you saying we can’t trust math? Well we might as well throw it all out the window?”

My point isn't to say we should ignore math. My point is that we need to be cautious about just blindly trusting what math "tells" us. We need to understand that in complex systems, even a small misunderstanding of a single variable, let alone possibly omitting one entirely, can change a negative feedback system into a positive feedback system. We need to be careful about basing actions on mathematical models without trying to look at the entire context of the situation. Otherwise, we may very likely find out we don't have enough apples.

The "Good Side" of Regulations

We have created a system, a bureaucracy, that is self-perpetuating. People whose job is to come up with more and ever more invasive regulations, restrictions, directives and mandates.  I've complained about these rules before. Crafted "in the name of the people" for our own good, and enforced with the full, threatening power of the government.

Some would argue that some regulations are necessary. Well, some may be tolerable, but what if we reached that point a long time ago? What if we have passed the point of acceptable, useful, needed regulations and into the point of pedantic bureaucratic market meddling? Worse, the organism we've created encourages ever more regulations. New bureaucrats with something to prove, departments that must show they're doing something to earn that ever larger budget they're requesting. How will we ever know if we've gone beyond that necessary point? 

But the part that is often overlooked is that whether you agree with the regulation or not, they have a cost. By requiring that businesses improve their product in some way, or that they pay their employees more, or that they use more expensive equipment, or that they use more environmentally friendly processes, you are increasing the cost of producing that product. And since that company isn't going to sell their product for a loss (at least not for very long), then that company is going to increase the price of the product in order to cover the increased cost of producing it. 

So in the end, it is you and I, that pay the increased cost of these regulations! 

Again, you can argue about whether each new regulation is worth the associated cost, but, as this link shows, it seems to me that we have already passed the point of diminishing returns a long time ago.  

http://mises.org/daily/4781

Slippery Slope

Many like myself criticize government regulations and intervention by saying that while the act may seem and sound reasonable now, it will lead to ever more invasive actions. We talk of the slippery slope. We have, for years, suggested that increased regulations were, instead of protecting people, were going to lead to the OPPOSITE of freedom. And all along, we have been dismissed and chastised for "fearmongering" or simply exaggerating.

One of my personal favorites when decrying regulations was to suggest that if it doesn't stop, pretty soon 10 year olds' lemonade stands will be forced to submit to health inspectors and apply for a permit or be forced to shut down. And, predictably, I've been accused of using an absurd fallacy to make my point.

However, the slippery slope exists and while the results are absurd, it's not fallacious to be wary of it.

Along similar lines, people like myself have also argued that a truly free market has not existed for years ... like 150 years at least (if ever). While it's sometimes difficult to see the negative impacts of federal intervention, this is a great example to see how even local govt intervention can distort a market in favor of those with political ties. What's bad is that this kind of government "preferential" intervention goes back forever. Even in the mid-1800's, when the concept of robber barons and of industry's tyrannical oppression of its customers really began, we can look closer and see that most such instances (I would recommend you read the entire book or hopefully that first section, but at least read a page or two starting half way down page 12) were actually cases of govt intervention ending a free market and creating a preferred market for a specific preferential industry, business, or person.

Anyone that even TRIES to argue that the US is a free market is so removed from reality as to be dismissible. Keep these stories in your back pockets the next time someone says that the "free market" failed or that "free market capitalism" is the cause of our problems.

Explain this

The Democrats who voted for the health care bill use the 'Interstate Commerce' clause as the authority for regulating health insurance.   How does that work considering that health insurance is already not allowed to be sold across state lines.  Therefore, by DEFINITION, health insurance is NOT interstate commerce.

Somebody please explain it to me.

Stop Subsidizing Everything!!

An article from the Cato Institute describes my frustration with "part-time" conservatives:

Government Support for Nuclear Energy Misguided

Peter van Doren have long argued that the case for government intervention in energy markets is flimsy: "Despite promises in the 1950s that nuclear power would soon become 'too cheap to meter,' 50 years of lavish federal subsidies and regulatory preferences have yet to produce an industry that can turn a profit without taxpayer help."Calling the plan "radioactive corporate welfare," Taylor says the plan is highly misguided:President Obama announced this week he would allocate billions of dollars in loan guarantees to build a new nuclear power plant in Georgia, the first new nuclear power plant in the U.S. in thirty years. Cato scholars Jerry Taylor and

A good default proposition regarding the government's role in the economy would state that the government should not loan money to an enterprise if the enterprise in question cannot find one single market actor anywhere in the universe to loan said enterprise a single red cent. It might suggest — I don't know — that the investment is rather … dubious. Alas, like all good propositions regarding the government's role in the economy, this one is being left by the roadside by the Obama administration.

Many conservatives who regularly defend free and open markets praised Obama's decision to subsidize nuclear energy. The editors of National Review wrote, "the president has sent a clear message to the country — and to environmentalists — that nuclear will be part of the country's future energy mix. For that message, he deserves our approbation." Cato scholars have repeatedly warned against supporting such subsidies in energy markets, criticizing so-called "free-market advocates" who lose their way when it comes to energy policy. Taylor and Van Doren write: 

Rather than defend free markets, [conservatives] bang the table about the need for national energy plans and government timetables for energy-plant construction…. How is the conservative case for the above subsidies any different from the liberal case for subsidizing solar or wind energy, or high-mileage automobiles — or, for that matter, the case for government backing of financial institutions and automobile companies? It isn't, and conservatives should not check their skepticism about central planning and the bureaucratic ordering of markets at the door when they walk into the energy-policy funhouse.

Taylor and Van Doren further outline a plan for sound energy policy in the Energy Chapter of the Cato Handbook for Policymakers. For more, read Richard L. Gordon's 2008 Policy Analysis on energy policy and government subsidies that makes the case against government intervention in energy markets.

I recognize that nuclear is good, necessary, and a WAY better energy generator than wind and solar. But encourage it by LOWERING REGULATIONS/RESTRICTIONS!!! Stop thinking the only way that anything will ever develop is if government throws money (Other People's Money) at that market.

When supposedly fiscal/limited government conservatives jump on the subsidizing bandwagon just because that money would be going toward something they like or agree with, it makes me question the validity of their claims of truly being limited government. I know, I know, "But we need energy independence ASAP! It's about our national security. It's about lowering energy costs for those struggling. We can't wait to battle for lower regulations or for the market to mature itself. We must act

now!"

Sound frighteningly like another party I know.

Under the cover of darkness

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has the responsibility to police the business world (in the name of "Protecting America's Consumers"). They have a great deal of power to regulate corporations. And their power to enforce of these regulations is even greater. At the very least, they can just drag the process out to the point of enormous expense and loss of business.


With such power, in our government, there are supposed to be checks and balances. Congress should have bipartisan discussions about the power the FTC and all sub-organization agencies have and specifically those in positions of power in those agencies. Instead, what often happens is wholesale bypassing of discussion/debate.




These appointments (and who knows how many others) get tossed in at the end of the day (~8pm) with about a dozen people in the room, many of which are probably clerks and staffers (see video - slider time; ~625:30).  No discussion of qualifications, biases, philosophy; just basically "Approve them all."

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to consider Executive Calendar Nos. 603, 604, 610, 625, 629, 630, and 700 so that the nominees be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc; that no further motions be in order; and that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate’s action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

This is incredible. Now I'm not Congressional parliamentary procedure expert, so I may be reading this all wrong, but it seems that just  saying, "I'd like to pass this as long as nobody objects." when nobody else is in the room doesn't smack of a republic (or even a democracy). 

If you look at the description of the Senate Executive Calendar, you'll see that it does contain nominations: 

Nominations

This section identifies Presidential Nominations submitted to the Senate for confirmation, placed on the Executive Calendar with a sequentially assigned calendar number and ready for Senate floor consideration.

But that description doesn't seem to imply that they can just bypass consideration. So I take this to mean that these nominations are supposed to considered by both parties on the floor.  Apparently not.


Here's how I read these statements individually:

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to consider Executive Calendar Nos. 603, 604, 610, 625, 629, 630, and 700 

Ok, nothing major here. It seems this is just wanting to elevate these particular items to the floor for consideration [tomorrow?].  Then they will discuss each of them individually, right? 

so that the nominees be confirmed en bloc

Oh.  Well, at least they can't be confirmed with the Republican motions to reconsider (objections) blocking them.

the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc

huh? All of them?  Just like that? Well, as long as the the Republicans can resubmit their motions before confirmation...

that no further motions be in order

Wait, what? Now Republicans CAN'T submit motions to reconsider?

and that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate’s action, 

Read: "Appropriate paperwork be done"

and the Senate then resume legislative session. 

"Just move along. Nothing to see here." Well surely nobody would allow this to just go by unchallenged.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Oh come on! 


I'm not only getting on the Democrats, I'm sure Republicans did the same blasted thing during their tenure. But that doesn't excuse the practice of what appears to be rubber stamp approving all the weasels while the farmer is asleep.


Almost makes one wonder if someone could just slip in there real quick right before adjourning when there are like 2 clerks and a transcriptionist and say, "I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to consider Executive Calendar number 777 to direct all tax dollars to this offshore account; that a small island be granted to me; that all motions in objection be tabled; that no further motions be in order; that take-backs aren't allowed; that I'm rubber and you're glue; that no paperwork be filed on this in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of my retirement; and the Senate then resume legislative session."

Without objection, it is so ordered.