Ascription is an Anathema to any Enthusiasm

“eliminates the possibility of near-term return of atmospheric composition beneath the tipping level for catastrophic effects” — Target atmospheric CO2: Where should humanity aim?

Wow.

The chart shows the income growth for differing income classes: one line for Republican presidents, one for Democrats. Income growth is lower when Republicans rule vs Democrats. The growth is sharply less equitable when Republicans rule than Democrats. There is a slight shift toward lower income groups when Democrats rule.

This chart re-enforces the point highlighted by the Vote View work, i.e. that the primary divide between the two parties is economic issues; with the Republicans laboring on behalf of large economic entities.

Don’t ever forget this chart. Don’t ever pretend it’s not the single most fundamental issue in American politics. Don’t tolerate diversions, this is it. It’s not about war. It’s not about race. It’s not about religion. It’s about who gets the spoils of economic growth. One side is fighting a class war and the other side is not.
More here, and here.

I enjoyed skimming a paper by Edlin, Kaplan, and Gelman on what motivates people to vote.

Snarky wags like to argue that it’s a waste of your time to vote.  “It’s irrational,” i.e. your stupid.  The arguement goes as so: the cost/benefit doesn’t work.  So many things need to happen to make it worthwhile.  Your vote would need to be critical.  He needs to win.  The benefit you hope for needs to get back to you.  If you get the benefit, how big can it be?  In some circles this is treated as conventional wisdom.

Of course, and this important, this argument is a tool of voter suppression.  One reason this line of reasoning is so virulent is independent of it’s validity.  This arguement is an effective tool for convincing your opponents to say home on voting day.

The arguement gleans it’s gloss of credibly from the math like analysis and the appeal to that high principle: rationality.   You can dispute the arguement in assorted ways, for example substituting some other high principle such as responsibility or community.

The paper undermines the arguement on it’s own terms.  And it is very simple.

It is stupid to argue that the only rational benefit we get from voting is selfish.  Once you break the connection between rational and selfish the arithmetic changes.  The benefit two terms: one selfish and one unselfish.  Call that second term the social benefit.  This changes everything because the social benefit is multiplied by the size of the population!  Put a million people into the population and even a 20 dollar benefit per citizen gets big.  No doubt most of us think the per citizen benefit of our candidate winning is much larger than a few bucks.
Of course both the selfish-benefit term and the social-benefit term are discounted.  But notice that means the more social minded you are the more likely you are to vote.  One reason the “it is irrational to vote” line of arguement works to suppress is how it makes the selfish term more salient in the mind of the voter, making him forget his more socially aware side.  In fact most political activist usage of the rational choice ideas in political debate is playing that card.
I’ll note that this has changed clarified my thinking about mandatory voting laws.  I’ve always found them a bit distasteful.  I’ve had a few arguements for while I don’t like these laws. Coercing people into good behavior is a bit troubling - it seems to put the cart before the horse.  I’m also bothered by the tone of those who advocate such rules.  That tone has always seems scolding and righteous.   The model above provides another arguement; selfish is toxic to good governance.  Forcing selfish people to vote?  I’m not sure that’s wise.
You can grab the paper here: Voting as a Rational Choice: Why and How People Vote to Improve the Well-Being of Others.  The paper is a bit more subtle, and hence interesting.

Nasty polarizing rhetoric dressed up as entertainment is par for the course these days.  Mixing in the entertainment makes them particularly virulent.  James Wolcott is particularly skilled as parsing out the various patterns used in this toxic political theater.   Here for example he sketches the outlines of a nasty attack on Hillary Clinton.  In this example the libertarian attack poodle uses a bad word and then runs around in circles snapping angrily at it’s own tail (nominally punishing it’s self for such naughty behavior).  Meanwhile the other poodles stand around an yap.

The Irish decided to impose a 33 cents tax on those plastic bags that retailers use. I presume this was in part a sin tax, in part an attempt to tax the externalities created by the bags, and in part a bit of stunt. The end of the story is that it’s wiped out the use of plastic bags, shifted social norms about bag usage. It’s a fascinating story about deciding to change the way a society behaves; making it acceptable to shun those who exercise their freedom to use plastic bags.

For some reason that story is currently slotted in my mind with the health care debate’s latest point of discussion.

The question at hand is should we put everybody into the system, or should we allow people to opt out. Allowing people to opt out would presumably create incentives for people to game the system. Or putting it another way it would allow people to gamble that they aren’t going to need health care during the next time interval.

Boffins think that this single choice would have a sharp effect on costs. Plans were we all join look likely to cost us each about $2,700 a year, while those were we allow gaming would cost $4,400 per year. Intuitively that sounds about right - you just take a guess on how many people would decide to take a swag at getting away with no healthcare, say 25%, and then you figure that group is likely to be somewhat less likely to need care, say 60% less; an you get similar numbers.

So that’s 63% more expensive or additional $147/month. Our faux progressive funding system pushes most of the cost of these social programs onto the middle and upper middle class so you can multiply that as you think is appropriate. But that class struggle is less interesting to me today.
What this highlights is how it creates two classes: those who decide they want to take the gamble, in one class, are costing everybody who decides to join, the second class. It is an interesting case of creating a clear cost to the majority group by allowing a minority a freedom. The boffins think that minority is pretty large. Will those who join will shun those who take the gamble? Will the system create shifting social norms, like the Irish experience with the bags, where it becomes unacceptable behavior to take that gamble?
There is another interesting take though. An intertemporal one. I presume that many of those who might decide to take that bet they won’t get sick will be young people. There are plenty of reasons to think that. Young people tend to be less able to afford the insurance. They tend to be less risk adverse. They tend to be healthier. They tend to have less common cause with large institutions. Over time a person is two people; a young person, and then latter a older person. The first of these is raising the costs of the second one.

Actually there are really three people or more people in each individual, since for example, what makes for a healthy young person is a healthy childhood. So the healthy young person that opts out has his head in a bag, selectively blind to both to the past and the future.