Athenian Oath

The Athenian Oath, also known as the Ephebic Oath.

I will not bring dishonour on my sacred arms nor will I abandon my comrade wherever I shall be stationed. I will defend the rights of gods and men and will not leave my country smaller, when I die, but greater and better, so far as I am able by myself and with the help of all. I will respect the rulers of the time duly and the existing ordinances duly and all others which may be established in the future. Furthermore, if anyone seeks to destroy the ordinances I will oppose him so far as I am able by myself and with the help of all. I will honor the cults of my fathers. Witnesses to this shall be the gods Agraulus, Hestia, Enyo, Enyalius, Ares, Athena the Warrior, Zeus, Thallo, Auxo, Hegemone, Heracles, and the boundaries of my native land, wheat, barley, vines, olive-trees, fig-trees..

A pretty high bar for most of our political class. Love that a 2,500 year old declaration is still both inspiring and pertinent.

Alternative translations include:

I will never bring reproach upon my hallowed arms, nor will I desert the comrade at whose side I stand, but I will defend our altars and our hearths, single-handed or supported by many. My native land I will not leave a diminished heritage, but greater and better than when I received it. I will obey whoever is in authority, and submit to the established laws and all others that the people shall harmoniously enact. If anyone tries to overthrow the constitution or disobeys it, I will not permit him, but will come to its defence single-handed or with the support of all. I will honour the religion of my fathers. Let the gods be my witness: Agraulus, Enyalius, Ares, Zeus, Thallo, Auxo, Hegemone.

Also

We will never bring disgrace on this our City by an act of dishonesty or cowardice. We will fight for the ideals and Sacred Things of the City both alone and with many. We will revere and obey the City's laws, and will do our best to incite a like reverence and respect in those above us who are prone to annul them or set them at naught. We will strive unceasingly to quicken the public's sense of civic duty. Thus, in all these ways, we will transmit this City not only, not less, but greater and more beautiful than it was transmitted to us.

Evidence on micro-lending effectiveness

Well, that's disappointing. Micro-lending was still relatively new when I was majoring in International Economics with a focus on Economic Development way back 35 years ago. It promised a lot and there was a natural logical appeal to it. Over the years, I have remained marginally interested in its progress as it spread to other countries, became more formalized, etc. I read some skeptical assessments but also some very positive ones.

Now there's this report, Microloans Don’t Solve Poverty by Ben Casselman.

What the mailing didn’t mention was that Morduch’s quote was from 2005, before a decade of research called into question the effectiveness of so-called microcredit as a tool for fighting poverty. More recently, a series of six independently conducted randomized controlled trials found that a variety of microlending programs had little to no effect on participants’ income or financial well-being. Morduch now says that the studies, along with earlier research that reached similar conclusions, suggest that the impacts of microcredit have been, at a minimum, “overhyped.” (A FINCA spokesman said Morduch’s quotation would be removed from future mailings.)

Researchers say the recent studies carry a broader message about the need for rigorous research in charitable programs. Microcredit has grown into a $60-billion-plus industry reaching 200 million borrowers worldwide despite limited evidence that it actually achieves its goals. Anecdotes like Chikaluma’s are powerful, they say, but only data can reveal what programs work and, just as importantly, how to make them more effective.

The idea behind microcredit is compelling in its simplicity: In many parts of the world, the best pathway out of poverty is entrepreneurship — selling firewood or food or clothing. But the poor often can’t cobble together even the few dollars necessary to get such businesses off the ground. By giving people access to small loans — often in the hundreds of dollars or even less — microcredit organizations allow would-be entrepreneurs to buy, for example, chickens to produce eggs or a refrigerator to keep food cold. And because the help comes in the form of a loan, not a grant, a single dollar of aid can be recycled to help many people.

[snip]

But even as microcredit drew attention, there was relatively little evidence that it succeeded in reducing poverty. Some critics even claimed the opposite: that microcredit left the poor worse off by saddling them with debt. News reports went so far as to link suicides in India to the stress of struggling to pay back microloans.

The recent research rejects both extremes. The studies find no evidence that borrowers are, on average, hurt by the loans. But they don’t appear to be helped much either. In a paper introducing the six randomized studies, economists Abhijit Banerjee, Dean Karlan and Jonathan Zinman walked through the findings: None of the six studies found statistically significant increases in household income or spending. Four of the six found no change in food consumption; one found a modest increase and the sixth found a significant decrease.

Some of the studies did find ancillary benefits. Borrowers got more of their income from their businesses, suggesting that they displaced other sources of income such as wages or government benefits. Those businesses also appear to have become more profitable. But the studies didn’t find any significant increases in school attendance or women’s empowerment in local communities, two commonly cited benefits of microcredit. The findings echoed those of earlier studies that also revealed minimal impacts.

That won't be the last word. There will be further studies. There will be debate. Perhaps there will be tweaks that might make it effective. But it seems like this might be one more logically seductive social policy that doesn't actually make a difference. Fortunately though, it does not, as is the case with some well-meaning social policies, actually cause negative consequences.

Evidence-based decision-making is harsh, holding good and well intentioned people to hard standards. All data has to be viewed skeptically but there are too many people in the well who eschew data completely if it stands in the way of making decisions which are emotionally satisfying rather than effective.

But some microcredit leaders reject the studies’ findings outright. Rupert Scofield, who runs FINCA, one of the largest and most prominent microlenders, said randomized controlled trials work well in medicine but don’t make sense in evaluating development aid. He said that for years, his response to claims like Duflo’s was to say he didn’t need data when he could see the effect firsthand.

“I would just say dismissively to them, ‘I don’t have time for that,’” Scofield said. “It’s perfectly obvious what our impact is … I don’t need proof. As long as the clients are coming to us, that’s all I need to know.”

FINCA has now developed its own measure of success, a step Scofield now says he wishes he had taken earlier. But he said he already knows that the outside researchers’ findings are flawed. “The fact that they would reach these conclusions that I personally know to be false really discredits them in my eyes,” Scofield said.

Damn the evidence! Full speed ahead. One more departure from reason into faith.

Corrective action, inherent risk and trade-offs

From Robert Higgs

When libertarians (or simply people with common sense) argue against proposals to solve a certain class of perceived problems (e.g., mass murders by odd-ball lunatics or crazed zealots) by imposing more stringent government controls, closer surveillance, and so forth, the proponents often reply: well, if you don't think my idea for government action will work, what do you propose instead to solve the problem? They are never happy when told that a better idea is to do nothing to solve it.

Yet, in truth, problems of a certain sort (e.g.,mass murders by odd-ball lunatics or crazed zealots) do not have a solution in anything even close to a free society. These types of problems involve such unsystematic, infrequent, and inexplicable actions that no one can anticipate and preempt them. Lighting will strike people sometimes; nothing can be done about it except to advise people to stay inside during thunder storms and in no event to go outside carrying an iron rod.

So, one might propose, for example, that the U.S. government stop blundering around in the Middle East carrying the "iron rods" that will attract the lightening of aggrieved Muslims whose friends, relatives, or causes have been harmed or killed by American actions. Absent such general palliatives, one must simply resign himself to the reality that occasionally -- albeit very, very infrequently -- bad things will happen. Even locking every human being in a cell will not solve such problems, either, because bad things happen in prisons, too. Indeed, nearly everything that happens in a prison or an unfree society is bad.

Good question

From Thomas Sowell.

Those who want to “spread the wealth” almost invariably seek to concentrate the power. It happens too often, and in too many different countries around the world, to be a coincidence. Which is more dangerous, inequalities of wealth or concentrations of power?

When it comes to advocacy, it is almost always about taking power and resources away from those who have earned it and giving it to those who have no demonstrated capabilities.

The data says otherwise

A very interesting article, The Mystery of Missing Inflation Weighs on Fed Rate Move by Josh Zumbrun.

For years now, I have been arguing with my financial advisor, when looking how to direct my retirement investments, that inflation is likely to pick up soon. And every year I am wrong. The basis for my anticipation of inflation has been at least two-fold. Governments in the US and Europe have been printing money for most of the past decade. Printing money is almost always a prelude to inflation. Second, there has been a massive increase in the middle class around the world. The middle class are big consumers and inflation is in part a function of too much demand chasing too little supply. There were a few other reasons for my anticipating inflation but those were the biggest pillars.

But no inflation to be seen. This affects more than the performance of my retirement accounts as the article outlines.

Why no inflation. The article outlines most of the major theories. Once I was wrong more than three years in a row, I spent some time trying to understand why the forecast was so wrong. Among my theories, some of which are covered in the article and some which are not.

1) Our supply chains and manufacturing processes have gotten so sophisticated that it is rare for there to be real instances where there is too much demand versus an unresponsive supply.

2) That the US government has been sotto voce redefining how inflation is measured so that the items with biggest increases are not included in the indices. There is some fair amount of evidence to support this.

3) Perhaps the increasing size of the global middle-class has contextual attributes which perhaps dampens the size and impact of their increasing demand. Specifically, the largest increases in the middle class have been in India and China. The first is notable for its endemic corruption and the second for the dominance of the central planners (ad their whims). Perhaps concern about the detrimental impact of corruption and uncertainty about the direction of a corrupt and unaccountable central party might reduce the willingness to consume by the newly middle class. Perhaps they are salting away the surplus for an anticipated rainy day but with the additional unplanned effect of reducing inflation.

4) Since much of developed nation increase in productivity appears to be as a result of reduced costs rather than increased output, perhaps that dynamic is suppressing inflation.

5) While unemployment is down at levels where inflation is an important concern, perhaps governmental redefinitions of inflation are giving us a false reading. Even more likely is that the large bench of warehoused workers (visible through the labor force participation rate) likely means that the low unemployment levels are less consequential than in the past.

6) Is there something going on with technology labor substitution that might be at the root of low inflation?

The real answer is that no one understands why we have not experienced material inflation rates. Our models and theory say there should be.

It reminds me of the state of the art in climatology. The theory says one thing and the data say another.

I did like this allusion to confusing correlation with causation. These are big complex systems with relative few data points and a lot of noise.

The Fed’s preferred measure of inflation rose an average of 2.038% a year between 1992 and 2007, bolstering confidence that economists understood how inflation worked. The price of a Fourth of July barbecue, for example, closely tracked the 2% annual target over that period: Average prices for a pound of ground beef went to $2.70 from $1.91; American cheese climbed to $3.91 a pound from $3.01; a 16-oz bag of potato chips rose to $3.65 from $2.84. Wages also rose modestly so workers kept pace.

Central bankers “thought that it must be their own doing,” said Jon Faust, the director of the Center for Financial Economics at Johns Hopkins University, who served two stints at the Fed during that period. “We thought we figured out macro policy, and we could deliver low, stable inflation and stable output and low unemployment and all things good.”

It is also, along with climate science, a suitable reminder that the appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. The experts honestly think they know what they are talking about but the data makes clear that that is not true.

Ideas that cannot be dismissed as obviously wrong

Heh.

Theory: Donald Trump never wanted to be president, is terrified we might elect him, and his attempts to sabotage himself keep backfiring.

— Chris Scott (@iamchrisscott) December 7, 2015

From Tearing Europe Apart by Yanko Tsvetkov

From Tearing Europe Apart by Yanko Tsvetkov.

Evolutionary psychologist Robin Dunbar, who specializes in studying primate brains, once determined that the amount of human individuals in a functional social group cannot exceed 150. This limit, he argued, is a direct function of relative neocortex size. In other words, we don’t have the physical capacity to maintain a meaningful connection with a larger number of people because there is a shortage of drawers in our brain, where we can store all the necessary gossip.

I am familiar with Dunbar's work and have been intrigued by it. I mention it here not for its novelty but simply because I don't think I have mentioned it before and yet it represents one of those possible limits which so deeply affect circumstances, often without our being aware of their influence.

Real time - Internet time

Heh. Dovetails with some research I am doing at the moment.

A group of friends decides to spend less time online. #ExplainAFilmPlotBadly pic.twitter.com/yRcnFYUqkF

— Saladin Ahmed (@saladinahmed) December 13, 2015

From content providers to discontent providers

From content providers to discontent providers. That was a fast evolution.

We're all digital discontent providers now.

— Terry Clague (@TerryClague) December 4, 2015

Sunk costs and Ponzi schemes behind campus protests

I wonder if all the campus protests by such a small minority of students doesn't originate in a mass demonstration of the sunk cost fallacy.

Here's the train of thought.

Most the protests are adherents of Frankfurt School critical theory, critical race theory, post-colonial theory, third wave feminist theory, postmodernism, deconstructionism, Rawlsian social justice theory, etc. These schools of thought, while interesting and of some very marginal utility, are essentially worthless in the marketplace. Some few individuals who are already bright and hardworking and just happened to veer into these intellectual dead ends will come right eventually, simply because they are bright and hardworking. All the rest will fail dramatically unless they can get a position with an academy or an advocacy group. The problem for most is that these are faith based systems of thought to which most people do not subscribe and which cannot be demonstrated to bring value to others. There are some contributions to these groups but very little and nowhere near enough to employ the volume of graduates coming out of various Gender Studies and Ethnic Studies programs.

One very natural consequence is that the practitioners of these schools of thought attempt to bring some legitimacy (or hide their ineffectiveness) by constant redefinition of words and ideas, constant deepening of the jargon so that outsiders cannot understand whether a claim is true or not because the invested effort to run down all the variant definitions and elucidate the actual meaning of the claimed jargon is too high. This was humorously demonstrated with Sokal's hoax article which took the mickey out of this process some thirty years ago but did not deter the practitioners one bit. People from these romantic utopianist traditions of thought still resort to claims of "You just don't understand" when the actual phrase regarding their claims would be "I'm simply wrong."

So build an elaborate superstructure of words and ideas unmoored from logic and evidence and bring in kids to study the arcane religious language of belief. When the students graduate, they have to go on to get graduate degrees because there is no market demand. Once they have their masters or doctoral degrees (and what absurdity there is in the theses titles) the only market is for jobs in advocacy and academia.

The problem is that we likely are at peak academia. Decades of growth now encounter pricing resistance. In addition, given the faith based variance between the Gender Studies and the Ethnic Studies departments and the belief system of the broader society, these departments are beginning to be dismantled. There are too many students chasing too few jobs.

This is where I put together a couple of observations. You look at the photos of these demonstrations and you read the articles and there is a clear domination of African-American studies and Gender studies majors leading the effort. And what are the demands? No, though correct, the answer isn't only that the demands are absurd. Almost all of the demands center on actions that will increase the demand for people skilled in the arcana of the theology of critical race theory etc. Demands for diversity training, for more professors of color, for expanded Gender Studies or Ethnic Studies departments, for more advisory roles. The protests are really just a demand for more jobs for the graduates of Gender and Ethnic studies programs. Why protest? Because there is no market demand, the only buyer can possibly be government.

Why don't administrators and politicians push back? Their desire not to be disrespectful is clearly part of it. The desire to keep the peace another. It is far easier to spend taxpayer money than actually address the real issue - these faith based beliefs have no value.

But part of it, I suspect, is that there is no there there with which to argue. The superstructure of pseudo complexity surrounding Ethnic and Gender studies is such that there is no return to delving into its mysticism of belief in order to argue and refute. These are faith based systems of belief which cannot be refuted because they are not grounded in reality.

Why don't the students simply change their majors instead of continuing their studies? I suspect that it is because of the fallacy of sunk costs. By the time they get deep enough into the liturgy to understand that these are not evidenced-based realities but are mystical belief systems, they are so vested already that they cannot afford to switch. Their only recourse is to push forward and demand for there to be employment in their faith systems even though there is no societal need or desire for them. Only by making themselves a problem can they hope to exact some semblance of opportunity by extorting taxpayers via weak administrators and politicians.

The sad thing is that even were these positions to be opened up, they will still fail for at least two reasons. Because these positions add no value, they are not valued. People in them will be disrespected. Second, this is fundamentally a Ponzi scheme - more professors producing more graduate students require for there to be ever more professorial positions to be opened. That which cannot continue will not. Eventually you run out of suckers willing to support the scheme.