Fake news and skepticism

Fake news has been in the news of late. As if it were something new.

Misinformation, disinformation, propaganda, yellow journalism. They have been with us through the ages. Whether for political or military advantage, religious supremacy, commercial gain, or just malicious gossip, distortion of the truth has a long, sad human history.

In those olden days, the creators and disseminators of widespread untruthful information tended to be state actors or large organizations simply because of the cost of such an endeavor. Gutenberg’s printing press lowered the cost barrier, but it remained relatively high.

More recently but pre-internet, we relied on the reporting and editorial prowess of respected news organizations to gather, proctor, authenticate, and disseminate our news. We knew to trust the news arms of CBS, NBC, and ABC. The New York Times was beyond reproach. For nearby news, our local newspapers provided the same service.

But these brick and mortar news organizations, with reporters and editors, correspondents and investigators, newsrooms and presses, cost money. A lot of money. These costs need be paid by advertising or subscriptions or both.

What is different now is the existence of the internet, social media, and the wild proliferation of smart phones. We can consume news twenty four hours a day, share it, comment on it, be thrilled or repelled by it, and all this for free. (Well, not counting the cost of our phone and wireless bill).

But it is a basic dictum that accurate information is at once valuable and expensive. Free information is not always false and expensive information is not always true, but the odds are very much in favor.

Today, with the wonder of the internet, anyone can publish “news” at his or her whim. And with a modicum of skill, can even create a Facebook page or website which appears to be an authentic replica of a trusted news source.

What is an earnest seeker of truth to do?

The first is to recognize that the major news organizations all have a presence on the internet and still provide that valuable service of authentication. They are not perfectly unbiased, but tend to cluster within center-left to center-right views.  The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal are not likely to outright lie to you, but they will each have their own partisan tilt. A well-informed reader might read them both. (Subscriptions could be an expensive problem which a visit to your local library might solve).

Outside of well-known sources, our next best defense is a healthy sense of skepticism. Particularly alluring are stories which pander to our own biases. It is with these that we must be most skeptical. Hillary Clinton was running a child sex ring in a pizzeria? Donald Trump was a member of the KKK? Really?

The more your personal vibes are pleasantly resonating with this kind of news, the more the need for skepticism. Don’t “like,” don’t share, don’t comment, until you’ve confirmed the report from a trusted, mainstream source.

And please realize that your favorite sites, the ones that always resonate with your belief system, are not likely to be unbiased. Breitbart and ThinkProgress are guaranteed to each have their own strong partisan slant. Depending on your politics, you will likely love one and hate the other. But neither are giving you a balanced view of the facts.

Here is another litmus test. If your news source doesn’t occasionally make you a bit uncomfortable, if it always panders to your worldview, then you are most likely not getting straight news.

Become a savvy internet user. Websites and Facebook pages can be made to look like an authentic news site, with page names or URLs which are not-quite-right. In this age of disintermediation, we must all become our own fact checkers. Be skeptical, don’t believe everything you see.

And finally, seek out viewpoints that make you a bit uncomfortable, and try to understand them. That is how we grow.

Now go forth and conquer!

Is Math a Myth?

There are those who are calling for scaling back mathematics education. One “public intellectual” (whatever that is), Andrew Hacker, has even written a book on the subject: “The Math Myth.”  Hacker loves to use words like “inflict” rather than “teach,” and wonders why we torture young Americans with math education in these days of computers and smart phones. (More on Hacker later).

Here is one reason. Mathematics is the science of reasoning. You might think that of little use, but you must use reasoning to weed out the arguments of political hacks and charlatans every election season. Here is an example.

On November 2, many newspapers ran a political cartoon by Jim Morin of the Miami Herald. The target of Morin’s partisan jibe was those who are concerned about the increasing expense of “Obamacare” premiums.

In the cartoon, a large, rotund loutish fellow, labeled “Health Insurance,” holds the message  “George W. Bush Years (up) 100%.” Next to him is a small, rotund fellow with the message “Obamacare (up) 25%.” Finally, a frenzied character, apparently Republican, is shouting “OH NO, WE NEED TO REPEAL IT!”

Here is Morin’s reasoning:

• Health insurance premiums increased 100% over the Bush years,
• Obamacare premiums are projected to increase only 25%,
• Therefore those concerned about Obamacare increases are hyperpartisan, hysterical idiots.

But, in truth, Morin is either preying on your mathematical ignorance or is a mathematical ignoramus himself. Neither interpretation is flattering.

Over the eight years of the Bush presidency, health insurance premiums did indeed increase about 100%. However, Obamacare premiums are projected to increase 25% this year alone. These two numbers can’t be directly compared because they occur over two very different timeframes.

It’s like saying that Sally made 25 dollars this year and Joe made 100 dollars altogether over the past eight years and then claiming that Joe makes a lot more money than Sally. If we annualize those earnings, Sally makes $25 per year while Joe makes only $12.50 per year ($100 divided by eight).

To compare the two health insurance rates of increase, we must find a common time scale. With a few simple calculations, we find that health insurance premiums increased approximately 9% per year over the eight Bush years. In fact, the Obamacare increase is nearly three times that of Bush on an annualized basis. Morin’s thesis is bankrupt.

Back to Andrew Hacker, who believes that your children are wasting their time in mathematical training. Let’s see how that works in reality.

In late August of this year, Hacker was interviewed on the weekly NPR show “Science Friday.” A political scientist by trade, Hacker is teaching a course called “Numeracy 101” at Queens College which is intended to impart a minimal, but adequate, amount of mathematical training. As a practical exercise, working with his students, Hacker calculated the answer to this question: “What is the ratio of black people killed by police as opposed to white people?”

Hacker breathlessly announced their findings: ” We’re the only ones who’ve discovered it. It’s a public statistic. For every 100 people killed by police, white people, 270 black people are killed. OK?”

Here is mathematical dilettante Hacker crunching numbers to support his liberal belief in racist police officers who kill 2.7 black people for every white person. The NPR audience, surely, ate it up.

But the truth may be a hard master. The Washington Post has been maintaining a database of police shooting statistics for several years based on “public information, news reports, and social media.” They believe it to be not perfect, but quite representative.

In 2015, the Post reports that 494 whites were killed by police. Applying the Hacker ratio, we would expect that 1,334 blacks would have been killed. But such is not the case. The WaPo reported 257 black deaths, a regrettable number, but an order of magnitude less than Hacker’s claim.

In this day and age, it is vital that citizens and voters attain and maintain a modicum of mathematical literacy. It is required to detect and debunk the claims of those aiming to sway you. These claims will be many, and you must question them if they don’t pass the smell test.

We may yet regret our collective decision refusing to expand charter schools. Match Charter in Boston, for example, serving inner city kids, delivered the astounding result of 97% of 10^th graders proficient or advanced in math, compared to 54% of district students.

We need more of that, not less.

Go vote. Think first.

In thirty three days, we will collectively make a momentous decision.

There are two major party candidates and two third party candidates. Ardent as their supporters may be, let us posit that neither of the third party candidates will prevail.

That leaves us two candidates, one on the left, one on the right, both less than perfect. Which way do we tack? Continue on to port, or heave to starboard? It will depend on what the majority of American voters think is most important, and how they assess the ability of each candidate to improve their lives.

Let’s take a broad look at a few topics of concern without prescribing solutions or ascribing relative advantage to either candidate.

1.       Globalization and trade

Globalization has caused wrenching changes in all Western economies, not the least here at home. First, manufacturing jobs moved from New England to the South, then to Mexico, and Asia, and India, constantly searching out lower costs of production. The result was directly observed as job losses. It made criticism of trade agreements, such as NAFTA, easy and popular.

But here is the rub. While certain manufacturing jobs, largely low skill, were lost, the cost of purchasing goods was lowered. The American consumer was able to purchase far more with her dollar. Clothing, dishwares, appliances, bedding, furniture – all could be had at Walmart or Costco or Sears at much lower prices.

The loss of low-skill manufacturing jobs is directly experienced and widely observed. But the benefits accrued from international trade, while enormous, are diffuse and not obviously seen. That a family can purchase new school clothes at a significant saving is not seen nor deemed noteworthy. But when multiplied by 100 million households, this one minor example could rack up billions of dollars in savings. Now multiply this by many other examples of savings gleaned from various daily purchases.

American households, given numerous billions of dollars, will now allocate that money in other ways. Savings. Restaurant meals. Vacations. House renovations. All of which generate additional economic activity and new jobs.

Directly observable costs and diffuse benefits – something to be careful of when arguing positions.

2.       Middle class wage stagnation

Globalization, cheered above, has also contributed to middle class wage stagnation. A displaced manufacturing worker who ends up serving french fries is not advancing up the wage scale. It is an absolute requirement that trade deals include benefits and re-training of displaced workers so that they become qualified for higher skill jobs.

But another more pernicious effect is the lack of economic growth. Growth is the engine that creates jobs, increases demand and competition for workers, and drives higher wages. The past eight years since the financial meltdown have achieved very disappointing growth. The President’s administration projected growth in 2010 for the following five years at 3.9%. GDP actually grew by only 2.2% a year during that time. (Wall Street Journal, 10/4/2016, “Judging President Obama on His Own Terms).

In 2013, the administration reduced their four-year growth projection to 3.3%. The actual growth rate stubbornly remained low at 2.3% during that period. While these differences may seem insignificant, consider this: “Compounding growth at 3.6% annually means a 28% larger economy after seven years. Compounding at only 2.1% means 15.7% growth. If the administration’s growth projections were accurate, the GDP would be about $1.8 trillion larger. That’s roughly $6,000 for every man, woman and child in the U.S.”

What would a family of four do with their additional $24,000? First and foremost, it would move them more solidly into the middle class. And, as mentioned above, they would spend it. Savings. Restaurant meals. Vacations. House renovations. All of which generate additional economic activity and more new jobs.

What is standing in the way of higher economic growth? Why have the administration’s projections gone afoul, stranding innumerable erstwhile wage earners in the doldrums?

Many economists, such as John Cochrane of the Hoover Institute at Stanford University, believe it is in great part due to the growth of the bureaucratic state. Cochrane characterizes overly burdensome business regulation as “sand in the gears” of our economy.

At recent count, there are 81,611 pages in the Code of Federal Regulations costing $2.028 trillion per year in compliance costs. (That’s about $25 million per page). Can we intelligently reduce this burden, so that smog doesn’t return to Los Angles and Lake Erie remains swimmable and banks remain solvent?

One would certainly hope so. It is our choice of president and legislators which will determine our course.

Good luck, dear voter. Think deeply.

Wealth in the modern world

Maasai herder with cattle

With the primary election season upon us, there has been a lot of attention focused on income and wealth. Particularly that of the 1%.

In a widely reported account, Oxfam released a study last week purporting that just 62 billionaires possessed as much wealth as half of the world’s population. Without delving into the politics of equality, taxation, and redistribution, let’s simply look at why that might be.

The first question one might ask is how is wealth measured? In our Western sense, wealth is measured in dollars: the equity in our homes and other possessions, the value of our 401Ks and other bank accounts. These assets are currency-denominated. But to a Maasai nomad, wealth is measured by the number of cattle he owns. The value of those bovines is not likely to show up in Oxfam’s report.

But that is to quibble. It is undeniably clear that Bill Gates holds more assets than all of the Maasai tribes put together, regardless of how those assets are measured.

Another minor confusion to clear up is the distinction between income and wealth. Income is the flow of net additional assets accruing to an individual, typically from labor (wages) or return on capital (investments). For the Maasai, income is measured in milk, not in steaks.

Oxfam does not confuse these, but politicians and the media have a free-for-all, mixing income and wealth in a confusing mélange of “who owns what” and “who earns what.” The answers can be greatly different, with wildly differing effects on public policy. It is wise to learn the difference. 

But let’s refocus on wealth, and who holds it, and why.

Between the Civil War years and the mid-twentieth century, we saw enormous growth in this country. This was due largely to technological advances. In these eighty years, we saw the coming of the transcontinental railroad, coast-to-coast telegraphy and telephony, massive steelworks, sprawling oilfields, and the capital accumulation (banks) to finance all of it.

The names are famous. Cornelius Vanderbilt (railroads and shipping), John D. Rockefeller (petroleum), Andrew Carnegie (steel making), Henry Ford (automobiles), and J.P. Morgan (banking). These, along with many others, built twentieth century America. And for their pains, for their risk taking, they became enormously wealthy. (Completely unknown are the stories of thousands of other entrepreneurs who tried and failed. Only the successful made it into our consciousness).

Did these vaunted capitalists deserve their wealth? One can only compare the lives of a woman in 1870 to one in 1940. The latter woman could call a relative on a far coast, just to chat. She could travel there in mere days, not months. She was able to listen to entertaining radio programs and wash her clothes in a new-fangled wringer/washer. She could drive to the grocery store and buy fresh bananas recently imported from Nicaragua. And place her homogenized milk in an electric refrigerator, keeping it fresh for days. These were the most wrenching changes in the history of mankind, in only one lifetime.

Many millions experienced these benefits. Was it immoral for the Vanderbilts and Rockefellers, Carnegies and Fords, to have accumulated great wealth as a result? What if the opposite were attained – no wealth, no such advances?

In the current debate, Oxfam lists sixty two billionaires who hold half of the world’s wealth. Let’s ask, what have they done to deserve it? With limited space, here are a few:

A couple of Waltons – $161 billion – Walmart

Bill Gates – $79.2 billion – Microsoft (Windows et al)

Warren Buffett - $72.7 billion – Berkshire Hathaway, Geico (the little lizard)

Larry Page and Sergey Brin –  $58.9 billion – Google

Jeff Bezos – $34.8 billion – Amazon

Mark Zuckerberg, $33.4 billion – Facebook

Let’s imagine stripping these people of their wealth and erasing their companies. No more Walmart “everyday low prices.” No more Microsoft Windows (OK, that’s a mixed blessing). Goodbye little lizard and the millions of home and auto insurance policies he represents. No more Google – look it up yourself at the library. So long Amazon, can’t order those terrific shoes for delivery on Friday. And the cruelest cut of all – no more silly cat videos on Facebook to share with your many “friends.”

In the end, the populists have possibly won the debate. While the capitalists of the Golden Era instituted the greatest advances in human history, thoroughly earning their wealth, the most recent ones have simply provided us with convenience and entertainment.

In the end, we need to determine how much that is worth.

Let's laugh together, shake hands and get to work

What does it take to lift oneself from poverty? A topic of great debate, it is often argued stridently across an ideological chasm, light of fact and heavy of slur. So it is refreshing to see some actual data.

Researchers at Baltimore’s John Hopkins University have just concluded their life’s work. Karl Alexander, Doris Entwisle, and Linda Olson’s new book, “The Long Shadow,” documents the trials and tribulations of nearly 800 inner city children from the first grade in 1982 through adulthood. The 25-year study tracks the childrens’ educational achievements, family status, and eventual economic outcomes.

The results could not be simpler: family matters.

Nearly half of all children from poor families remained poor as adults. Children from families with more resources tended to be more successful as adults.

Children from low-income families were 10 times less likely to complete college than those from higher-income families. Only 4 percent of children from low-income families achieved a college degree as opposed to 45 percent from middle class or affluent families.

Women benefit from marriage. Those in stable relationships had a larger household income than single women.

As the study involved a mixture of races, there were race-based observations as well.

For non-college degreed men, white men found better paying jobs than black men – on average $43,500 vs. $21,500. These jobs were typically in the trades or the remaining industrial base of Baltimore. (This income discrepancy diminished with educational achievement).

For those without a high school diploma, the results were even more dramatic. The unemployment rate for white male high school dropouts was 11 percent; for blacks, 60 percent.

Black women had fewer family resources than white women. This is compounded by their lower marriage rate versus white women (31% vs. 55%).

Black men were six times more likely to be incarcerated than white men. Very disruptive to black family structure, this contributed to the lower household income of black women.

These are all facts. Incontrovertible. But here is where the argument starts – in determining the “why.”

Why are poor children stuck in poverty? Why do children from more affluent families do well? Why is educational achievement so difficult for poor children? Why do white men have better paying jobs than blacks? Why do black women have fewer financial resources? Why is their marriage rate lower? Why are black men incarcerated at such a high rate?

The answers to these questions are not trivial. They spell the difference between effective and failing (but feel-good) programs. Worse, bad programs that can actually do harm.

We spend enormous resources on social programs in an attempt to salve these ills. Nearly $3 trillion per year is poured into means-tested governmental and private charitable welfare programs (not including Social Security and Medicare). But more than the waste of well-intended but ill-performing programs is the human tragedy of lives not actualized, dreams not achieved.

One would think that the debate would be rigorous, rational, wide-ranging, and thoughtful. It is not.

Instead, political correctness constrains what can be said and who can say it. Ad hominem attacks substitute for reasoned rejoinder (“I don’t agree with what you just said, so you are a worthless blob of human waste”). There are many articles on the web describing the Alexander (et al) study. Reading the comments following the articles is quite revealing. A poster may pose a hypothesis only to be shouted down in a storm of vituperation terming him or her as racist, brainless, or “a hater.” It is an emotional mob, incapable of reasoning.

Unfortunately, the same is true in the wider public sphere. Letters to the editor lean heavily on personal attack, light on debate. Politicians, with few exceptions, avoid reality, speak in platitudes, and attempt to buy more votes. There is no holding to account for actual results.

Here is the truth. Racism still exists. But so, too, does tolerance. Progressives are not idiots, conservatives are not evil. Both want the best outcome for the most people, but differ on how to achieve it. These are chasms that can be crossed, common purposes achieved.

What stands in the way? Political correctness is a scourge. It must be fought resolutely as the fundamental danger that it is. Rigid ideologies are even worse. The truth always exists in the grey netherworld between extremes.

Here is a quote from a great philosopher, comedian Bill Cosby. “You can turn painful situations around through laughter. If you can find humor in anything, even poverty, you can survive it.”

Let’s laugh together, shake hands, and get to work.

The Reasonable Electorate

Simply based on media coverage, one would conclude that the top Democratic priority is to revoke the Second Amendment while Republican nirvana consists of euthanizing seniors and starving the children of single mothers.

But a recent Pew Research Center poll indicates otherwise, and gives hope that there is considerable room for accord.

In a January survey, Pew found a significant degree of concurrence between the priorities of self-identified Democrats and Republicans. For instance, Republicans agreed with six out of ten of the Democrats’ top priorities:

                                                             Dem.      Rep.

Strengthening the economy                       1            1

Improving the job situation                         2            4

Improving education                                  3            6

Reducing health-care costs                       4            9

Securing Medicare                                    5            7

Helping the poor and needy                       8          10

On other issues, there is some divergence. For instance, Democrats ranked “strengthening the military” as 18^th while Republicans thought it far more important at 8^th. There are few other issues as divisive as this, but one is “reducing the deficit” – 2^nd most important to Republicans but merely 11^th to the Dems.

In a real shocker, the importance of “strengthening gun laws” ranked only 18^th out of 21 issues across the full spectrum of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans. This may account for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s refusal to allow Dianne Feinstein’s assault weapon ban to come to a vote.

But there exists considerable common ground and good reason to engage in constructive dialogue. While we agree on many ends, what separates us still is the means.

For instance, Democrats and Republicans agree that our top priority is to strengthen the economy. But Democrats believe that that should be achieved by increasing the minimum wage, empowering public employee unions, and increasing overall government spending, all fueled by towering tax increases on the rich.

Republicans agree with the goal, but believe that the Democratic approach is like pouring cold water on a hot bed of economic coals.

Who is right? Who knows. But if the debate begins with the common goal in mind, then the mechanisms can be developed. How about we use the crucible of liberty (the fifty states) as a laboratory? We could, for instance, compare the economic success of big government states versus free market states (left as an exercise to the reader).

The same approach can be used for each of the important issues. If we agree on the end goals, then only the means of achieving them need be debated. And, hopefully, those means can be developed rationally based on experimentation and evidence, not ideology.

In the end, we must convince our elected leaders to represent the desires of their electorate. We seem to be far wiser than they.