Make America more Meritocratic

Greg Mankiw lays out the case that talented people (who make above average income) tend to have talented children (who make above average income). He surely oversimplifies, ignoring the fact that wealthier children have advantages in schooling, tutoring, stability etc. But his point still seems reasonable, and, in a followup post, and another, he cites studies indicating that heredity ("nature" if you will, as opposed to "nurture") is significant.

Paul Krugman takes exception to Mankiw.

"But, you know, there’s lots of evidence that there’s more to it than that. ... It’s comforting to think that we live in a meritocracy. But we don’t."

Without getting too far into the nitty gritty details, (I'm sure that nature and nurture both matter, and Krugman cites studies that support nurture) read the comments on Paul's blog. I'm amazed at how many people state categorically that there is no correlation between intelligence and income. e.g. "By the way, does anyone seriously think there is a direct correlation between wealth and intelligence? " And many make straw-man arguments. Mankiw never claimed that the USA was a perfect utopian meritocracy.

I'm not sure what to make of Krugman saying we are not a meritocracy. If he means "not a perfect meritocracy", well, duh. If he means "not even remotely a meritocracy, it's all rigged", I beg to differ. Does he tell his students at Princeton to not bother studying or working, they may as well just waste their time playing beer pong? I hope not. We are an imperfect meritocracy, o.k.? I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt and think that's what he means. But that's not how he expresses it.

The other disturbing trend is how little either side considers "hard work" and perseverance and high-expectations from parents. If one only read the Krugman comments you'd think that the rich are only rich because they cheated or were lucky. (Here's an example) In effect, they are saying that neither nature nor nurture matter, just blind luck and greed. Now, in some cases, like recent Wall Street shenanigans, they are partly right. But, overall, hard work and talent matter. Inheritance is not all - the USA has high turnover in the richest Americans.

Maybe I've become an old fogey, but some kids today worry me. I have none, but have several friends with teenagers, and a good friend who teaches high-school. Many kids are not studying, not working, not even close to making the most of their talents. Why? Not sure. Because they see a few of their peers making millions as athletes or rock stars or poker players? Or they hear of government bailouts? Or they think it doesn't matter, we are a corrupt rigged state?

If we also buy into the liberal claim that the rich are just "lucky", that talent and hard work don't matter, that's one more nail in the coffin, why should kids study or work hard at all? Such a belief is bad for America's future. For a Nobel Prize winning economist to (possibly) advance such an idea (like I said, I'm not sure what is comment on meritocracy really means) is actively destructive to America's future. Conversely, government and business should not reward raw greed and luck, as has happened recently on Wall Street. Let's work to make America more meritocratic, if that's a word. :-)

Intimidation is Bad

(Legal aside: please insert "allegedly" as appropriate)

Many on the left have condemned armed citizens (usually identified as conservatives) showing up at town hall meetings. I agree completely. You've got the right to bear arms, but I have the right "peaceably to assemble". Neither of us has the right to incite the violent overthrow of the government. In any case, having the "right" to do something (carry arms) doesn't make it the "right" thing to do. David Sirota states it well.

(let's make) public political events firearm-free zones, just like schools and stadiums. That way forward honors our democratic ideals by declaring that politics may be war, but in America it is "war without bloodshed" -- and without the threat of bloodshed.

I an unaware of conservative columnists condemning the actions of these (few) citizens with guns who are clearly pushing the limits of political civility and attempting to intimidate. Hopefully, some will do so. And let me know if you know of any.

However, the right is correctly condemning alleged actions by the Black Panthers where they attempted to intimidate voters, by appearing in paramilitary garb, brandishing nightsticks, at a polling place near downtown Philadelphia. I am unaware of liberal/progressive columnists condemning this action, or calling for the Justice Department to pursue the case. Hopefully, some will do so. And let me know if you know of any.

Can I Take that Back?

The other night I watched the first Bourne movie (the Bourne Identity) on DVD and they have interviews with director Doug Liman and screenplay writer Tony Gilroy. Tony Gilroy is a talented writer of all the Bourne screenplays, plus many others, with many award nominations and one win. But even such a smart insider as he says something in the interview that, in hindsight, is silly.

Remember, the Bourne Identity was filmed in early 2001. Then came 9/11. As a thriller movie involving the CIA and explosions, it had to be rethought after 9/11. Apparently, in the original movie, the final battle at the Paris CIA safe-house had some big explosions. This was changed to a "less explosive" ending with a great shootout between Matt Damon and the CIA operatives. Explaining why they did this, Gilroy says:

"Everyone pretty much accepted that explosions is movies are over, that there would probably never be another film that had an explosion in it."

I will go out on a limb here and state that this turned out to be wrong. :-)

Now, Gilroy was obviously overreacting here. But this should remind us that 9/11 was shocking and, at least for a short while, did change a lot of things. I worked by San Francisco Bay, right under the main landing route to SFO. I still remember the shock of not seeing the routine of commercial airplanes slowly coming in to land, but instead watching missile-armed Navy fighter jets patrolling the skies.

Now, other people said silly things about the movie too. CrankyCritic's review:

Matt Damon does fine in a role that may have had more punch to it pre 9-11. As we said above, sometimes luck is bad. The Bourne Identity novel was first of a trilogy. We doubt you'll see the rest of 'em on the big screen.

Hmm, many of us did see the rest of them. To the tune of $288 million and $442 million.


As for the movie, I still enjoy it. And it's probably my favorite of the Bourne movies, though all are good. I agree with this review that seeing the action through the eyes of Marie (the fine actress Franka Potente) really heightens the drama and conflict.

I Support Whole Foods on Healthcare

As some may know, John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods Markets recently wrote an editorial for the Wall Street Journal on health care. Since it does not endorse President Obama's plan, in fact, it calls for less government involvement and for individual empowerment, many on the left have called for a boycott. And some from the other side are calling for us to support Whole Foods. Lets consider the post by the Moderate Voice, which doesn't seem very moderate.

Whole Foods CEO John Mackey shot his company in the face the other day with an anti-health care op-ed screed in the Wall Street Journal.

Now, nothing in the editorial is anti-health care. Nor does it fit the definition of screed. Other than the call for tort reform, none of Mackey's bulleted proposals should have any objection from anybody. He calls for more transparency, more competition, and more tax equality, along with fiscal responsibility. Please, find something to object to there.

Another leftist blogger characterizes the post as

"he argues for insurance industry deregulation and a shrinking of the Medicare program".

Please, read the editorial. Technically, he does call for less regulation, so as to reduce the influence of industry lobbyists and increase competition. He calls for "reform" of Medicare, since it heading towards bankruptcy. Does this make him a shill for Newt Gingrich or the dreaded "drug companies"? No. These harsh and over the top reactions from the left are reminiscent of the "death panel" claims by the right. Both have a very feeble grasp of reality.

Mackey then calls for Americans to take some responsibility.

we need to address the root causes of poor health. This begins with the realization that every American adult is responsible for his or her own health.

Unfortunately many of our health-care problems are self-inflicted: two-thirds of Americans are now overweight and one-third are obese. Most of the diseases that kill us and account for about 70% of all health-care spending—heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes and obesity—are mostly preventable through proper diet, exercise, not smoking, minimal alcohol consumption and other healthy lifestyle choices.

In conclusion, I'd like to quote most of a comment by Desider on Open Left.

Thank you for letting me know (4.00 / 1)

that you folks are a bunch of intolerant idiots.

What did this guy say so horribly?

That boomers are retiring, so fewer workers will be paying in while our deficits go up, so we need to cut the cost of entitlements, not increase them, especially for Medicare. [If we pay twice as much as other countries per capita, as Bob Somerby of Daily Howler keeps pointing out, shouldn't health insurance reform bring some of the costs in check, not increase them?]

That his company gets low insurance rates by going with high deductibles, and uses Wellness Accounts to roll over savings for the employees. [I use high deductibles myself, since I've gone more than a decade without seeing a doctor].

Make personal insurance tax deductible like corporate already is. Good idea, no?

Allow insurance competition across state lines. [Making insurance companies competitive, more responsive to customers and lower cost is a good thing, no?]

Make costs of treatment transparent. [Kinda obvious?]

He notes that at Whole Foods employees vote on what they want company health insurance to fund. [Workers' rights?]

David Sirota, in effect, agrees with Rush Limbaugh

In a recent Open Left article, progressive firebrand David Sirota argues to eliminate the cap on Social Security taxes. Currently, income over $106,800 is "capped" and does not get taxed at 12.4% by Social Security. Eliminating the cap would make Social Security more solvent. On the other hand, it's a large 12.4% tax increase on those making more than $106,800 a year.

Sirota then makes a pair of interesting points.

IRS data ... shows people who make over $106,800 are squarely in the top quintile of income earners - not the "middle-class.

So, only about 10% of Americans would be affected.

Sloan - theoretically an objective reporter - is on the extreme fringe when he lambastes the proposal to subject more income to payroll taxes. As a 2005 Washington Post poll showed, a stunning 81 percent of Americans believe there shouldn't be a cap at all. 81 percent!

Now, those 81 percent of Americans are (largely) those who are not in the top 10%. So, 81% of Americans are willing to let others pay higher taxes. Hardly a shock, and hardly right or wrong. (For the record, I think some sort of 6% "half tax" on income above $107K would be a fine and all too obvious compromise)

But Sirota also implies that a 19% minority is an "extreme fringe". To me, 19% is still a pretty large group, but let's see what comes from accepting his rhetoric.

According to a recent Gallup poll,





only 21% of Americans describe themselves as "liberal" or "very liberal". By Sirota's logic, liberals are an extreme fringe. That's the kind of rhetoric you'd expect from Rush Limbaugh!

And since progressives are presumably largely in that 5% "very liberal", they are really a fringe!

Anyway, I don't disagree with Sirota's point that we should raise taxes on the rich. Though I wouldn't raise them as much as he. But, in my opinion, his class baiting and cries of "extreme fringe" do not help the debate, and backfire against his own supporters.

I Hope Paul Krugman is Right

In Sunday's New York Times, Paul Krugman wrote:

So it seems that we aren’t going to have a second Great Depression after all.

I sure hope his desk is made of wood and he knocked on it loudly while writing that column. Since it's still early, and the Great Depression took years to become "great". :-( What follows in Krugman's column isn't all that cheery.

Just to be clear: the economic situation remains terrible, indeed worse than almost anyone thought possible not long ago. ... We haven’t yet reached the point at which things are actually improving; for now, all we have to celebrate are indications that things are getting worse more slowly.

In praising the ARRA stimulus package, he writes

Nonetheless, reasonable estimates suggest that around a million more Americans are working now than would have been employed without that plan

Who made these estimates? Articles I have found basically say nobody can really tell how many jobs the ARRA has saved or created. In one article I found, even President Obama only claims 600,000 jobs saved or created. In general, the responses to these job claims range from skeptical to outraged.

Now, I would assume that Nobel Prize Economist Paul Krugman knows more about this than I. But he should cite a source for these reasonable estimates. Because, even though I sometimes disagree with Krugman (and President Obama) on policies, I'm rooting for them to be right. I'm rooting for an Obama landslide victory in 2012. Not because I love Obama, but because that will, most likely, come about because the US economy has recovered. Which is good for me, and most everybody. Probably even good for Beck and Rush. :-)

Last(?) Post on Sotomayor

She got confirmed. Which I support. But even so, the politics of identity and "betterness" were raised again. Consider the comments by Sylvia Lazos in the article:

Sotomayor is also a divorced woman who has no children but a close relationship with an extended family.

"She is a modern woman with a nontraditional family," said Sylvia Lazos, a law professor at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas. "She is much more reflective of contemporary American society than the other justices like Alito and Roberts."

She was referring to Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, both of whom are married and have two children.

Now, a lot of people are divorced and/or childless. But a lot of people are married and, as many of us know, have 2.4 children. So seems like Roberts and Alito are very representative too. Just what is "average" in America today is hard to say. To say that Sotomayor is "as reflective" or something like that is fine. To say that she is more reflective is just plain wrong.

For the record, almost all current Supreme Court Justices are married and have children. Considering the more liberal judges,

John Paul Stevens is married and has four children (one of whom is deceased).
Anthony M. Kennedy is married and has three children.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is married and has two children.
Stephen G. Breyer is married with three children.
Sandra Day O’Connor (retired) is married and has three children.

Why does Lazos claim that Sotomayor "more representative" than Roberts and Alito, but not "more representative" than Stevens and Breyer? Probably because Lazos disagrees with their conservative rulings. Not because of their backgrounds.

The article adds this about Sotomayor's finances:

Even Sotomayor's personal finances look more like contemporary America as compared with her new and wealthier colleagues at the Supreme Court. According to friends, Sotomayor has struggled to pay her mortgage and her credit card bills, and her financial disclosures show she has no substantial savings or stock portfolio.

I don't want to get into this too much, but the documents of her finances show a mixed result. She was a law partner in the early 1990s, presumably making a lot of money, and currently earns close to $200,000 a year. So one might expect her to have a lot of cash or stock assets, which she doesn't. But she's has made very good money for 20 years and is hardly "un-wealthy". Few average Americans own a million dollar apartment in Manhattan and earn $200,000 a year.

Sotomayor should have been confirmed because President Obama nominated her, she is well qualified, she brings a valuable, different perspective to the Court, and her past rulings are generally good. She has made a few missteps, but so has everybody. The Senate had no just reason to reject her. Sotomayor should not have been nominated and confirmed because she is Latino, childless and struggles to pay a large mortgage.

Are Harvard Students and Faculty thin skinned?

Bob Herbert comments on other incidents "similar" to the recent Gates arrest. Let's look at what he says.

The Harvard police, responding to a phone call, spotted the youngster attempting to remove a lock from a bicycle. He tried to explain that the bike was his and that his key had broken off in the lock.
One of the officers reportedly pulled a gun and pointed it at the teenager. The frightened youngster said he did not have any photo identification, but he showed the officers his library card. Traumatized, he started to cry at one point. When the boy’s story was eventually confirmed, he was allowed to leave with his bike.

O.K., pulling a gun was perhaps a bit much. But note that this is not racial profiling by the police - they were tipped off by a phone call. The kid was not arrested and left with his bike.

In 2004, the campus police stopped S. Allen Counter, a distinguished professor of neuroscience at the Harvard Medical School...In a particularly humiliating ritual, the officers went to University Hall and asked two students to confirm that the professor had an office there. They did.

Now, what does being a distinguished professor have to do with this? Is Bob Herbert suggesting that distinguished professors should get special treatment? Shades of Gates allegedly telling officer Crowley that he "had no idea who he was messing with". Secondly, I don't see how walking over to a couple of students and asking if the professor belonged there is "particularly humiliating". If anything, it's humiliating (and embarrassing) to the officers when they are proven wrong. Was Professor Counter handcuffed? Was he shackled in leg irons? Was he strip searched for ibuprofin? No. I see nothing "particularly humiliating". Only if one considers that being a distinguished professor makes one immune to normal hum-drum police routine is any of this humiliating. Will Professor Counter complain next time he is asked to remove his shoes at airline security? He is, after-all, a distinguished professor of neuroscience at Harvard! Who are those TSA people to ask him to remove his shoes?

In the final example, Bob Herbert himself exonerates the police! (emphasis added by me)

Nworah Ayogu... told me about a well-known incident that occurred in 2007 when a number of black students were playing games like dodge ball and capture-the-flag on the Quad as part of an annual field-day-type celebration. White students called the Harvard police to investigate. The police showed up on motorcycles and asked the black students for identification, even though the students were wearing all kinds of Harvard regalia — caps, crimson T-shirts with “Harvard” emblazoned in white, and so forth. Mr. Ayogu said the cops actually seemed to be embarrassed by the situation and were not confrontational.

Now, I don't know how Mr. Ayogu knows that the callers were white. A reasonable, smart guess, or racial profiling? The police showed up, asked for IDs, and behaved properly.

Now, if Bob Herbert had a real point, I'd think he'd come up with shocking examples of police misconduct, false arrests, racial profiling, and brutality against black students and faculty. He fails. If these are the worst examples of "humiliation" he can come up with, things aren't so bad there. Stop crying "wolf" and get on with your lives. Enjoy the fact that you teach or study at one of America's top (and wealthiest) Universities.

Disclaimer: I was an undergraduate at Dartmouth, a Harvard rival. Go Big Green!