tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post463306486387966964..comments2024-03-18T22:32:52.802-04:00Comments on Noahpinion: What's mediocre about America?Noah Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comBlogger84125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-27049608089206460112013-01-13T23:11:52.781-05:002013-01-13T23:11:52.781-05:00The military in particularly is spectacularly bloa...The military in particularly is spectacularly bloated, with the US spending approximately as much as every other military in the entire world COMBINED. (And some of those, like China, hide civilian projects in their military budget!)<br /><br />The spending to which we are ENTITLED ("entitlement spending") costs nothing; we pay payroll taxes, we get what we are entitled to. It has very low overhead and very few federal employees, since it's basically just transfers of money. Social Security is a system of transferring money from working people to retirees, and calling it spending is confusing, even inaccurate.Nathanaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-16067384568703408442013-01-13T23:08:42.590-05:002013-01-13T23:08:42.590-05:00Federalism per se isn't the issue; it's th...Federalism per se isn't the issue; it's the blocking power, which was used for 70 years by slaveowners to prevent slavery from being abolished. <br /><br />No other country has a system quite like the US Senate. <br /><br />In Germany or Canada, a large majority in their equivalent of the House can simply override their equivalent of the Senate.<br /><br />In Switzerland, a national initiative-and-referendum system can override practically anything.<br /><br />We have neither. The Senate therefore is capable of blocking anything good.Nathanaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-12808789627167683292013-01-13T23:06:03.340-05:002013-01-13T23:06:03.340-05:00Colin: more accurately, it's correlated with a...Colin: more accurately, it's correlated with an expansion of the MILITARY, which is admittedly part of government.<br /><br />It is typical historically for a declining country to blow great wads of money on the military. So this does make sense. And yes, we need to shrink our mega-bloated military budget.Nathanaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-7168856989891162562013-01-13T23:04:08.738-05:002013-01-13T23:04:08.738-05:00Colin: there is no country where the post office h...Colin: there is no country where the post office has been successfully privatized. Every place (outside the failed states of Africa, whose postal services often never worked to start with) which tried it has ended up losing local delivery to a large part of the country, raising prices, and providing worse service. But if that's what you like...Nathanaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-80324288351051517542013-01-13T23:01:20.012-05:002013-01-13T23:01:20.012-05:00If you want the details on the management attitude...If you want the details on the management attitude problems, they've been discussed extensively by transit bloggers. In short, LIRR is treated as a separate fiefdom. <br /><br />It would benefit everyone massively and be very economically efficient if LIRR trains "ran through" with NJT trains, but nobody in LIRR will consider it. Currently there is massive waste in storing both LIRR and NJT trains in the middle of the day.<br /><br />It would also lead to a great savings on administrative overhead if LIRR management were merged with Metro-North management, but LIRR managed to scuttle that proposal.Nathanaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-9005061113032292602013-01-13T22:58:58.707-05:002013-01-13T22:58:58.707-05:00Heh heh heh. Indeed. Everything which Finland, t...Heh heh heh. Indeed. Everything which Finland, the country with the best educational system (by outcomes) in the world, does NOT do.<br /><br />Ideology before facts, always, with right-wingers.Nathanaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-66224253885844937232013-01-13T22:58:04.966-05:002013-01-13T22:58:04.966-05:00Shallow, shallow analysis. See my comment above: ...Shallow, shallow analysis. See my comment above: institutional culture (both management and union) is the problem at the LIRR, and you need an institutional economist to understand it.Nathanaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-57806248608045234552013-01-13T22:57:22.204-05:002013-01-13T22:57:22.204-05:00CA: it's not "strong union contracts"...CA: it's not "strong union contracts" which are the problem with the LIRR. It's a collection of unions (plural!) with extremely regressive, and dare I say it, *conservative* attitudes, trying to maintain the rules of the Age of Steam. <br /><br />It's an institutional culture problem, and it extends to the management of LIRR as well. Institutional economists have useful things to say about this. The idiotic union-busters have nothing useful to say.<br /><br />Public schools: anyone who suggests extending the school year knows absolutely nothing about schools. Try learning something. Try talking to actual students, who are the ones who actually know whether something helps them learn or not.<br /><br />There are serious problems with teacher accountability, but they don't come from the unions, they come from completely incompetent or uninterested administrations, who fail to exercise the powers which are already available to them. The only teachers I had who should have been fired were actually clearly guilty of malfeasance (1 case), misfeasance (1 case), or nonfeasance (1 case), but the administration didn't even bother to prosecute for tenure removal.Nathanaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-54038031676889932442013-01-13T22:52:48.714-05:002013-01-13T22:52:48.714-05:00What's most mediocre about the US?
Our politi...What's most mediocre about the US?<br /><br />Our political system.<br /><br />Ask someone who studies systems of government how to design a democracy. They'll suggest something similar to the German system.<br /><br />As the *US* experts did, in fact, suggest to Germany after WWII. They told Germany emphatically NOT to copy the US system.<br /><br />We can forgive the Founders for designing a mediocre system back in 1789, because they didn't know of any better systems. We've known of better systems for about 150 years now, though. <br /><br />(Party-)proportional representation is key (and eliminates gerrymandering). Approval voting or range voting is best for single-winner offices. We have neither.<br /><br />And malapportioned bodies (like the Senate) should never be able to stop anything. The British fought this battle in the 1910s and passed the Parliament Act to overrule the House of Lords. We never got a Parliament Act, and we're overdue.<br /><br />And don't get me started on our sick, sick, pay-to-play, prosecutors-can-railroad-anyone judicial system.<br /><br />Nathanaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-75241994797342973822013-01-08T16:17:31.706-05:002013-01-08T16:17:31.706-05:00That's a well-known fact, isn't it? It'...That's a well-known fact, isn't it? It's called white flight. Just visit the left-wing blogs, they're convinced white racism is the sole source of US conservatism. If it weren't for racism, we'd be living in socialist utopia. They might have a point. bjdubbsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-24241326503542934162013-01-07T13:06:49.741-05:002013-01-07T13:06:49.741-05:00Colin,
In addition to Eric's response let me ...Colin,<br /><br />In addition to Eric's response let me add, in regards to Germany, that the estimations the BLS conducts uses the average exchange rate without adjusting for Purchasing Power Parity. Technical appendix here:(http://www.bls.gov/fls/ichcctn.pdf). <br />Prices in Germany are about 10% higher (see here: http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=CPL)<br />Once you adjust the number falls closer to $43. Secondly, manufacturing is cleraly not a representative sector (Germany has strong manufacturing, the U.S. does not). Think about it, if the average German worker earns more than the average American worker then how on earth is it possible that German GDP per person is lower?<br /><br />Finally, once again, no, absolute numbers are not what matters, for reasons that I have already explained. Whenever any analyst wants to figure the quantity and quality of any good or service produced, whether that is education, R&D, defense, etc, they look at spending relative to GDP. Now if you want to start your own school of thought, well, good luck. CAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-71369562358702739572013-01-06T16:13:37.888-05:002013-01-06T16:13:37.888-05:00The point is that the money is there. That it isn&...<i>The point is that the money is there. That it isn't being properly allocated in such a way that we can have adequate infrastructure is more an indictment of government than a justification for handing over yet more money to it. </i><br /><br />This seems to be a bit of backpedaling -- if moving money from defense or Medicare to infrastructure will fix our infrastructure, then so will funding it with new taxes. And the fact that the number of seniors on Medicare and Social Security has been growing and growing isn't exactly an indictment of government.<br /><br /><i>So while population has increased by 55% since that time (from 194 million to 301 million in 2007, the last year for that chart), infrastructure spending has gone up 89%. Again, this does not scream insufficient funding.</i><br /><br />But it isn't just population that's grown. So have commutes. So have goods shipped per capita -- and this is particularly important because trucks do a disproportionate share of damage to roads. This is expected; the economy has grown, and so has the activity underlying it, and if you view that as a positive thing we want to continue then the infrastructure should grow with it.Eric Lhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17688525347746547529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-15218796331222658242013-01-05T20:31:49.462-05:002013-01-05T20:31:49.462-05:00Noah: Finland has a slightly smaller population th...Noah: Finland has a slightly smaller population than Massachusetts, so at least there you have a relatively apples to apples comparison.UserGoogolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07451696693372858067noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-66788964590240696912013-01-05T04:07:04.479-05:002013-01-05T04:07:04.479-05:00Odd my reaction to the title was that the USA is m...Odd my reaction to the title was that the USA is mediocre in nothing (except maybe soccer). Our inner cities are horrible not mediocre. The US is the best at many things and worse than other rich countries in many ways, but mediocre in very little. <br /><br />To answer the questions I can safely say that I never thought of English shoes. If I were in the0.01% I would certainly not wear an Italian suit. I had to buy one for my wedding (in Italy you know) and wore it as little as possible even when it fit (OK so I've gained a few pounds). <br /><br />I did drive a German car for a while -- a Ford Fiesta (designed and made in Germany)<br /><br />Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14455788499385673507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-806106870990963482013-01-05T00:22:04.245-05:002013-01-05T00:22:04.245-05:00I can state without bias that they have brought mo...<i>I can state without bias that they have brought more joy to my life than the smile on the face of my first-born child</i><br /><br />You are a liar or a fool.Absalonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09131268683451462949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-38789895226448592422013-01-04T20:10:16.177-05:002013-01-04T20:10:16.177-05:00Even a tight fisted miser can end up spending a wh...Even a tight fisted miser can end up spending a whole lot of money if they have enough things they have to spend money on.<br /><br />And more specifically, most of Federal government spending is on a very specific subset of things: the military and entitlements. Those programs have fairly specific properties which make them appealing even to relatively tight-fisted governments. Entitlement spending as it is currently organized is destined to be rather expensive, since paying for the health care and retirement of tens of millions of Americans is going to expensive no matter how cheaply you try to do it. And radically reorganizing entitlement spending is greatly unpopular. The military could stand to be quite a lot cheaper, but it has some very strong support from many constituencies, which conveniently enough often overlap with people otherwise opposed to government spending.UserGoogolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07451696693372858067noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-21481080294660905572013-01-04T17:49:53.297-05:002013-01-04T17:49:53.297-05:00Moreover, private sector wages are higher in the U...<i>Moreover, private sector wages are higher in the U.S. so the U.S. needs to pay contractors more to build things.</i><br /><br />Really? The BLS lists hourly compensation costs in the US as $35.53 in 2011 vs. $47.38 in Germany (source: http://www.bls.gov/fls/). Maybe the wage structure is different in construction, but I am not aware of that (although possible given that we artificially boost our wage costs via Davis-Bacon). <br /><br /><i>The figure you linked includes transfer payments (e.g. Medicare and Social Security), defense spending, etc. What does that have to do with infrastructure?</i><br /><br />The point is that the money is there. That it isn't being properly allocated in such a way that we can have adequate infrastructure is more an indictment of government than a justification for handing over yet more money to it. <br /><br /><i>See for example the graph in page 3 of this report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)</i><br /><br />Interesting chart. In 1965 -- during the middle of the construction of the interstate highway system (not officially completed until 1991) -- it seems we spent something like $185 billion on transport and water infrastructure. Now we spend somewhere around $350 billion). So while population has increased by 55% since that time (from 194 million to 301 million in 2007, the last year for that chart), infrastructure spending has gone up 89%. Again, this does not scream insufficient funding. <br /><br /><i>Currently, transportation and water infrastructure take about 2.4% of GDP, as opposed to about 4% in other advanced countries.</i><br /><br />Again, if you are richer, you can spent a smaller percentage of your income to achieve the same result, so this isn't terribly informative. However, running the numbers for Germany, a 4% GDP expenditure vs 2.4 for the US means germany is spending more than us in absolute numbers, which is more meaningful. <br /><br />I am sympathetic to the argument that US infrastructure needs to be improved, but I am not convinced that higher taxes -- or even necessarily money -- is the solution. If the government needs more money, perhaps it could do with a few less F-35s or ending farm subidy programs. Questions need to be asked of why US infrastructure projects cost so much more than in other advanced countries: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-26/u-s-taxpayers-are-gouged-on-mass-transit-costs.html<br /><br />I also have to think that (as previously mentioned) measures such as Davis-Bacon drive up costs, and it is not obvious why so many projects involve federal funding, which adds more inefficiency (states send money to Washington, which then turns around and hands it back to states -- why not cut out the middle man?). Colinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03573575140584770666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-16721360392529642092013-01-04T15:58:25.284-05:002013-01-04T15:58:25.284-05:00No, I am not changing my argument. I am explaining...No, I am not changing my argument. I am explaining why the appropriate metric is the share of GDP. To use your example, the U.S. has more people than Germany, so it needs more bridges, roads, etc. Moreover, private sector wages are higher in the U.S. so the U.S. needs to pay contractors more to build things. Therefore one would expect expenditure in dollar terms to be higher. What matters is expenditure relative to GDP. This is true both across time and across countries.<br /><br />The figure you linked includes transfer payments (e.g. Medicare and Social Security), defense spending, etc. What does that have to do with infrastructure? If you look at infastructural spending, it has declined as a share of GDP. See for example the graph in page 3 of this report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO):<br />http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/119xx/doc11940/11-17-infrastructure.pdf<br /><br />Currently, transportation and water infrastructure take about 2.4% of GDP, as opposed to about 4% in other advanced countries. I suspect the pattern is similar regarding energy infrastructure. This difference in funding is reflected in the quality of our infrustructure relative to other countries. According to this survey (2nd page)<br />http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GCR2011-12/14.GCR2011-2012DTIIInfrastructure.pdf<br />the U.S. ranks 24th.CAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-59500025314129792162013-01-04T14:39:35.564-05:002013-01-04T14:39:35.564-05:00OK, except now you are changing your argument from...OK, except now you are changing your argument from saying that we are not spending enough as a percentage of GDP relative to other countries to now arguing that we need to keep the proportion spent of GDP the same. Fine, except that our percentage of GDP spent by the public sector is currently at its highest level since WWII (source: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/include/usgs_chart2p21.png), so I still don't buy the argument that current spending is insufficient.<br /><br />Further, it seems your argument about the ability to attract employees, etc. would only apply in a full employment model, which suffice to say does not currently apply. Colinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03573575140584770666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-30306963027934039272013-01-04T14:09:02.189-05:002013-01-04T14:09:02.189-05:00I'm happy to see the debate coming round to se...I'm happy to see the debate coming round to serious discussion of something Noah's readers care about, reading.<br />And his commenters? writing.<br />What we say is less important though, to U.S., tenured in self-confidence.<br />(periods out for pun)<br /><br />Let's allow a provocative dipothesis.<br /><br /> A) you decide to educate a small part of your population so they can give orders to others. Aa) public education in how to take orders. <br /> B) you decide everybody in your population needs to be educated, so they can give orders to each other. Ba) incongruity with long-embedded stratification, so teachers continue instructing how to take orders. <br /><br />C) universal broadband and country-wide subscriptions to all peer-reviewed journals. Enough trying to get into kids' heads. Offer them adventures!!<br /><br />Sound's like 3rd grade, but that's where we need to be.<br /><br />Implications internationally: In the A countries taking orders was necessary for survival. Too bad, but also good, when the orders are that everybody should be educated - a clear improvement in standard of living is implied and the kids try hard. Somebody might know whether A countries have lots of kids in college, yet. Perhaps not. <br /><br />In B countries, the whole thing is chaotic. Take the U.S. and China. China has a stronger revolution, so once they hit the wall without money to bribe their way into a good college, do what they can. In the U.S., once we flunk out, we buy a gun to signal that we can both give orders and march to them, or go to a college with no books.<br /> The Emperor's New College!<br /><br />Anyway, last night, I asked my students (International) who was a "world figure." They were stumped. Then, "Is Obama?" Immediate yes from all. "Everybody in the world sees Obama as a world figure?" Yes, "Does everybody see the same thing in Obama as a world figure?" Even more resoundingly, "No!" I then asked for other world figures, expecting Hitler, Napoleon or Gengis Kahn. I got instead, "Mother Theresa," and "Ghandi." <br /><br />They never cease to surprise, so here in the U.S., we have a much larger constituency to fight for "C," and it ain't over 'till the fat ladies can all sing!<br /><br />Ronald Calitrihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07206853993777529429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-14656688327144448082013-01-04T14:01:23.639-05:002013-01-04T14:01:23.639-05:00Here is an example.
Forget inflation and populat...Here is an example. <br /><br />Forget inflation and population growth (which are two additional reasons). Suppose that productivity in the private sector is rising. This means that wages in the private sector will keep going up and so will GDP. This has been happening over the past few centuries. Suppose now that public spending stays the same. This means that wages in the public sector will be constant, so public spending relative to GDP will be declining. Then the ability of the public sector to attract employees, contractors, and so on, will also be declining. With it, so will the quantity and quality of public services and infrastructure. In fact, such a decline will take place even if public spending is rising so long as it is rising slower than private sector productivity and therefore GDP. To maintain the same level of public services we need to keep the proportion of GDP spent on them the same. <br /><br />This is why the share of GDP is the appropriate metric! CAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-4361028039918168842013-01-04T13:08:18.756-05:002013-01-04T13:08:18.756-05:00We import lots of ideas, things, and people? The A...We import lots of ideas, things, and people? The American motto: We shall take your biological, technological, and cultural distinctiveness and make it part of our own.Josephhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04720409839023747889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-48789690924037106562013-01-04T12:44:39.240-05:002013-01-04T12:44:39.240-05:00Why is percentage of GDP a particularly good metri...Why is percentage of GDP a particularly good metric? European countries (with the exception of pretty much Norway) have a lower per capita GDP than the US. It's not by a trivial amount either. Germany's, for example, is about $10,000 lower. If a bridge costs $100 million (a number I pulled out of thin air), it will necessarily require the Germans to devote a higher percentage of GDP to build it than the Americans, even though the end result (construction of the bridge) will be exactly the same. <br /><br />So no, I don't think dollar values are irrelevant. In fact, I think they are the best metric we have. Colinhttp://togetrichisglorious.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-24555415279017631982013-01-04T12:13:41.985-05:002013-01-04T12:13:41.985-05:00Colin,
dollar values are irrelevant. What matters...Colin, <br />dollar values are irrelevant. What matters is spending as a percent of GDP, and that number is lower in the U.S. than it is in other countries. While I agree with you that we should also be looking at how to increase efficiency, we need to be fair about this.CAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-15202751243350053962013-01-04T11:05:26.149-05:002013-01-04T11:05:26.149-05:00Interesting. So state, local and federal governmen...Interesting. So state, local and federal government spends a combined $6 trillion per year (source: usgovernmentspending.com) and manages to provide us with substandard infrastructure, despite that being a core government function. And this is an argument for even more government? Bizarre. Colinhttp://togetrichisglorious.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.com