Stuff I think about

Taxation and Fairness: Flat and Progressive Taxation, and America's Lucky Rich

2010-09-02T14:57:00.000-07:00

There is much debate over the role of taxation in American society. On the one hand, many conservatives argue tax rates are too high, and stifle economic growth. However, liberals (when they are not too scared to say it) tend to feel that tax rates are too low, especially on the country's most wealthy.

One general distinction that is important to understand is that between progressive and flat income taxation. Thinking about these two theoretical tax structures enables us to better understand the fairness of tax systems.

A progressive tax puts a higher income tax rate, as a percent, on wealthier individuals. This can apply both on the margin and on average. That is, under a truly progressive scheme a wealthier person can be expected to pay more tax on an additional dollar of income than a poor person, as well as a higher average tax rate than a poorer person.

A flat tax, on the other hand, would charge all individuals in society the same tax rate - say, 17% of income (as Steve Forbes once suggested in the 1990's). Usually, this rate would only kick in on income above a certain cutoff, which would in theory spare the poorest from bearing too much of the national tax burden. Russia and many other Former Soviet Union countries currently have flat tax systems.

In my mind, the progressive tax (which is what we have - at least in theory - in the US) is quite significantly fairer than a flat tax. First, taxing 17% of the income of a poorer person puts quite a bit more burden on that person than does taxing 17% of the income of a billionaire. This is true even with a generous individual deduction - for a middle class family, with income safely in excess of the deduction, the burden from a flat tax would be far greater than for the wealthiest people in society.

This concept of tax fairness across incomes, in terms of tax burden, is often referred to as vertical equity, and I find it extremely compelling. By raising the taxes on billionaires by just a few percentage points, we can bring millions of Americans out of poverty through tax cuts. And I think this is an entirely reasonable tradeoff.

Why? Because the simple fact is that where and to whom you are born plays a major role in determining your future income. So a brilliantly smart person born in a project in LA is likely to earn much less in their lifetime than a equally brilliant person born in Cambridge, MA. This is, in a basic sense, unfair.

People who are wealthy love to think that they achieved their success because they are inherently better and smarter than people with lower incomes, but that is not the whole story - they are also extremely lucky, and in the case of most people with wealth, extremely privileged in terms of the wealth they were born into. Progressive taxation corrects for this fundamental inequity by redistributing wealth to a portion of the population that is statistically less likely to be blessed with the extreme good fortune that so many of us fortunate individuals take for granted. So on the fairness count, I'm afraid the flat tax cannot compare to the progressive tax - the debate should be (and in serious policy circles, is) not about whether we should have a progressive tax or not, but on how progressive it ought to be.

Indeed, I would argue that the US does not have a truly progressive tax system, because the wealthiest Americans can quite easily exploit loopholes and oversights in the tax code. For example, the country's wealthiest people don't have the country's highest salaries - the top earners derive much of their income from capital gains, which are taxed at only 15% in the US, while taking advantage of low-ish corporate tax rates when possible. So, many of the wealthiest people in the US don't have extremely high reported salaries in their tax returns, since much of their money comes not through income but through capital gains. Amazingly, the IRS reports that only 220 of the top 400 highest taxpayers are in the top marginal tax bracket, and that for the top 400 taxpayers, 81.3% of income comes from capital gains and only 6.5% comes from salaries!

What does this mean? Well, in a nutshell, the top 400 taxpayers in the US are paying an average tax rate of only 16.6%, comfortably below estimates of average tax rates in the country as a whole. Taken together with fundamentally regressive taxes like the social security tax, the US has a far less progressive tax system than it lets on... and it's probably regressive to some degree. Personally, I think this is shocking, and its time for change.

Of course, this doesn't even touch thorny issues like offshore sheltering of money, companies like Amazon bullying states into allowing them to not charge customers a sales tax, state taxes in general and a whole myriad of other issues... No doubt about it, taxes are complicated, but its the wealthiest Americans who are exploiting the system the best, and as a result turning what should (in my view) be a progressive tax system into one that more closely resembles an unfair, flat tax system (or even a regressive one).

Knowing, Determinism, and Ball Four

2009-07-29T02:01:00.000-07:00

I recently saw Knowing, a very entertaining if occasionally silly film starring Nicolas Cage. The film’s plot is bizarre. Somehow, a little girl living 50 years ago is able to predict every major disaster on the planet, leading up to a potential extinction event in the modern day. And, of course, it’s up to Nicolas Cage, finder of National Treasures, roller of Snake Eyes, and the lover of Carla (the prom queen), to save the world.

The central theme of the film is the issue of determinism – that is, the notion that everything in our lives, and in everyone else’s life, is essentially predetermined. You can call this fate, I suppose. This notion stands somewhat in opposition to free will, which is the idea that we “make our own destiny.” Of course, such a weighty topic deserves serious thought, and while the film doesn’t really offer a nuanced take on the issue, it does leave you thinking after you turn off the TV.

I got to thinking about what my view is on the issue. As you may know, I am someone who believes very much in probability and randomness, which might suggest that I fall on the side of free will over determinism (to create a somewhat oversimplified dichotomy). But in thinking about it a bit more, I’m not really sure where I lie.

As usual, my first thoughts on this topic were about sports. I thought about a professional baseball game. Surely, in advance of a game, one has a decent idea as to what the result will be. The rampaging Dodgers against the hopeless Nationals? Clayton Kershaw vs. Ross Detwiler? Yeah, I think I can predict that outcome pretty well. But no one on earth could possibly predict how every pitch in the game would unfold. Why is this? Well, because there are far too many things to consider in such a calculation. Practically speaking, it is absurd to think that you can predict the exact outcome of every single play in the game.

But, in theory, imagine that right before the game began, we could freeze time, and collect every conceivable piece of data that would affect the game: the condition of every cell in the players’ bodies, the thoughts in every players’ head, the weather at the moment of play and the expected weather later in the game, the effect of the breath and voice of every spectator, the bend of every blade of grass, the composition of the wood in every single bat, etc. In theory, all of this data would allow us to accurately model the outcome of the game, wouldn’t it?

If you are skeptical, think of this small example. It’s the bottom of the 9th inning of a tied game, and the bases are loaded with two outs. The tiring relief pitcher becomes erratic, and throws three balls to the batter (who is one of the opposing team’s weaker hitters), making the count 3-0. One more errant pitch and the game would be over.

Now, it’s hard to predict exactly what would happen on the next pitch, but I can give you a pretty accurate guess. The pitcher will throw a fastball, and the batter will not swing. Why? Any baseball fan will know why – a fastball is the easiest pitch to locate accurately, and the batter will be willing to take a strike right down the middle on the off chance that the erratic hurler will once again miss the mark, thus ending the game. In fact, I’d be willing to bet that the batter wouldn’t even take the bat off of his shoulder as the pitch sailed by.

So really, there are only two possible outcomes in this scenario: the pitcher will throw a fastball strike and the batter won’t swing, or the pitcher will throw a fastball that misses the plate and the game will be over. Of course, there are a very large number of ways that this could unfold, but we have narrowed it down a tremendous amount. And in this case, we didn’t need much information to narrow down the possibilities either. In theory, any other situation in the game is the same as this one, in that sufficient information would allow us to accurately predict the outcome. Of course, the amount of information needed in other cases would be far greater, but in theory the information is all there.

So this leads me to believe that determinism is not really antithetical to probabilistic thinking or randomness, as I had generally supposed. Perhaps my view, having now thought about the issue a bit more carefully, can be captured as follows.

When a pitcher gets the sign from a catcher to throw a curveball in the dirt, he registers this mentally, and begins his physical preparations. If you like, every cell in his body receives direction from his nervous system on how to proceed (I know, this is inaccurate biologically, but bear with me here). Then he begins his windup. Now freeze it, halfway through his delivery. Many of the cells, joints, muscles and nerves that were given instructions by his brain are responding as he hoped they would. But many are not. Why? I believe it is down to randomness, caused by unrecognizable fatigue, weather conditions, the friction from the uniform affecting the pitcher, etc. Most important among these reasons, however, is biological randomness. The human body is not a machine.

Does this mean that we cannot predict what happens to the pitch? That it could go anywhere, even backwards? Well, no; and I want to highlight two reasons why not. First, the randomness and variation occurs at such infinitely small levels that it does not actually affect the outcome in a dramatic way (he’s probably not going to throw it into the dugout, basically). Second, on aggregate, these random deviations might just cancel each other out.

Perhaps a machine can help me make my point here. Open Excel and type in “=RAND()” in a cell. You will get a random number between 0 and 1. Now highlight the cell and drag this command down to multiple cells. On the bottom right of your screen, you will see the cell average, count, and sum. And you’ll see that the further down you drag, the closer you get to an average of 0.5, the expected value of a uniform distribution between 0 and 1. In a way, a muscle in a pitchers body is like this – a collection of RAND commands, converging on the intended goal as ordered by the human nervous system.

So my thoughts have led me to a question, more than an answer. If we froze the earth now, and took every piece of data possible – every thought, every cell, every molecule – could we accurately predict the rest of human history? Or would the randomness inside everything, the standard deviation of every sinew, leave us hopeless in our desire to know how all things will end?

A Paper of Mine

2009-07-15T08:27:00.000-07:00

I wrote this paper for a class this last Spring, and I wanted to share it. And as a dorky Ph.D. student, I would love feedback of any and every kind on it!

---

The Perfect Behavioral Storm:
Hyperbolic Discounting, Herding, and Anchoring in Mortgages

“Listen, you, when you gave me that money you said I wouldn’t have to repay it ‘till the future - this isn’t the future! It’s the lousy, stinkin’ now!”
- Homer Simpson, to his mortgage broker

As the ongoing financial crisis rocks the global economy, everyone wants someone to blame. While some have heaped scorn on Bernie Madoff or the executives at AIG, others have pointed an accusatory finger at the ever-growing number of American homeowners who are unable to make their mortgage payments. Clearly, the bursting of the real estate bubble has played a central role in precipitating this crisis, and irresponsible borrowing has been a key factor in the mess. However, those who demonize “greedy” mortgagers as the primary drivers of the crisis miss the mark for a number of reasons.

In this paper, we will examine one of those reasons, namely the role that the interaction between various behavioral biases and a broken lending system has played in the downfall of the American financial system. Specifically, we will examine three behavioral phenomena - hyperbolic discounting, herding, and anchoring – and the impact they have had on the mortgage crisis. In doing so, we will see that human nature is as responsible for the mortgage crisis as human beings, if not more so.

Hyperbolic Discounting and the Curse of American Optimism

Americans are by nature an optimistic people. With this optimism comes an enduring belief that no matter how difficult the times may be, the future is bright. Though this is generally regarded as a positive mindset, it can result in irrational beliefs on the aggregate. For example, a 2001 study found that the majority of Americans believe that they will be earning above the mean income in the future. This is mathematically impossible, and hugely optimistic, given that the mean income in the US exceeds the median income by nearly $20,000.

This wishful thinking about personal finances may seem harmless, but its impact on household decision-making regarding mortgages is very dangerous. Why? Because mortgages are essentially a gamble on future income – a prospective homeowner considers his expected future income and decides on a house to purchase on the basis of this expectation. Thus, if individuals consistently overestimate their future incomes, they are more likely to occupy homes (and take on mortgages) that are outside of their price range. In theory, loan officers ought to ensure that this does not happen – but as the recent crisis has shown, perverse incentives at banks and lending institutions have regularly resulted in lax loan screening. As a result, bad mortgages have quietly piled up in banks, relatively unnoticed until now.

This problem is compounded by the behavioral phenomenon of hyperbolic discounting, whereby individuals discount the distant future at irrationally high rates compared to the near future. Hyperbolic discounting has become an especially relevant issue for mortgages in recent years because of “innovations” in the mortgage market, such as “balloon mortgages” and other back-loaded mortgage options. These mortgages, which offer lower monthly payments in the short-run in exchange for dramatically higher payments in the future, play right into the hands of hyperbolic discounting. By allowing individuals to defer payment for homes until the distant future, these back-loaded mortgages attract borrowers who do not fully realize, because of hyperbolic discounting, that they will be unable to make the large future payments. It is no surprise, then, that many lenders have found that when the time comes for the “balloon payments” to be made, a large fraction of borrowers default on their mortgages.

Herding and the House Price Fantasy

While over-optimism and hyperbolic discounting were influential factors in encouraging poor individual decisions about mortgages at a micro-level, macro-level forces also contributed to poor borrowing practices. Perhaps the most destructive of these forces was the view - held by essentially every household in the US - that housing appreciates in value over time. This view is evident in a 2005 study, which estimated that the average homeowner in San Francisco and Anaheim (where real estate was booming at the time) believed that their home was going to appreciate in value by 14% per year. Of course, we now know that this confidence was not warranted. So where did it come from?

Robert Shiller, a Yale economist and co-author of the 2005 study, has written extensively about this problem. He argues that the misplaced faith in the rising price of housing is the result of a behavioral phenomenon called herding, whereby large groups of individuals tend to act in unison because of the individual propensity to look to others for guidance. Imagine, for example, an individual who is skeptical of the housing market in 2005 – that is, his private belief is that housing is a risky investment. This individual would likely look to the market for more information about the true value of housing. What would he find? In 2005, he would have seen scores of optimistic buyers, willingly paying high prices. As a result, this individual – whose initial skepticism was warranted – would be convinced that his private assessment was wrong, and would therefore invest in a home. The cycle would then repeat, with more and more individuals pulled into the market by the decisions of the masses.

In this way, herding encouraged the housing bubble and the individual acceptance of mortgages that were unaffordable. As we know from basic economics, individuals are more likely to consume when they believe their future income will be higher. In the case of the housing bubble, people factored the perceived rise in housing prices into their mortgage decision, which encouraged them to buy homes that they now realize they cannot afford.

Anchoring and Option Adjustable-Rate Mortgages (ARMs)

We just saw that many borrowers were driven to sub-optimal mortgage decisions by various behavioral biases; however, it must also be said that the actions of banks and other lending institutions did little to alleviate the problem. For example, in addition to screening loans poorly, these institutions regularly offered complex mortgages that made things worse. A classic example is the Option ARM mortgage, which generally gave mortgagers four monthly payment options. Table 1 below offers an example of an Option ARM monthly bill:

Table 1: Option ARM Mortgage Bill Example (click on table to enlarge)

The reason for offering such a flexible payment schedule is that it allows households to decide, on a month-to-month basis, how much they are able to put into their mortgage. If they want to pay it off quickly, they can (Options 3 or 4 in Table 1). If not, there are smaller payments available (Options 1 or 2). The troubling aspect of this scheme, however, is that the minimum payment (Option 1) amount does not cover the interest payment on the principal. So by opting to make the minimum payment in a given month, a household increases the size of the principal. This results in increases in monthly payments in the future, which can be sudden and significant depending on the terms of the mortgage. Of course, this would not be a problem if households regularly made greater monthly payments (Options 3 or 4), and only opted for the minimum payment in an emergency. Sadly, this is not the case – according to a mortgage market tracker, over 65% of option ARM borrowers make only the minimum payments each month.

The implications of this are clear, and alarming. Large numbers of mortgagers are borrowing too much money for homes they cannot afford, failing to pay even the interest amount for months, and then defaulting entirely on the inflated principals when they realize that they owe more money than the value of the home. "Your payment is going to go up exponentially and your ability to pay will not,” says Keith Gumbinger, a mortgage expert at HSH Associates. “You just might chuck your keys in an envelope and mail it to your bank." According to recent estimates, of the nearly one million option ARM mortgages currently outstanding, 10-24% are currently 90 days or more past due. Moreover, experts expect that number to double in the next two years. What is behind all of this?

To a large extent, the structure of option ARM loans is the culprit. Behavioral research tells us that anchoring – the emphasis on one salient characteristic or value and the effect of this on decision making – is a powerful force for human beings. In the case of option ARM mortgages, lenders are essentially anchoring the minimum payment as the “mortgage cost” in the minds of borrowers. Given the behavioral tendencies to discount excessively and take an overly optimistic view of future income, this anchoring mechanism was an even more powerful force in the run-up to the mortgage crisis, as it encouraged countless borrowers to opt for the minimum payment in order to increase consumption in the short run.

Conclusions

In this paper, we looked at three ways in which behavioral biases have exacerbated the mortgage crisis in the United States. Specifically, we discussed how over-optimism, hyperbolic discounting, and the herding phenomenon created an environment in which individuals willingly took on mortgages that they soon found to be unaffordable. We also saw that by designing payment options that were lenient in the short-run, lenders dramatically increased the long-run default risk associated with mortgages. We will undoubtedly be paying the price for these oversights for years to come.

So who is to blame? In truth, everyone is a little bit culpable, and anyone who concentrates all the blame on a handful of individuals or institutions is misguided. Instead, what we have today is a fundamental disconnect between government policies, lender incentives, and homeowner psychology. Together, the government, the lenders, and the borrowers have been playing a dangerous game without really realizing it, encouraging home ownership and high levels of financial leverage without appropriate safeguards in place. In order to ensure that this does not happen again, policymakers and the public must learn from the behavioral mistakes of the past, and take seriously Robert Shiller’s conclusion that, "the ultimate cause of the global financial crisis is the psychology of the real estate bubble.”

Turkey's Modernization... or Not?

2009-06-24T09:14:00.000-07:00

So as many of you know I am relaxing in Istanbul (actually, teaching at Harvard Summer School, but same difference), one of the world's greatest cities and in many ways the place where east meets west. Excuse the cliche, but in the case of Istanbul it is literally true. Here you will find the foods, the sites, and the smells of the Middle East seamlessly integrated with giant shopping malls peddling Gucci, Armani, Lacoste, and other uber-luxuries of the West. It's an odd place in that sense, but it is still an absolute gem of a city. With the beautiful Bosphorus cutting the city into two pieces, and perfect weather on a daily basis, one could be excused for falling in love.

However one thing has bothered me about Turkey. I recently attempted to access Youtube to view, among other things: Norm MacDonald's recent appearance on Conan O'Brien; highlights from the Confederations Cup in South Africa; and a video of an adorable sneezing panda.

So I pressed 'Enter' and up came a message in Turkish: Ankara 1. Sulh Ceza Mahkemesi'nin, 05.05.2008 tarih ve 2008/402 nolu KORUMA TEDBİRİ kapsamında bu internet sitesi (youtube.com) hakkında verdiği karar Telekomünikasyon İletişim Başkanlığı'nca uygulanmaktadır.

Or, in English: (The decision no 2008/402 dated 05.05.2008, which is given about this web site (youtube.com) within the context of protection measure, of Ankara 1. Sulh Ceza Mahkemesi has been implemented by "Telekomünikasyon İletişim Başkanlığı".)

Or, in plain English: Youtube is banned. Your summer is ruined.

Why? According to the reputable Wikinews, "Several sources quote complaints against a video that insults Atatürk, founder and first president of the Republic of Turkey, as the reason for the block... Some media sources say that [a] video compared Atatürk with a monkey. This led some YouTube users to suspect that a video entitled 'ataturk was a gay and a monkey turkey turkiye turks' led to the block. This video was added on November 7, 2007, and is a series of images with Atatürk's face on monkeys, homosexuals, obese individuals and several pictures of Borat."

OK, so a few things here. First of all: Borat? What?!?

Second, I know I am a typical Western liberal when I say this, but this type of ban strikes me as not only illogical but also backwards. First, the logic of it. What? You're going to ban Youtube because ONE idiot put up a video? I understand it has to do with pride, and the Turkish laws that ban the insulting of "Turkishness" or the "memory of Ataturk" certainly illustrate that pride is a serious issue for Turks. But this type of ban is a joke. The internet is full of people expressing their opinions - how can you you justify banning one site but not another than makes similar derogatory comments (I'm quite sure such sites exist)? You can't. Seems silly.

Furthermore, it's a joke because many Turks I've talked to here simply use DNS tunnels to access Youtube anyway (DNS tunnels route your internet request through a server outside the country, allowing you to bypass blocks in a given country/region. I also hear that they may allow you to access airport and other hotspots without paying, but I can't confirm that personally). What's the point of a law that can be - and is - so easily bypassed? Furthermore, it is worth noting that 'tunneling' actually slows down internet speeds considerably, making it harder to be productive on the net. So the law actually drives people in Turkey who wish to bypass the absurd ban to worsen the quality of their internet connection. So it's illogical AND inefficient.

There's more. The elephant in the room.

Can any modern society - especially one that has aspirations for European status - continue having strict laws criminalizing "insults" to individual leaders or to their own sense of identity? I don't think so. Sure, the US has laws against certain types of speech (like 'hate speech' or 'fighting words' or libel), but the two are not really comparable. The simple fact is that there are opinions you cannot express in this country. Speech is not free. And I don't know if I'm being overly liberal when I say this - I just don't think that a state can truly join the modern age with such laws on the books. It seems that free speech is a cornerstone of the modern age, and if that's the case, Turkey remains, Gucci and all, a backwards state.

New Yorker Conference Video - Worth a Watch

2009-05-13T14:29:00.000-07:00

A good video - definitely my area of interest, PhD/research-wise as well as just general intellectual interest.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2009/05/new-yorker-summit-video-nassim-n-taleb-and-robert-shiller.html

If nothing else, it is fun to watch the dynamic between Taleb and Shiller.

David Plouffe, Barack Obama, and Mitch Stewart... And Ms. Coulter

2009-04-30T20:11:00.000-07:00

I hate to say it, but I think Obama is in danger of being known as the Spam President.

Also, Coulter strikes again (from her recent book):

"We also have a term for the youngsters involved: 'the children of divorce,' or as I call them, 'future strippers.'"

"In a related phenomenon, various half-black celebrities insist on representing themselves simply as "black" - the better to race-bait their way to success. Actress Halle Berry, singer Alicia Keys, and matinee idol Barack Obama were all abandoned by their black fathers and raised by their white mothers. But instead of seeing themselves as half-white, they prefer to see the glass as half-black. They all choose to identify with the fathers who ditched them, while insulting the women who struggled to raise them."

She really needs to stop this foolishness. It is not just low-class and racist/classist - it is also wrong and stupid. The amazing thing is, people buy her books. Who are these people? Most Republicans I know are too smart or sensible to listen to Coulter's rubbish. Or so I hope. Who, then, is left to pay their hard earned money to listen to her toxic brain dumpings?

And governing philosophy aside, what does Ann Coulter hope to accomplish with her "work?" The only possible answer: Nothing. She's just after the $$$. And that's pathetic.

Red States Heart Taxes

2009-04-23T06:18:00.000-07:00

I'm not saying Republicans should stop complaining about taxes, but let's be real for a minute. The fact of the matter is that blue states subsidize red states. See data below (from a 2004 Tax Foundation report).

States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:
1. D.C. ($6.17)
2. North Dakota ($2.03)
3. New Mexico ($1.89)
4. Mississippi ($1.84)
5. Alaska ($1.82)
6. West Virginia ($1.74)
7. Montana ($1.64)
8. Alabama ($1.61)
9. South Dakota ($1.59)
10. Arkansas ($1.53)

States Receiving Least in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:
1. New Jersey ($0.62)
2. Connecticut ($0.64)
3. New Hampshire ($0.68)
4. Nevada ($0.73)
5. Illinois ($0.77)
6. Minnesota ($0.77)
7. Colorado ($0.79)
8. Massachusetts ($0.79)
9. California ($0.81)
10. New York ($0.81)

The Greatest Nation?

2009-04-18T07:51:00.000-07:00

"The United States is the most creative, innovative, entrepreneurial and generous country on Earth."
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/16/shapiro.entrepreneurs/index.html

A couple of points. First, people always say stuff like this. But is it really true? I'm not so sure. We're more creative than the Japanese? We're more generous than Nordic countries? I don't know.

Second, articles like this irritate me. I don't love the bailouts, or all elements of the stimulus package. But to pull the whole "bankrupting America for future generations" argument is silly (not only because it wasn't Obama who allowed the debt to spiral out of control. He's inherited a mess. See image below).

Debt is not the worst thing ever. Sure, it's high now, but it has been higher (over 100% of GDP in the 1940's - see image). And the best way to pay off debt is to stimulate the economy to raise future revenues. I just don't see what this guy is advocating for. "Letting markets handle it" is just not a concrete solution.

Allowing "bad companies to fail" is also not as simple as this guy seems to think. Our entire system is at risk of collapse; some of the companies at risk are the driving force of our economy, and letting them fail could easily have cascading effects. Output would fall, tax revenues would fall, and that big fat debt would still be big and fat.

Finally, I still do not understand why everyone has a phobia of government spending. Anyone who has taken basic economics knows that in the face of externalities, public goods, and collective security, the government is - practically speaking - the only one who can step up and provide. That is, it is sometimes efficient for the government to spend (so, for example, on infrastructure... who else is going to do it? No one has a private incentive to repair a highway or build a high-speed rail network).

So we might have to pay higher taxes in the future. Honestly, big deal. Look at the tax rates in other countries... compared to them, our rates seem on the low side - or at least average. SEE GRAPH HERE

It's a great privilege to live in the US - still one of the world's most vibrant nations. But with that privilege comes a responsibility to support our government for the good of all of our fellow citizens. And maybe that means that we have to pay slightly higher taxes. I think Joe Biden was right when he said paying taxes is patriotic. It was just stunning that he was criticized for saying it.

I paid a lot of taxes in the last week - and I felt great about it. I just can't imagine ever bemoaning my tax burden. And I really can't understand the uber-wealthy bemoaning theirs. With the level of poverty that exists, both in the US and worldwide, I think it is immensely selfish for the super-rich to complain about the "burden" they feel. Sure, giving up money isn't awesome. But in my opinion, the wealthy are damn lucky to have the money to give up.

Hopelessly incoherent rant over.

Torn

2009-04-10T14:03:00.000-07:00

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/10/opinion/10krugman.html

I have to say that I am torn about this issue. I have many friends who work in finance and banking, and I feel that to the extent that finance is necessary (for capital allocation, risk management, portfolio diversification, etc.), it is a good thing. But as a person interested not only in policy, but in a more equitable allocation of income in the US and globally, I do have serious doubts about the merits and inherent "goodness" of the financial industry.

Furthermore, as a student of government, I do wish that more people dedicated their lives to public service. The problems in the public sector are so challenging and so big that we really do need the best minds in the country/world working on them (especially these days). So I do get a bit sad to see so many brilliant people - who I know could change the world for the better through public service - end up in the financial sector. It's my bias too, and I acknowledge that. But it is still extremely frustrating.

Gotta love it

2009-04-01T19:07:00.000-07:00

Funny News Stories

2009-04-01T07:28:00.000-07:00

These are classics. You'll laugh for hours. Or minutes anyway.

Excellence

2009-03-26T20:36:00.000-07:00

So I was watching a bit of golf today. I know. Golf. The sport with the plaid pants.

Anyway, now that you've stopped laughing at me, I will move on to my point. I enjoy watching golf, but really only when Tiger Woods is playing. If you follow sports at all, you'll know that Tiger Woods has been injured for a while now, and is just making his return to the PGA Tour.

So I was thinking, why do I like watching Tiger so much? Here's what I came up with:

First, I just enjoy watching him play. I like watching his demeanor and focus - it's really very impressive. He seems to will himself to success at times. For anyone fortunate enough to have watched the US Open last year, you'll know what I'm talking about (videos below for those who missed it!). I really don't think non-golfers appreciate what Woods has achieved as a golfer. It's just not a sport you dominate in the way he has. It doesn't work that way - if your club is one-half of a degree off on contact, you're a nobody.

I think more importantly, though, Tiger Woods excels at what he does to an extent that I can only dream of. I mean, I'd like to excel at something. So far, I've really not done anything with my life. That's OK. I'm young. But to watch someone who is not much older than me be the best at something - the clear best - that's really encouraging. I like to think that I won't settle for mediocrity - that I'll be the best at something one day. And I guess watching Tiger succeed as he has is, you know, inspirational. Or something.

For those of you who missed it, you gotta watch these highlights from last year's US Open. Note that he was playing this tournament with a torn ligament in his knee and a double stress fracture in his leg, which is CRAZY:

Third Round:

Fourth Round playoff forcing putt:

Brilliant Norm

2009-03-25T13:10:00.000-07:00

One of the funniest talk show interviews I have ever seen (In two parts, below).

Getting this thing started

2009-03-25T12:14:00.000-07:00

So apparently I am now a "blogger."

I'd like to begin with a little rant about Ann Coulter.

I dislike her. She's terrible. She makes me want to jump off a bridge. But I won't. Because then Ann Coulter would win.

Sometimes I wonder whether or not she is just kidding when she says and writes the things she does. Like she's a secret communist who just enjoys riling up the right wing by being a caricature. Then I think about the possibility that she's 100% genuine. That's when my head starts to hurt. She's terrible. Just terrible.

You know who else is terrible? The Washington Nationals. No pitching. 15 troubled outfielders. But at least they don't say things like this:

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."

That was Ann Coulter after 9/11. She also can't pitch.

On to other pressing issues. Namely, five random things that everyone should read ASAP:

1) Team of Rivals, by Doris Kearns Goodwin.
2) The Paradox of Choice, by Barry Schwartz.
3) This: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2009/01/26/090126ta_talk_surowiecki (because it is relevant to the current debate on taxes and the stimulus).
4) This: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/08/29/050829fa_fact?currentPage=all (because it is interesting, even if you don't totally agree with it).
5) This: http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/national-news/portfolio/2008/11/11/The-End-of-Wall-Streets-Boom?print=true (controversial and all, but everyone in the country should be required to read it).

Plenty more to come. I promise more cohesiveness next time. Maybe.