A very important fact, indeed

I agree with Yuval Levin, from his EconTalk podcast, about a simple point and an important fact:

I think Conservatives today don’t often enough make the simple point: that, when it comes to economics the market system that we are advocating has been the best thing that has ever happened to the poor in human history. And has dramatically reduced extreme poverty around the world and is still doing it right now; has been the way in which the needy and the vulnerable have been lifted up. It’s worked far better than anything else we’ve every tried, far better than anything the Left has tried to do economically. And that should matter. That’s a very important fact.

I hear this point made on occasion in left/right debates by the right. I find it interesting at how quickly it gets swept under the rug by the left. It’s usually with a red herring like, “but capitalism has its problems, too.” What I find interesting is how uninterested the left is in examining this important fact.

It goes back to the Levin quote in the previous post, “…the left takes for granted a thriving economy that just comes in the background…

This very important fact, in fact, was key in dislodging my liberal thinking. Before it was pointed out to me, I too, took the thriving economy for granted.

But, when it was pointed out to me, it was eye opening. Rather than sweeping it under the rug, I went silent and thought, if that’s right, how could I be against it? Isn’t it achieving the very thing that I say I want?

Levin went on to say:

Beyond that, the kind of society we are arguing for is a society that for very solid reasons we believe is grounded in a way of life that helps advance the moral good. A way of life that helps people build the sort of lives they want. That makes government more effective at solving problems that people confront. That gives people the room to build the lives they want and protects them from the worst risks that they might confront in modern life, rather than a society that says: This is the way, and you have to do it. Which, again and again, this is how the Left approaches the life of our society: centralize, consolidate, exercise authority to push people into the right grooves.

I couldn’t help to think of this quote when I read this Wall Street Journal op-ed on the politics around the federal nutrition standards for school cafeterias.

The nutrition mandates from 2010 First Lady bill centralizes nutritional choices for school lunches to “push people into the right grooves.”

Enhanced by Zemanta

Bottom up links

In this Freakonomics podcast, Steven Levitt discusses his work with companies whose managers resist experimentation to test their beliefs.

In one example, he couldn’t convince a company to stop running newspaper ads in any market to see if that would have an effect on sales. But, they discovered that an intern neglected to buy ads in Pittsburgh one summer. It had no effect on sales. But, the company still buys ads.

In this EconTalk podcast, Yuval Levin made what I expected to be a dull conversation about Edmund Burke and Thomas Paine, very interesting. On this, especially, I agree:

I think that there’s a way in which the Left takes for granted a thriving economy that just comes in the background and the question is how to distribute the goods. We have to make the argument that that thriving economy–which makes possible the thriving life of this society–has to be sustained. And it’s a function of certain attitudes toward law and order, of certain kinds of rules, certain kinds of liberties that have to be defended, both because they are right and because they are good. Conservatives are nowhere near good enough at making that kind of case.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Failing sucks, get over it

The Wall Street Journal published an adaptation of Admiral William McRaven’s commencement address to the University of Texas about life lessons learned at Navy SEAL Training that is worth a read.

Here are a couple prescient lessons.

Get over failing:

Several times a week, the instructors would line up the class and do a uniform inspection. It was exceptionally thorough. Your hat had to be perfectly starched, your uniform immaculately pressed and your belt buckle shiny and void of any smudges.

But it seemed that no matter how much effort you put into starching your hat, or pressing your uniform or polishing your belt buckle, it just wasn’t good enough. The instructors would find “something” wrong.

For failing the uniform inspection, the student had to run, fully clothed, into the surfzone and then, wet from head to toe, roll around on the beach until every part of your body was covered with sand. The effect was known as a “sugar cookie.” You stayed in that uniform the rest of the day—cold, wet and sandy.

There were many students who just couldn’t accept the fact that all their effort was in vain. That no matter how hard they tried to get the uniform right, it was unappreciated.

Those students didn’t make it through training. Those students didn’t understand the purpose of the drill. You were never going to succeed. You were never going to have a perfect uniform.

Sometimes, no matter how well you prepare or how well you perform, you still end up as a sugar cookie. It’s just the way life is sometimes.

If you want to change the world, get over being a sugar cookie and keep moving forward.

More on failing, don’t afraid of “the circus”, in fact it’s how you respond to failure that may build your success in the future:

Every day during training you were challenged with multiple physical events. Long runs, long swims, obstacle courses, hours of calisthenics—something designed to test your mettle.

Every event had standards, times that you had to meet. If you failed to meet those standards, your name was posted on a list and at the end of the day those on the list were invited to a “circus.”

A circus was two hours of additional calisthenics designed to wear you down, to break your spirit, to force you to quit. No one wanted a circus. A circus meant that for that day you didn’t measure up. A circus meant more fatigue, and more fatigue meant that the following day would be more difficult—and more circuses were likely.

But at some time during SEAL training, everyone—everyone—made the circus list. Yet an interesting thing happened to those who were constantly on the list. Over time those students, who did two hours of extra calisthenics, got stronger and stronger. The pain of the circuses built inner strength—built physical resiliency.

Life is filled with circuses. You will fail. You will likely fail often. It will be painful. It will be discouraging. At times it will test you to your very core.

But if you want to change the world, don’t be afraid of the circuses.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Incentives matter: Equal play time in youth sports

Do young rec players play chaotically because they are inexperienced and immature or because of equal play time rules?

Like many youth sports coaches, I’ve discovered that there is no better reward than game time to promote the application of fundamentals and sportsmanship.

I “herded cats” while coaching in a rec league with equal play time rules. It was tough to teach the kids what seems like the simplest parts of the game and they repeated basic errors for far too long.

But, I hadn’t considered that it was the equal play time that caused it. I chalked it up the kids’ immaturity and inability to see the bigger picture consequences of their actions. For example, some players just didn’t seem to think they needed to mark-up, even though they had been repeatedly burned by leaving their man open.

Once we grew out of the equal play rules, I did what came natural and made lineup choices to reinforce the fundamentals.

If a player stopped doing the basics, like marking up, I would sub them out and let them know why. If someone applied the fundamentals — whether or not they were good at it — they stayed in longer. My philosophy was, win or lose, game time was meant for players to practice what we taught them.

I didn’t realize how effective this was until a recent kerfuffle on my team caused me to second guess those lineup choices and go back to equal play time rules.

A parent mistook my subbing order as ‘unfair punishment’ for his son missing practices. He left the game with his son and quit the team. I wasn’t punishing his son. I was giving the people who had attended the lesson the past few weeks a chance to practice it.

I’ve learned in the past that to teach team-play concepts, you need everyone on the field to have gone through the lesson or it’s harder for everyone to learn it. I’m sure that parent wouldn’t want his son taking a math test over a lesson he missed at school without first covering that lesson.

I found over the next couple of games, though, that I was a second guessing a lot of my lineup choices because I wanted to avoid another incident like that. I kept questioning, “how will his parent interpret this?” I found that second guessing distracting and stressful, so to avoid it I went back to equal play rules so no parents could complain that their kids weren’t getting play time.

Over the next few games I watched the team devolve from playing the best I’d ever seen them play, to playing the undisciplined, individual, sloppy playground ball that was characteristic in their rec years.

A parent made the comment — They looked like 6 year olds in rec. She was right.

That got me to thinking.

Not only had the kids quickly devolved from applying fundamentals that they had progressed on over the two previous seasons, but most became unresponsive to our coaching, as well.

That parent’s comment made me realize that they had lost the most effective incentive that encouraged them to apply fundamentals and listen to coaches — play time. They got to play whether they played like we were teaching or not, and over the course of a couple of games they (sub consciously) figured this out.

Game time became “theirs”. Rather than doing what was best for the team, they wanted to make something happen for their own glory during their time. And, of course, when half the team are being glory hounds, they don’t do the basic, boring stuff like marking-up and the team implodes.

This experience made me wonder if equal play rules are the main reason kids play sloppy in rec ball. Perhaps they’d learn the fundamentals faster by having the direct consequence of staying in the game or not based on their application of fundamentals.

So, the next time you see a sports team implode, consider that it may not be that the team is just performing poorly. Perhaps what you are seeing is a result of distorted incentives.

Don’t get caught in the justice trap

I enjoyed this post from David Henderson on EconLog about why businesses hire employees and that it is worthwhile to avoid the justice trap.

Henderson quotes good advice from Jeffrey Tucker:

Sincere apologies and genuine admissions of error and wrongdoing are the rarest things in this world. There is no point at all in demanding apologies or in becoming resentful when they fail to appear. Just move on. Neither should you expect to always be rewarded for being right. On the contrary, people will often resent you and try to take you down.

How do you deal with this problem? Don’t get frustrated. Don’t seek justice. Accept the reality for what it is. If a job isn’t working out, move on. If you get fired, don’t seek vengeance. Anger and resentment accomplish absolutely nothing. Keep your eye on the goal of personal and professional advancement, and think of anything that interrupts your path as a diversion and a distraction.

And perhaps a bit more powerful from Walter Oi regarding Japanese internment camps in World War II:

…the Japanese-Americans were treated unjustly, but that the best thing to do for them was to move on and not create a new government program.

I agree. It is very easy to get caught in the justice trap and dwell on how you have been wronged, but that isn’t the least bit productive. Get over it.

Signals v Causes: Rome

This gave me a chuckle, from this week’s EconTalk with Charles Marhon about what makes a strong town:

I like to point out that Rome didn’t get the Colosseum and then build Rome. The Colosseum was the byproduct of centuries of success. And you know, you can look and say Rome was successful because they had a Colosseum. And go out and build a Colosseum and then say, why isn’t Rome appearing here?

I recommend the podcast. Marohn makes a lot points that I am sympathetic to.

He thinks we’ve gone overboard on infrastructure due to the belief that more is always better for growth.

Because of that thinking (similar to thinking on housing and education) and distorted incentives (we don’t directly pay for all that infrastructure) we’ve pushed into the diminishing returns part of the curve and cities that have built infrastructure to try to stimulate growth (rather than build to keep up with growth) are getting to the point where they may not be able to pay their bills.

Socially wasteful?

As a long-time debate aficionado, it seems to become rarer and rarer that I come across a debate that I haven’t heard yet and makes me think. I came across such a debate between Steve Landsburg and Don Boudreaux about socially wasteful spending.

It goes something like this:

Company A has a product that produces value for society, let’s say $100. Company B faces a decision to make a competing product that is slightly better and would add marginally to the overall value for society, let’s say $10. So, Company B’s product would produce value of $110.

Company B faces an incentive to invest more than the marginal improvement in societal value, $10 in this case, because it can also attract Company A’s customers.

So, maybe Company B invests $50 to produce $10 more in value for society, because it can attract the some or all of the $100 of value already served by Company A’s product.

On net, society is worse off because a $50 investment has been made to produce $10 of value, for a net loss of $40. Landsburg says the $50 is socially wasteful spending, though he admits that the simple example doesn’t capture all the complexities of the real world, like the possibility that the $50 investment accidentally produces more than $50 of value.

But, I think his main point is that this incentive to make socially wasteful investments is, perhaps, one weakness in the normal feedbacks of capitalism.

I’m having a hard time fitting the real world onto the simple example, where there is uncertainty, risk, prudence, competition, different value propositions for different people and such.

Enhanced by Zemanta