Some Proxies Are Useless

[T]he idea that there is one thing called "government"—and that you can measure it by looking at total spending—makes no sense.

First of all, the number of dollars collected and spent by the government doesn't tell you how big the government is in any meaningful sense. Most government policies can be accomplished at least three different ways: spending, tax credits, and regulation. For example, let's say we want to help low-income people afford rental housing. We can pay for housing vouchers; we can provide tax credits to developers to build affordable housing; or we can have a regulation saying that some percentage of new units must be affordably priced. The first increases the amount of cash flowing in and out of the government; the second decreases it; and the third leaves it the same. Yet all increase government's impact on society.

James Kwak, "What Do You Mean, 'Government Is Too Big'?" (via)

Was aufs Papier gelangt

Ich hasse das Klappern der Schreibmaschine, weil es den Strom der Imagination zerhackt. Handschrift, Sprechzwang beim Tonband, das gleiche. Von dem, was bis in die Vorstellung vordringt - wenig genug - gelangt doch nur sehr wenig aufs Papier.

Bernward Vesper, Die Reise, S. 34

Resources Are Limited

Across a variety of disciplines, many researchers aim to show that subtle biases continue to exist. My reaction tends to be, yes, and the world is still round. It’s not merely a glass half-full versus half-empty difference. It’s a glass nearly to the brim, but upon very, very close inspection, we’ve determined that it’s fractionally below the rim, too close to see with the naked eye or even with typical magnification; but with a really high-powered lens we’ve discovered a measurable distance between the rim and the water level. As economists, we frequently assert and explain how zero is rarely the optimal amount of anything, even undesirable things like pollution. If the standard against which bias is to measured is zero, then I suppose we haven’t reached it

Brian Goff, "MLB Umps Not so Color Blind?"

Exchange and Power

Should police officers be paid per arrest? Most people think this is a bad idea, I imagine, but the larger point (what can we learn from this?) isn’t clear. In Systems of Survival, Jacobs tried to spell out the larger point. She wrote about two sets of moral rules. One set (“guardian syndrome”) applied to warriors, government officials, and religious leaders. It prizes loyalty and obedience, for example. The other set (“commercial syndrome”) applied to merchants. It prizes honesty, avoidance of force, and industriousness, for example. The two syndromes correspond to two ways of making a living: taking and trading. [...]

A powerful newspaper isn’t inherently bad; we want a powerful newspaper to keep other powerful institutions (government, large businesses) in check. Murdoch’s News International, of course, has became very powerful. Yet Murdoch newsrooms retained commercial norms, especially an emphasis on selling many copies. Reporters in Murdoch newsrooms were under intense pressure to produce — like policemen paid per arrest.

Seth Roberts, "Phone Hacking and Jane Jacobs"