Media Bias 2?

The Politico has a story about Congress and gun control. The online headline is “Congress slow to respond to shootings with legislation.” The print headline is even stronger: “All Talk, No Progress on Gun Control in Wake of V-Tech.”

This is a standard trope of perhaps unconscious bias. “Progress” is a good thing; if Congress has made “No Progress on Gun Control,” then that’s a bad thing. It’s like the frequent media lead “Congress failed today to pass national health insurance (or an increase in the minimum wage, or global warming restrictions, or campaign finance restrictions).”

Does one ever hear “Congress failed today to reduce taxes”? “No Progress on Deregulation”? I don’t think so. Journalists unconsciously assume that Congress should Do the Right Thing. When it doesn’t, that’s “failure” or “no progress.” Journalists and headline writers should try to find neutral language to describe Congress’s actions.

I’d Be OK with Hinky, Given Post Hoc Articulation

Bruce Schneier has a typically interesting post about right and wrong ways to generate suspicion. In “Recognizing ‘Hinky’ vs. Citizen Informants,” he makes the case that asking amateurs for tips about suspicious behavior will have lots of wasteful and harmful results, like racial and ethnic discrimination, angry neighbors turning each other in, and so on. But people with expertise — even in very limited domains — can discover suspicious circumstances almost automatically, when they find things “hinky.”

As an example, a Rochester Institute of Technology student was recently discovered possessing assault weapons illegally (though that’s not necessarily good policy):

The discovery of the weapons was made only by chance. A conference center worker who served in the military was walking past Hackenburg’s dorm room. The door was shut, but the worker heard the all-too-familiar racking sound of a weapon … .

Schneier explains this in terms of “hinky”:

Each of us has some expertise in some topic, and will occasionally recognize that something is wrong even though we can’t fully explain what or why. An architect might feel that way about a particular structure; an artist might feel that way about a particular painting. I might look at a cryptographic system and intuitively know something is wrong with it, well before I figure out exactly what. Those are all examples of a subliminal recognition that something is hinky — in our particular domain of expertise.

This straddles an important line. Is it something we “can’t fully explain,” or something that feels wrong “before [one can] figure out exactly what”? My preference is that the thing should be explainable — not necessarily at the moment suspicion arises, but at some point.

I’m reminded of the Supreme Court formulation “reasonable suspicion based on articulable fact” — it was hammered into my brain in law school. It never satisfied me because the inquiry shouldn’t end at “articulable” but at whether, subsequently, the facts were actually articulated. “The hunch of an experienced officer” is an abdication that courts have indulged far too long.

I hear fairly often of “machine learning” that might be able to generate suspicion about terrorists. The cincher is that it’s so complicated we allegedly “can’t know” exactly what caused the machine to find a particular person, place, or thing worthy of suspicion. Given their superior memories, I think machines especially should be held to the standard of articulating the actual facts considered and the inferences drawn, reasonably, to justify whatever investigation follows.

Shed No Tears for U.S. Manufacturers

I’m going on BBC radio shortly to comment on the creation of a new lobbying group called the Alliance for American Manufacturing. Funded in part by the United Steelworkers Union, the group promises to agitate for trade restrictions against allegedly “unfair” imports from China.

Putting the “unfair trade” charge aside for a moment, there is no evidence that U.S. manufacturing as a whole is suffering from import competition, whether fair or unfair (whatever that means). Consider a few facts that you probably won’t find on the AAM’s slick new website:

U.S. manufacturing output is up 40 percent in the past decade by volume. American workers continue to produce more chemicals and pharmaceuticals, more semiconductors and sophisticated medical equipment, more aircraft and even auto parts than ever before.

After-tax profits of U.S. manufacturing companies topped $400 billion last year.

Imports from China have displaced relatively few Americans workers. Workers who have lost their jobs because of imports from China account for only about 1 percent of annual U.S. job displacement. The sectors where China has been most competitive tend to be in lower-value goods such as clothing, shoes and other labor-intensive products.

Manufacturing jobs have been declining, not because of falling production, but because of soaring productivity. We are producing record volumes of manufacturing output with fewer workers because remaining workers are so much more productive.

China represents the fastest growing major export market for U.S. manufacturing exporters.

To get more details and analysis on our trade relationship with China, check out my 2006 Cato Trade Briefing Paper, “Who’s Manipulating Whom?”

Send Your Wish-Lists to Senator Clinton

In a press release yesterday, presidential candidate Sen. Hilary Clinton (D, NY) spoke about her commitment to “rural economic development.” Her commitment was demonstrated by introducing a bill in March called the Rural Investments to Strengthen our Economy Act (RISE Act), which provides employer tax credits for “rural entrepreneurs and small business.”

“The RISE Act will increase jobs, wages and other financial incentives allowing individuals to decide where they live by their desire, not by limited opportunities,” said Senator Clinton (emphasis added).

Really? So if I want to live in, say, one of those townhouses in Georgetown, then the government will take money from other people and buy it for me? Awesome.

(For more discussion on rural America, please attend or view online our forum today on the latest trade policy analysis from Cato’s Center for Trade Policy Studies, “Freeing the Farm: A Farm Bill for All Americans”)

As We Age

Atul Gawande writes,

Little of what the geriatricians had done was high-tech medicine: they didn’t do lung biopsies or back surgery or PET scans. Instead, they simplified medications. They saw that arthritis was controlled. They made sure toenails were trimmed and meals were square. They looked for worrisome signs of isolation and had a social worker check that the patient’s home was safe.

How do we reward this kind of work? Chad Boult, who was the lead investigator of the St. Paul study and a geriatrician at the University of Minnesota, can tell you. A few months after he published his study, demonstrating how much better people’s lives were with specialized geriatric care, the university closed the division of geriatrics.

“The university said that it simply could not sustain the financial losses,” Boult said from Baltimore, where he is now a professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. On average, in Boult’s study, the geriatric services cost the hospital $1,350 more per person than the savings they produced, and Medicare, the insurer for the elderly, does not cover that cost. It’s a strange double standard. No one insists that a twenty-five-thousand-dollar pacemaker or a coronary-artery stent save money for insurers. It just has to maybe do people some good.

En passant, he writes, “We cling to the notion of retirement at sixty-five—a reasonable notion when those over sixty-five were a tiny percentage of the population, but completely untenable as they approach twenty per cent.”

So it seems that Medicare is letting down the elderly when it comes to geriatric care.  And Social Security is untenable.  Who would have thought that government would make mistakes?

No Pearl(stein)s of Wisdom

Count the Washington Post’s chief business writer, Steven Pearlstein, among the disciples of “Dobbsonomics.” In his column today, Pearlstein writes:

There is a reason that, when it comes to trade and globalization, more Americans believe Lou Dobbs than Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke — and it’s not because they’ve been bamboozled. The reason is that Americans perceive, correctly, that in recent years liberalized trade has not delivered as promised…(emphasis added)

Exactly what were those promises, Steven? Since 2001, the year of our last recession and the year China joined the WTO, U.S. GDP has increased 32 percent and about eight million net new jobs were created in the economy. Today’s unemployment rate stands at 4.4 percent. And don’t tell me that those 3 million people who lost manufacturing jobs at the beginning of the decade are flipping burgers or just stopped looking for work. The median salary in the services sector recently surpassed the median manufacturing salary.

A lot of the criticism of trade these days seems to be nothing more than expressions of self-loathing. As uneducated, unsuspecting, indebted sloths, Americans are living on borrowed time. Surely there will be hellish consequences to pay for our present profligacy.

Next time, let’s see the facts supporting the conclusion that U.S. trade policies have not delivered.