Political Roundtable - Part VI

[Zonkerbl]

Obama reached a deal with China over carbon emissions!

Ok! I'm a little less peeved with Obama now. Nice to see somebody in the government capable of governing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/ ... story.html

As with anything with the Chinese, I want to know about enforcement... I really don't trust them - and I think that is with good reason. It does make me hopeful that the problems due to pollution are motivating And it could very well jumpstart worldwide negotiations.

The outline has a couple of worrying texts...

1) China said it “intends” to start cutting carbon emissions in 2030
2) China was already on course to produce a fifth of its energy from renewable sources by 2020
3) Analysts carbon emissions were already expected to peak in 2030

On the other hand, we (the US) agrees to:

1) cut in carbon emissions of between 26% and 28% on 2005 levels by 2020 an acceleration of its existing goal to reduce emissions 17%

And our goals would be enforceable if congress passes the measure.

It kind of feels a little bit like:

Obama: We will cut emission even if it will cost more for our companies to manufacture and transport goods.
Xi: We will increase carbon output to cut energy costs for the next 15 years.
Obama: Lets reduce barriers to trade for high-tech industry and manufactured goods. So, when our energy costs go up and yours go down, US businesses can move to China without fear of import restrictions back to the US
Xi: you drive a hard bargain...But you got a Deal!

Well, enforcement IS the key - that's why all these negotiations are about promising not to roll back regulations you've already made. It is kind of ridiculous and unfair that the U.S. is the only participant in this process being asked to make any big sacrifices. But we owe it to the world to be a good climate change citizen, even if they are all being butts about it.

[Zonkerbl]

The way the prison system works now, pedophiles are punished with a certain amount of time in prison, and then are set free.

Why does the punishment have to be prison time? I mean it really is an interesting question. If we're not allowed to cut body parts off and generally are forbidden from cruel and unusual punishment, what other kinds of punishments are available to us? Fines, obviously. Registering as a sex offender is another. What else?

Interesting thing about jail time is it is a worse punishment for rich people than poor people, rich people's time being more valuable. Put differently, jail time is a relatively bad punishment for poor people - fines would actually be more effective.

If there were a set fine for pedophilia it would make it less harsh for rich people. But then you could just make the fine equal to one year's pay or something. Or let the judge decide what is appropriate with various guidelines. Like we do now for other things.

[nate33]

But Nate, surely you don't believe that every single one of the two million prisoners in this country are bad people?

I think that's absurd and intellectual laziness on your part. Do you or do you not admit that only a small number of people in jail are "bad people"? Do you or do you not admit that most of the "bad" people are mentally ill and thus "punishing" them with incarceration is a complete waste of public funds? Do you deny that a number of institutions that we have control over, like the education system, are responsible for preparing inner city kids to spend most of their lives in jail? That if we approached our education system, our health care system, the way we care for the mentally ill differently, the need for incarceration would decline significantly, reducing government budgets and allowing the current government at the state and federal level to be reduced substantially? More to the point, if confronted with a choice between more public healthcare or more prisons, which choice are we obligated to make as ethical human beings?

I think the vast majority of people in jail (excluding the drug offenders) are indeed "bad people". And by bad people, I mean that they knowingly and with premeditation harmed other people when they knew full well that it was the wrong thing to do. They deserve punishment - as a means of deterrence, and to get them off the street so they don't do so again. As Nivek pointed out earlier, crime rate has dropped a great deal ever since we decided to get "tough on crime".

And I don't know what you expect our educational system to do differently. The best thing we could do with our education system is to separate the boys from the girls and impose a more strict, boot-camp style disciplinary system for the boys. But the problem is that if we were to apply this methodology to high crime areas, we would end up disproportionately applying it to blacks, and thereby be accused of racism again.

You already admit that a huge number of people in the system now are there for crimes that are only on the books because of institutionalized racism. There's absolutely no need for any drugs to be illegal. We could wage the war on drugs just as easily with legal drugs, except we wouldn't have an excuse to throw so many minorities in jail. So all I'm asking you to do is continue that line of thinking.

I do not admit that the "War on Drugs" is racist by design. I think it is "classist" (if that's a word). I think the focus on the producers and distributors of drugs rather than the consumers ultimately targets the underclass rather than the upper class (who contributed to the coffers of the politicians who wrote the laws). The unfortunate consequence is that it disproportionately incarcerates Blacks, Hispanics, and poor white people.

How much prison space do we really need? Have the courage to ask that question and not just blow it off with some reactionary knee-jerk jingoistic **** about how people are evil.

What you consider to be "jingoistic ****", I consider to be "reality". Have you ever walked the streets in high crime areas? Could imagine leaving there? With you children? Under a policy of letting the criminals continue to walk the streets after committing rape and murder as long as they're sorry?

[nate33]

Well, enforcement IS the key - that's why all these negotiations are about promising not to roll back regulations you've already made. It is kind of ridiculous and unfair that the U.S. is the only participant in this process being asked to make any big sacrifices. But we owe it to the world to be a good climate change citizen, even if they are all being butts about it.

Why do we owe it to the world?

They keep telling us that the U.S. is awful because of our high carbon emission, but they're metric is wrong. Yes, the U.S emits a lot of carbon on a per capita basis, but that's not what matters. Carbon is emitted by human activities and then absorbed by plants and oceans. It seems to me that the appropriate metric should be carbon emitted per square mile of land mass. And by that metric, the U.S. is model citizen. We are a net carbon absorber.

[dckingsfan]

Nate, there were some parts on "tough on crime" that worked and some that haven't.

Overall crime rates dropped. Good.

We incarcerated a generation of low-level drug users. Bad.

We kept violent offenders off the streets. Good.

Because we incarcerated many that we shouldn't have, we have made incarceration of the worst offenders less feasible due to fiscal restraints. Bad.

In addition - many states have had to divert funds from schools to prisons. In fact, in CA there was actually a bill passed where the percentage of the budget had to go to K12 because the prison budget was eating into everything. The prison budgets devastated the higher education budgets in CA. Bad.

[popper]

Well, enforcement IS the key - that's why all these negotiations are about promising not to roll back regulations you've already made. It is kind of ridiculous and unfair that the U.S. is the only participant in this process being asked to make any big sacrifices. But we owe it to the world to be a good climate change citizen, even if they are all being butts about it.

Why do we owe it to the world?

They keep telling us that the U.S. is awful because of our high carbon emission, but they're metric is wrong. Yes, the U.S emits a lot of carbon on a per capita basis, but that's not what matters. Carbon is emitted by human activities and then absorbed by plants and oceans. It seems to me that the appropriate metric should be carbon emitted per square mile of land mass. And by that metric, the U.S. is model citizen. We are a net carbon absorber.

Never thought about it that way Nate but it makes perfect sense to measure it as you described.

[dckingsfan]

There is no reason why for example marijuana possession or use should lead to mandatory prison sentences - IMO.

Community service is also a deterrent.

There are better ways... the current way isn't sustainable.

[popper]

Wow. Great article on how a major income inequality study was distorted.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/phil-gra ... 1415749856

Edit - its weird I got through the paywall and now I can't when I click the link above.

Edit = I was able to get through the paywall through this link to google and then clicking on first WSJ article

https://www.google.com/search?q=How+to+ ... 2&ie=UTF-8

[nate33]

Nate, there were some parts on "tough on crime" that worked and some that haven't.

Overall crime rates dropped. Good.

We incarcerated a generation of low-level drug users. Bad.

We kept violent offenders off the streets. Good.

Because we incarcerated many that we shouldn't have, we have made incarceration of the worst offenders less feasible due to fiscal restraints. Bad.

In addition - many states have had to divert funds from schools to prisons. In fact, in CA there was actually a bill passed where the percentage of the budget had to go to K12 because the prison budget was eating into everything. The prison budgets devastated the higher education budgets in CA. Bad.

I never said our system was perfect. I agree with many who think we ought to end criminalizing drug use and drug distribution. If we just did that, we would instantly drop our incarceration rate by about 30%. Furthermore, it would eliminate the black market in drugs, which would eliminate much of the incentive for drug and gang related violence, further reducing our incarceration rate.

But other than the drug issue, I'm not convinced that our criminal justice system is egregiously flawed. We don't need any radical restructuring of our whole concepts of criminality and punishment. We just need to stop the War on Drugs.

[nate33]

Wow. Great article on how a major income inequality study was distorted.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/phil-gra ... 1415749856

Edit - its weird I got through the paywall and now I can't when I click the link above.

Edit = I was able to get through the paywall through this link to google and then clicking on first WSJ article

https://www.google.com/search?q=How+to+ ... 2&ie=UTF-8

Holy crap! This is a HUGE revelation that entirely nukes the entire premise of the Democrat party's economic agenda.

The whole income inequality argument is derived from the famous Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez study published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics in 2003. Here are some of the money quotes from the WSJ article that explains why the study was so flawed:

The Piketty-Saez study looked only at pretax cash market income. It did not take into account taxes. It left out noncash compensation such as employer-provided health insurance and pension contributions. It left out Social Security payments, Medicare and Medicaid benefits, and more than 100 other means-tested government programs. Realized capital gains were included, but not the first $500,000 from the sale of one’s home, which is tax-exempt. IRAs and 401(k)s were counted only when the money is taken out in retirement. Finally, the Piketty-Saez data are based on individual tax returns, which ignore, for any given household, the presence of multiple earners.

And now, thanks to a new study in the Southern Economic Journal, we know what the picture looks like when the missing data are filled in. Economists Philip Armour and Richard V. Burkhauser of Cornell University and Jeff Larrimore of Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation expanded the Piketty-Saez income measure using census data to account for all public and private in-kind benefits, taxes, Social Security payments and household size.

The result is dramatic. The bottom quintile of Americans experienced a 31% increase in income from 1979 to 2007 instead of a 33% decline that is found using a Piketty-Saez market-income measure alone. The income of the second quintile, often referred to as the working class, rose by 32%, not 0.7%. The income of the middle quintile, America’s middle class, increased by 37%, not 2.2%.

[dckingsfan]

Nate, there were some parts on "tough on crime" that worked and some that haven't.

Overall crime rates dropped. Good.

We incarcerated a generation of low-level drug users. Bad.

We kept violent offenders off the streets. Good.

Because we incarcerated many that we shouldn't have, we have made incarceration of the worst offenders less feasible due to fiscal restraints. Bad.

In addition - many states have had to divert funds from schools to prisons. In fact, in CA there was actually a bill passed where the percentage of the budget had to go to K12 because the prison budget was eating into everything. The prison budgets devastated the higher education budgets in CA. Bad.

I never said our system was perfect. I agree with many who think we ought to end criminalizing drug use and drug distribution. If we just did that, we would instantly drop our incarceration rate by about 30%. Furthermore, it would eliminate the black market in drugs, which would eliminate much of the incentive for drug and gang related violence, further reducing our incarceration rate.

But other than the drug issue, I'm not convinced that our criminal justice system is egregiously flawed. We don't need any radical restructuring of our whole concepts of criminality and punishment. We just need to stop the War on Drugs.

I figured you that was the case. I would also add that community service for petty crimes (shop lifting under certain amounts) would also help the cause. I would make sure the community service was applied to the "broken window" concept. Basically those resources would be applied to cleaning up the community.

I think the "tough on crime" moniker = put everyone away. And you clearly don't agree with that (as does 90% of the population). But as a politician, you can articulate that without being attacked.

[Zonkerbl]

Nate, I live in a high crime neighborhood right now. And my kids come and live with me every other weekend. This neighborhood has been straight jacketed by the war on drugs. If the people in my neighborhood weren't routinely forced into prison for being "bad guys" they would have better educations, better jobs, and better prospects, there would be better economic development in my neighborhood and the value of my house would skyrocket. I would unequivocally be better off if Angela Davis' commie pinko view of the world prevailed rather than the current capitalist utopia.

[nate33]

I would unequivocally be better off if Angela Davis' commie pinko view of the world prevailed rather than the current capitalist utopia.

Funny how every time a communist utopia forms, the people desperately flee in a fervent desire to join capitalist hellholes like the United States of America.

[Zonkerbl]

I think the vast majority of people in jail (excluding the drug offenders) are indeed "bad people". And by bad people, I mean that they knowingly and with premeditation harmed other people when they knew full well that it was the wrong thing to do.

Nate, by this definition we are all "bad people." Or are you saying you are without sin?

[Nivek]

I'd want to see the work on the breakdown of what people are imprisoned for. Some are surely in because they "knowingly and with premeditation" harmed others when they knew it was wrong. But, many are in prison for "spur of the moment" stuff. They get in a disagreement with someone and it escalates. They do something stupid and get caught. Do they know it's wrong? Yeah, but in the moment they're not thinking about that.

Plus, sooo much of who goes to prison and who doesn't depends on the quality of representation. Can't remember where I read it, but the gist of the line stuck: Outcomes in the American justice system are based more on access to financial resources than culpability.

[Nivek]

That income inequality study is very interesting. I'm curious to see the response from economists. I do wonder about including things like Medicare, Medicaid and other forms of governmental support as "income," which the new study apparently does. But this ain't my area of expertise. I'm hoping there will be some good analysis of it coming in the next few days.

[nate33]

I'd want to see the work on the breakdown of what people are imprisoned for. Some are surely in because they "knowingly and with premeditation" harmed others when they knew it was wrong. But, many are in prison for "spur of the moment" stuff. They get in a disagreement with someone and it escalates. They do something stupid and get caught. Do they know it's wrong? Yeah, but in the moment they're not thinking about that.

Those spur of the moment things don't generally involve prison (although various "3 strikes and your out" mandatory sentencing may apply to repeat offenders). Judges and juries can tell the difference. People go to prison for robbery, armed robbery, executions, rape, etc. These are all activities when the perpetrator knowingly committed a violent or harmful act. Millions of these types of harmful acts take place every year. Let's not act like some significant percentage of them are misunderstandings or crimes of passion.

[Zonkerbl]

That income inequality study is very interesting. I'm curious to see the response from economists. I do wonder about including things like Medicare, Medicaid and other forms of governmental support as "income," which the new study apparently does. But this ain't my area of expertise. I'm hoping there will be some good analysis of it coming in the next few days.

Should be total compensation. Haven't read the article yet - there's a risk that they're cherry picking types of compensation that go mainly to poor people, that's the trouble when you embark on a project like this. But yes of course as an economist I want to know if government programs are effective in improving income inequality, so of course I want compensation from government programs included in the metric. It's a no brainer.

[Zonkerbl]

I'd want to see the work on the breakdown of what people are imprisoned for. Some are surely in because they "knowingly and with premeditation" harmed others when they knew it was wrong. But, many are in prison for "spur of the moment" stuff. They get in a disagreement with someone and it escalates. They do something stupid and get caught. Do they know it's wrong? Yeah, but in the moment they're not thinking about that.

Those spur of the moment things don't generally involve prison (although various "3 strikes and your out" mandatory sentencing may apply to repeat offenders). Judges and juries can tell the difference. People go to prison for robbery, armed robbery, executions, rape, etc. These are all activities when the perpetrator knowingly committed a violent or harmful act. Millions of these types of harmful acts take place every year. Let's not act like some significant percentage of them are misunderstandings or crimes of passion.

But as Kevin pointed out, you can't assume representation is equal for all defendants. Spur of the moment things don't involve prison for rich people, but much more often a spur of the moment thing will land a poor person in jail.

[nate33]

But as Kevin pointed out, you can't assume representation is equal for all defendants. Spur of the moment things don't involve prison for rich people, but much more often a spur of the moment thing will land a poor person in jail.

I agree that this is a concern, but it's not a concern that is particularly unique to America. This is an issue that has troubled civilizations for centuries. The rich are always going to get a better opportunity to defend themselves because they can purchase higher quality defense and/or purchase favor with the authority in power.

America has a decent system in place to try and mitigate the unfairness of it all, but no system is perfect. One should always strive to improve the system, but one must also acknowledge that you can go too far in preserving the rights of the accused. Eventually, the criminal justice system gets bogged down to the point of uselessness. The end result is that with less crime enforcement, even more innocent people get hurt.