Interesting book review. The book, Nudge, is written by two people with connections to Obama.

The reviewer for Mises is economist Gary Galles. I don't know much about him but I would assume he's more of anarcho-capitalist style libertarian who doesn't like the "libertarian paternalism" argument put forth by the authors.

Says Galles:

In Nudge (Yale University Press, 2008), authors Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein try to combine libertarianism and paternalism by arguing that a nudge — "any aspect of the choice architecture that alters people's behavior in a predictable way without forbidding any options or significantly changing their economic incentives" — can benefit those nudged, while staying consistent with liberty because it does not force anyone to do anything. Nudge's argument is far from airtight. But even more devastating is its reliance on a false premise. The "market failure" examples it promises to improve are actually government failures.

The argument he puts forth goes to the heart of how different people perceive our realities. Quite frankly, I find that we do not debate this paradigm enough in our national discourse. It may seem like we do but we really don't. To Galles, the authors start from a "false premise"...that false premise being that the problems they seek to correct with a "nudge" are not grounded in market failure. The authors show a variety of economic shortcomings and Galles seeks to demonstrate how their focus on the root of the problem is misplaced.

Is he right?

Read on and share your thoughts.

We have all read about these matters before but here is a an interesting take on it from Mark at Publius Endures.

I'm not so sure I'm convinced about its long term viability. While it all may be fine and good on foreign policy, civil liberties and social issues, the economic side is still a huge 800lb gorilla in the room.

Even if Mark is right in expecting the Pro-Hillary (and Pro-Edwards) populist:

voters to slowly move towards the Republican Party, with its emphasis on American exceptionalism and power, so-called "traditional values," and increasing nativism.

...that would in my opinion do nothing to prevent the Dems from trying to outflank them on that front.

Sure, he's right when he says:

Principled Dems who long ago accepted the death of socialism (ie, most Dems under the age of 40) should not resist this changing coalition, but should instead embrace it, as it allows them to actually push forward proposals consistent with their political beliefs.

But that's the trick, isn't it? We who tried this over at DK no how well that went over. Granted DK is the lunatic fringe and hardly emblematic of most of the Left, for better or worse, but getting liberals with a penchant for government control of everything as means to the promise land to stop think in this conceptualization seems too much of an obstacle IMO.

Personally, I see both parties becoming less libertarian overall...even though this morphing will favor Dems somewhat in that this would mean the GOP becoming even less economically libertarian than they already are.

Hat tip to Dr. Boudreaux at Cafe Hayek who cites a commentary in today's WSJ by David Boaz of Cato.

In the commentary, Boaz challenges the notion, implicit or explicit, put forth by the presumptive nominees which states that we as citizens should commit ourselves to higher national causes.

Boaz is obviously not impressed with this vision.

First, with Obama, he takes issue with the theme he put forth in a commencement speech over the weekend at Wesleyan University in CT.

In the speech, Obama stated that the students need to devote themselves to "collective service" and that "our individual salvation depends on collective salvation." while speaking quasi-pejoratively to students who would "take your diploma, walk off this stage, and chase only after the big house and the nice suits and all the other things that our money culture says you should buy."

I agree with Boaz that while this sounds nice and sounds like the "the right thing to say", it also flies in the face of what life is really like and the pursuit of happiness. People will be looking for jobs, looking to start families, raise children and basically looking to be human while trying to be somewhat happy and fulfilled between now and retirement. Within that crowd may be future leaders or innovators who will contribute to society's improvement in their own way....whether they realize it or not and whether it was their intention or not....much like Adam Smith's proverbial Butcher or Baker who provide meat and bread...not out of altruism or some "collective salvation" but out self interest for one's family. As mundane and unsatisfying as it sounds, it's really as simple as that. Sure, it doesn't ring with a sense of altruism or beauty or "Amazing Grace" but it's how it is.

This concept is always a real problem to express because there just isn't an eloquent enough way of saying it without sounding "wrong" or heartless and that just isn't the case.

Says Boaz:

The people Mr. Obama is sneering at are the ones who built America – the traders and entrepreneurs and manufacturers who gave us railroads and airplanes, housing and appliances, steam engines, electricity, telephones, computers and Starbucks. Ignored here is the work most Americans do, the work that gives us food, clothing, shelter and increasing comfort.

The unshakable irony is that the lion's share of goodwill and happier, healthier lives we all lead comes from this but it just doesn't sit well with the human imagination.

Onto McCain who denounces "self-indulgence" and has said that we need to serve ""a national purpose that is greater than our individual interests." and that ""I led . . . out of patriotism, not for profit." while he tried to undermine Romney as someone who ""managed companies, and he bought, and he sold, and sometimes people lost their jobs. That's the nature of that business." The implication here is that McCain is somehow a "better man" than Romney because of all this or that Romney and others like him somehow lead a cheaper or less worthy existence because they come from the business world. Well LA-DEE-DA, Mr High-and-Mighty. We are not worthy! I guess being in the military puts you into a higher class of life! Maybe we all need to be soldiers in order to be up to your social standards. Kinda like the knights of yesteryear. Pompous jerk.

This may not be far from the truth. After all, McCain did speak highly of national service programs where we: "not only wear uniforms and work in teams . . . but actually live together in barracks on former military bases, and are deployed to service projects far from their home base,". IOW, we need to value what McCain values to be good people. Perhaps that's a harsh way of putting it but the implication is clear and I agree with Boaz that it stinks and all of it wreaks of true fascism...not the misused, narrowly and selectively defined and abused label applied to atrocities reminiscent of Hitler...but the real textbook definition where the rights and interests of the individual are unequivocally disparaged, discouraged and made to be shallow or inferior to the goals and interests of the collective state. Remember, fascism wouldn't sell if it were marketed as a military police state complete with a Gestapo and tribal salutes, it is the conditioned and well ingrained idea that you don't count by yourself...only as part of a national unit. And there's no better way to massage this into people's minds than by playing on their goodwill and desire to be good people and do good deeds.

And is with any type of regime like this, it's bursting with hypocrisy. McCain and Obama (and most "public servants" in politics for that matter) have all made nice and comfortable lives for themselves while they mildly or overtly sneer at the desire to do it.

Again, this lofty rhetoric sounds nice but it flies in the face of reality and what individuality and freedom are all about. And again, such explanations just don't sit well with human emotion and desire for a better world.

Says Boaz:

"A greater cause," "community service" – to many of us, these gauzy phrases sound warm and comforting. But their purpose is to disparage and denigrate our own lives, to belittle our own pursuit of happiness.

Too true, whether they or we realize it or not.

Boaz concludes with:

Messrs. Obama and McCain are telling us Americans that our normal lives are not good enough, that pursuing our own happiness is "self-indulgence," that building a business is "chasing after our money culture," that working to provide a better life for our families is a "narrow concern."

They're wrong. Every human life counts. Your life counts. You have a right to live it as you choose, to follow your bliss. You have a right to seek satisfaction in accomplishment. And if you chase after the almighty dollar, you just might find that you are led, as if by an invisible hand, to do things that improve the lives of others.

And yes, it just doesn't sound as nice to put it this way but it's the truth. And it's also the major principle upon which this country was founded...not national service nor a glorification of collective will (or the will of the "wise and powerful") nor a desire to be shown "the way" by people who did exactly what they are sneering at. Such conventions are the product of our mind and its pliability to tribal ideals or service to rulers...a state of living that has dominated human existence far longer than the notion of a truly free society. Indeed, a slow acceptance that individuals are worth more than their sum as part of whole (such a nasty thing to say...I know) is the major reason we have come so far. Yet, the continued and self-destructive allure of tribalistic rhetoric and idealism show just how far we still have to go.

In the latest feature article at Reason (not online yet), Gene Healy looks at the growth of the all powerful, all knowing, all affecting, all healing, all preaching, all nourishing president.

Under the headline on page 21 reads the following:

Who can we blame for the radical expansion of executive power? Look no further than you and me.

Indeed. No other political office has come to mean so much to so many people. It wasn't supposed to be this way. Nonetheless, says Healy:

The chief executive of the United States is no longer a mere constitutional officer. He is a soul nourisher, a hope giver, a living American talisman against hurricanes, terrorism, economic downturns, and spiritual malaise....is America's shrink, a social worker, our very own national talk show host. He's also the Supreme Warlord of the Earth.

This messianic campaign rhetoric merely reflects what the office has evolved into after decades of public clamoring. The vision of the president as a national guardian and a spiritual redeemer is so ubiquitous that it virtually goes unnoticed.It's difficult for 21st century Americans to imagine things any other way....Americans appear deeply ambivalent about results, alternately cursing the king and pining for Camelot. But executive power will continue to grow and threats to civil liberties increase, until citizens reconsider the incentives we have given a post that started out so humble.

After recalling some drab and tired quotes and ideas about separation of powers, humility and caution from yesteryear by the likes of Madison, Jefferson and even Hamilton and John Jay, Healy rightly traces the roots of this shift chief officer of the executive branch to larger-than-life omnipotent, omnipresent overlord to the Progressive era....the period of backlash after the massive societal shifts...good, bad and yet to be fully understood (at the time)...of the Industrial Revolution. The "Progressives" were, according to a 2003 book, The Presidency and Political Science, "the nearest to presidential absolutists of any theorists or practitioners of the presidency". A leading light of this era was Teddy Roosevelt. Progressive era journalist and founder of the The New Republic, Herbert Croly ominously described Teddy as "a sledgehammer in the cause national righteousness". His relative popularity with liberals and conservatives speaks volumes on how influential Teddy and this era was in our modern political thought.

Indeed, the traces of Obama's hope, hosanna and Yes we CAN! and McCain's push to serve a cause "greater than self-interest" and promises of national redemption, greatness and defeat to all enemies of the state, within and without, can trace their roots back to Teddy's original bully pulpit at the 1912 Progressive Party Convention when he cried:

"To you who strive in a spirit of brotherhood for the betterment of our Nation, to you who gird yourselves for this great new fight in the never-ending warfare for the good of mankind, I say in closing...WE STAND AT ARMAGEDDON AND WE BATTLE FOR THE LORD!".

Sheesh. Get a grip, Teddy.

Two world wars and a depression (Fed created in 1913) were more than enough to solidify the new found all-powerful office of President of the United States of America. And rather than gulp with pause and reflexion on the God-like figure we've created, Americans seem ever more insistent and impassioned in capturing the prize for themselves via their party leader in the hopes of having all their dreams for a better world, a brighter tomorrow and salvation and redemption for all mankind...and the children...come true.

Pardon my over-the-toppiness. I just caught up in the moment. ;)

Kevin reviews a book I confess I have not read, The Mind and the Market by Michael Shermer. See interviewed at Reason TV if you are so inclined.

BTW, it is not my intention to defend Shermer here and I don't want to. Shermer's book is actually irrelevant here. I actually agree with many of Carson's criticisms...but not all. And therein lies the basis for this post.

Anyway, as a periodic reader of Kevin's stuff, I have always found his views insightful, interesting and worth pondering. In general, I'm usually in agreement with much of what he says and most certainly with the spirit of what he says. And I probably agree a lot more than with him than may lead on in the rest of this post.

Without getting in too deep, there are some fundamental tenets to his views that I simply find puzzling and almost "incongruent" with libertarianism...not vulgar libertarianism or right libertarianism (his pet peeve...which I also think he defines to widely at times)...but just basic general libertarianism 101 and free markets in realistic and practical setting that takes everyday human action into account.

First of all, he once again shows his contempt for "the corporation" as legal structure...I assume because it's a creation of the state and therefore a validation of the state's unfounded legitimacy in a true free market? If so, fair enough. Personally, I'm indifferent to the legal structure of a corporation. Perhaps the implications of even saying this shows a fundamental rift in our views because my view accepts (or at least tolerates as acceptable) the legitimacy of the state as an enforcer/arbiter of law and property issues. I'm not sure on this for Carson.

Beyond that, what I find puzzling is how any defense of capitalism that has corporations is instantly "vulgar" or necessarily a defense of crony capitalism.

Having said that, I agree whole-heartedly with his critiques of privilege, entrenched interests, subsidies and all that state coddling and interference that drives most any libertarian mad...whether right, left, "vulgar" or what have you.

I'll stop there for now. Any thoughts?

But it would seem that in Carson's view, such views are mutually exclusive.

And I thank the Austrian Economists website for the tip. I had no idea.

He would be 109 today. Wiki entry here. An influential economist, he was a contemporary, intellectual adversary and friend of Keynes and gained notoriety for his famous book, The Road to Serfdom, which warned of the gradual decent toward fascism via idealistic and flawed socialism. In his later years, he turned more to social philosophy and received a Nobel Prize in Economics.

Few people have had as profound an effect on my thinking as Hayek. I suppose I could say that the single biggest effect is the frame of mind he puts the reader in the The Fatal Conceit, one of my favorite books...the theme of the "Fatal Conceit" is a more in depth version, IMO, of his famous paper The Use of Knowledge in Society, the basis for his Nobel Prize. The influence on one's thinking upon internalizing the message is one of humility and caution when faced with the complexity of society and possible "solutions". Ironic, when one considers the distorted assumption of arrogance that is placed at the feet of many of people of a Hayekian/libertarian persuasion.

I suppose the best and briefest way to convey the Fatal Conceit is a choice quote used Horwitz in the above link:

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design." (The Fatal Conceit, p. 76)

and here is another along the same lines:

"The problem [of the economy] is precisely how to extend the span of our utilization of resources beyond the span of the control of any one mind; and therefore, how to dispense with the need of conscious control, and how to provide inducements which will make the individuals do the desirable things without anyone having to tell them what to do."

The effect is similar to change in perspective one gets when they realize the earth's true place in the universe as opposed to the flawed idea that it lies at the center.

This is all based on the nature of knowledge and customs according to Hayek, which are developed spontaneously from experience, customs and evolution and not rational or deliberate design. The implications of this, and they are many, are huge and form the bedrock of Hayek's contribution to social science as well as many of the obstacles economists have tried to grapple with since (whether they realize it or not). Indeed, last year's Nobel Prize winner received it for ground breaking work in trying to show it was possible to do or know something that Hayek claimed was impossible. Many Hayekians dispute the true value of the research and say it's so rudimentary as to be almost useless. Nevertheless, and ironically, if anyone ever does definitely prove Hayek wrong on these matters, it will be a great day because man will have truly leaped forward...not just in his mind but in reality. But I'm not holding my breath. :)

And Horwitz shares a wish for the approach and conduct of future debate...an approach which Hayek lived by:

We need more people willing to start with the assumption that those who disagree with them are only guilty of intellectual error rather than maliciousness or stupidity.

Indeed and Amen. Seeing thinkers harshly criticized and having their general view scorned to the core is something we see everyday. I take exception to seeing it done to Hayek more than almost any other because to negatively question his intent, where he was coming from and why is to totally miss the spirit of his life's work, what he thought and what drove him. He was a true liberal in the purest and truest sense of the word.

There are many ways to view the Hillary vs. Obama debate as a perspective voter or supporter.

If you're an all-or-nothing, conservative, partisan Republican, with eyes on the White House for your party, I suppose Hillary is the better bet. She may come across as a little less liberal than Obama but she seems to be a better match vs. McCain electorally speaking from partisan POV. Conservatives simply think the divisive nature of Hillary Clinton will bode better in a general election vs. the "more maverick" McCain. In short, it's a political calculation. You want your team to play the team you think they match up better against.

If you're a less partisan Republican but still a hawk who wants the lesser of two evils on Foreign Policy, Hillary is also the better bet. She may not be as hawkish as McCain but she's more hawkish than Obama. The last thing you want is a President with zero support for the war effort or a drastically different view on what it takes to the GWOT.

On a Democratic side, there are basically two groups and they sway on the intangibles and self-identification criteria with the party factions:

The generally more Middle America, more white, less educated, lower income, blue collar populist, union types are for Hillary. They want someone who knows how to "git'er done" in DC, fight the bad guys and deliver the goods with nice sounding reforms. They want a "strong leader who controls things in their favor". Their views on foreign and social policy are also more moderate so that bodes well for Hillary in terms of perception. And yes, these people can also be a little more racist in a passive sort of way. I personally know several. Sorry if that offends anyone but it's true.

The more liberal, college educated and idealist wing supports Obama. The "priority-one" anti-war crowd is also more in his corner. I think that speaks for itself. So do the blacks because...well...Obama is black. I think that speaks for itself too.

Independents and centrists who generally dislike "DC politicking" and the status quo are probably more for Obama as well. Obama "sounds different", says the "right things", is a "breath of fresh air against politics-as-usual" and comes across as the true outsider.

Also, as a subset of the independent group, more in my neck of the woods, is the more deliberative and strategic nonpartisan libertarian group which is also a subset of the general libertarian swing vote....a group that votes almost 50/50 between the parties these days...if they don't vote 3rd party. It would also seem that this group is heavily leaning Democratic in this election. Reading into this small group of thinkers in pretty interesting...at least for people like me anyway. :)- It's not really interesting in terms of who'll they vote for but rather to get a feel for the possible realities, rhetoric and promises aside, of having either Obama or Hillary as president.

These people's agendas generally transcend and/or strattle partisan agendas and they seem to go to great pains to find a justification for either and the justifications are generally an indicator of what kind of reality we should expect from President Hillary or President Obama.

Megan McArdle of the Atlantic Monthly leans Obama as do most others, in my experience. Why? Well, besides the 800lb Gorilla of Foreign Policy, and without digging up links, she senses a better understanding, in Obama, of first principles (and second!) and political economy and the ramifications of policy beyond intent. Basically, she sees more respect for fundamentals and methodology of "massaging or coaxing incentives in a behavorial context. This contrasts with the more "kitchen table" appeal of Hillary's approach.

Basically,

Hillary approach is: If you want a result, you say you're going to do it and then do something that seems to directly attempt to do it. Politically, it's more digestible and easy to conceptualize. It's as subtle as a bull running through a room of china.

Obama's is more: If you want something, you need to find out why you're not getting it and look for the less intrusive of helping or coaxing people to do what you think they should do or would do if it were easier or more institutionally predictable for them to do it. AKA, soft paternalism. Much more subtle....more like a whisper, a nudge or gentle push in desired direction....for the most part. It's also a little less palatable for the straight-talking, show-me-the-money, make-it-all-better crowd.

Bryan Caplan, ever the "think-outside-the-box" contrarian that he is, takes a different approach in lightt of all the waves in the opposite direction and it's more in line with the "divided government works best argument:

In terms of policy, Hillary and Obama look extremely similar to me; I prefer either to McCain because I think they're more likely to get the U.S. out of Iraq. But Hillary worries me a lot less than Obama because leaving Iraq is likely to be her only major political success. Hillary has a built-in army of enemies, and she's making more enemies every day. (I've talked to Obama supporters who hate her more than Rush Limbaugh does!) Obama, in contrast, is genuinely likeable. At least during his honeymoon period, he might be able to unite the country behind a long list of "progressive" reforms. And that's what makes him dangerous to liberty.

In short, people who hate Hillary's (domestic) policies should hope that Hillary beats Obama, because he's a lot more likely to deliver on her promises than she is.

Hmmm. I've heard this pro-Hillary argument before from fellow-traveler Will Wilkinson of Cato and Fly Bottle. The argument basically is a little more thorough in that it doesn't take the candidate's views and promises at face value but rather it looks at the person within the realties of the context via which they will be trying to deliver those on the promises. I think it's a compelling case if that is your agenda.

Personally, for me...as insightful and thorough as Bryan's analysis is, it's not enough for me. Perhaps it's just a hunch but I feel Obama will do much better for my own views on Foreign Policy than Hillary will....regardless of what they say and considering the political context within they would working.

And while I share Caplan's trepidations on domestic policy, Foreign Policy is still and will always be the sphere of political power where the President makes the most direct and unfettered impact.

Of all the things that bother me....almost unconditionally and without exception...in the realm of public policy, anything that can be generally put into the policy group of forcefully removing or obstructing choice, evolution or innovation in commerce for the benefit of vested interests (AKA, the euphemism: "Public Interest") deserves to be blacklisted and totally removed from the clutches public policy. This can be in the form of needless licenses, quotas, expensive permits or flat out you-can't-do-that-because-we-said-so types of legal arrangements and constraints.

See this earlier diary on health clinics for another example.

Now, in one of its many manifestations, it's the American Dental Association trying to bully a "potential danger" (read: Competition) with a lawsuit against Ms. Johnson.

Before I go any further, a personal discussion I've had about this VERY ISSUE with my GF and her mother makes this all the more vivid. My GF's mom is a dental hygienist. She knows how to perform all kinds of basic dental care all by herself. She says you'd be amazed at the mark-ups dentists get on many routine services. Almost knowing the answer already, I asked a rhetorical question, which went basically like this:

Well, why don't you start a clinic with your co-worker friend and do dirt-simple routine services that you know how to do and charge a lot less money and still make a good profit??

Ah, she can't. She's not allowed.

Well, Alaska went and solved that problem with a simple and unique training program and well, the ADA just ain't happy about it. And I'm sure it's for YOUR benefit! ( yes, that's a gargantuan snark). IOW, THEIR benefit...and no, there's no snark on that one.

to the Alaska Dental Society and the American Dental Association, the clinic is a place where the rules of dentistry are flouted daily. The dental groups object not because of any evidence that the clinic provides substandard care, but because it is run by Aurora Johnson, who is not a dentist. After two years of training in a program unique to Alaska, Ms. Johnson performs basic dental work like drilling and filling cavities.

Oh, the horror! Somebody stop Aurora before someone loses a mouth!

the A.D.A. and the state’s dental society had filed a lawsuit to block the program that trained people like Ms. Johnson, who are called dental therapists. The groups dropped the suit last summer after a state court judge issued a ruling critical of the dentists. But the A.D.A. continues to oppose allowing therapists to operate anywhere in the lower 49 states. Currently, therapists are allowed to practice only in Alaska, and only on Alaska Natives.

The opposition to therapists follows decades of efforts by state dental boards, which are dominated by dentists, to block hygienists from providing care without being supervised by dentists.

The dental associations say they simply want to be sure that patients do not receive substandard care. But some dentists in public health programs contend that dentists in private practice consider therapists low-cost competition.

No duh. :)

IOW, thanks to the ADA's disingenuous concern for your safety, you will continue to overpay for basic dental services. And you will continue to not even have a choice in the matter. Even if you WANTED to give the dental therapist a try with that filling for a lot less money, you do not have that choice.

Tyler Cowen has an utterly superb piece about his thoughts as a spectator of the "Democratic Spat" between Clinton and Obama...as well as the reality of hard knuckled, identity-politics political fights, what they really mean, how truly unpleasant it is and how little it has to do with policy differences

One thing we learn is just how unpleasant a politics of confrontation can be and that's no matter what your political point of view. Most voters don't define their views along the distinctions set down by the policy wonks. So if you wish to start a political conflict to get your way on the wonky issues, that means you also end up starting a war -- possibly unintended -- on identity politics and also power politics. Furthermore at least one of the sides in that war will care more about winning and seizing/keeping power than about policy per se. Over time that's the side most likely to get its way.

Hmm, I wonder if he's talking in general or about certain groups. My first inclination is to say he's subconsciously referring to Hillary but he may be speaking more broadly...maybe even about the general wing of the Democratic Party Leadership that she represents. Then again, I could be projecting and be totally wrong.

About the public and voters in general he says:

We also learn that the American public polarizes along undesirable fault lines, observes a fight and puts a pox on both houses, and in general becomes more cynical about politics. Think about this before pursuing polarization and quasi-class warfare.

He's not talking about shirking any participation, mind you, but rather warning you to be prepared because...well...let's be honest, if you really look at the essence of what is happening, it's pretty damn stupid and not the least bit petty and overmeasured.

From here, I'll just give the floor to Dr. Cowen. No sense in my interjecting my worthless comments:

Nonetheless constructivist attempts to remake America will, by political debate, be reshaped along traditional fault lines. That means your good idea -- be it libertarian, progressive, or whatever -- had better be pretty robust to mangling by the stupid, the emotional, the cynical, and the ill-informed. It also means your policy analysis had better start with a good understanding of the relative strengths and weaknesses of the United States and try to build in a sustainable direction with the weights and the angles favoring what you wish to accomplish. Tocqueville, Montesquieu and Madison look smarter and smarter all the time.

A while ago the progressives told us that we needed to fight a battle against the Republicans to reshape America. Now there is a prior battle within the Democratic Party itself, noting of course that the hedge fund managers are sending most of their donations that way. And even Paul Krugman and Ezra Klein can't agree on which candidate is the real progressive. How many steps further backward will be taken? We haven't even gotten to the point of trying to write progressive legislation or get it through Congress.

Resist the temptation to put the backward steps into the category of "the utopian should." Such a move runs as follows: "OK, we didn't do that, we should have done that. I never predicted we would do that. I just should we should have." (Libertarians I might add often commit a similar vice.) That response is non-falsifiable and so you can hold on to it all you want, but you'd get further by embracing the evolutionary yet non-Panglossian tradition in political thought. Similarly, libertarians should take more seriously the idea that Sweden should build on its current strengths as well.

I'll be frank: I'm not rooting for Hillary Clinton. But that's not for any instrumental reason or for that matter for any quasi-libertarian reason or not even for the many reasons you'll find outlined by Andrew Sullivan. It's for purely subjective and arbitrary reasons and I won't say more than that (though I could). Maybe I'd drop that dislike if she'd wave around a copy of Fredric (sp) Bastiat but in the meantime there you go. Note also that I am hardly the most biased person evaluating this political race and that I didn't feel this way a year ago.

The bottom line is this: real world political debate is not fundamentally a macro-cosm of the thought processes of a smart person, or of one smart person debating another. The politics of confrontation usually turn ugly.

As far as Hillary and Obama are concerned, well, I'll just say that I do favor Obama for some rather unconvincing reasons....meaning mostly unemotional. But I as I do watch people fighting over Obama and Hillary, I do ask myself...every time...is the difference and the implications of the election of either one really worth all the bickering? I really don't think it's worth all the grief. In the end, they sign/veto bills and propose agendas...though they do have a heavier hand in foreign policy. When you keep that in the back of your mind, all the predictable divisions along racial and demographic lines and the intensity thereof seem rather unwarranted.

In the short space of a few hours, my Google Reader has fed me two quick reactions to Larry Bartels' new book Unequal Democracy.

Both pieces I've read take very quick issue with an incredibly overused, abused and misleading stat: The income shares households in terms of population percentiles.

The first reaction is at EconLog by Arnold Kling.

He pulls this quote from Bartels' book:

Bartels:

"...families at the 20th percentile experienced declining real incomes in 20 of the 58 years...by comparison, families at the 95th percentile have experienced only one decline of 3% or more in their real incomes since 1951."

Kling says he has a "nit to pick" with Bartels' numbers:

Suppose that we start out with 20 families, and the 4th-lowest family (the 20th percentile) has an income of $10,000, while the 3rd family has an income of $9500. Next year, suppose that everyone's family income rises by 2 percent, but we add a new family at the bottom of the income distribution, with an income of $6000. As a result, the new 20th percentile is now somewhere between the income of the original 3rd family (now the 4th family out of 21) and the original 4th family (now the 5th family). The income of the 20th percentile goes down, even though the income of every family has gone up.

I've heard this explanation (and then some) before and it makes perfect sense. Tracking changes in percentiles can totally blur realities lurking behind those numbers. Moreover, when it's obvious that the composition of a "family" or "household" changes radically over time, it's very misleading to use that entity for comparative purposes from which to draw conclusions about the income of individuals....or even households.

Being the thoughtful and thorough man I've come to know Kling is, he adds:

I do not want to succumb to disconfirmation bias, which is the tendency to find one thing wrong with something you disagree with and then dismiss the whole idea. But I have a hard time buying into stories about income inequality that look at the behavior of census percentiles over time. At the very least, the author ought to be clear that movements in census percentiles are not the same as movements in families. Bartels is the opposite of clear on that point.

Next we move to Russ Roberts at Cafe Hayek. Roberts links to Kling and follows up on Kling's points with data. Roberts is, as always, very thorough in breaking through the facade of numbers to see what lies behind them. In terms of composition, as I mentioned above, he takes great pains to show how the enormous demographic changes in "households" and "families" make the comparisons over time of such dynamic and shifting groups utterly useless and misleading. Roberts has covered this before, BTW.

Some basic stats from Roberts:

2000 105 million
1990 93 million
1980 81 million
1970 63 million
1960 53 million

So between 1960 and 2000, the number of households has doubled. What happened to population over that same period? Again from the Census:

2000 282 million
1990 250 million
1980 228 million
1970 205 million
1960 181 million

The average American household has gotten a lot smaller:

2000 2.7
1990 2.7
1980 2.8
1970 3.2
1960 3.4

America is a much different place than in 1960 in many ways. Household size is one of them as Russ points out. This goes further than just this basic breakdown. Looking at more Russ' stats, we also see that number of single moms and women without children is sharply higher. This accounts for some of the average smaller household size. It also means that there are fewer mouths to feed per house or family which, in turn, requires less income.

In conclusion Roberts states all this quick research:

totally contaminates the comparison of percentiles over time and makes it appear that people are falling behind or standing still when in, fact, particular families are seeing their standard of living rise. Arnold calls a nitpick. I call it a massive structural flaw.

Indeed. Stats often bother depending on what the stat is. That doesn't mean that I'm selective in terms of conclusions...just methodology. The reactions by Kling and Roberts are sound and insightful. They utterly destroy the premise that Bartels in trying convey. Does that mean that Bartels has no good points? Not necessarily. But on this particular, it's clear that he doesn't have the meat to substantiate the point he wants to make.