NTTATS update: further thought

When I first started talking (here and elsewhere) about the concept of "No Two Things Are The Same", one of the more valid questions/criticisms was concerned with the practical implications: what can I do with this knowledge?

At the time, my best answer was a somewhat vague "well, you can approach new ideas and decisions armed with the knowledge that No Two Things Are the Same"...today, I'm happy to report that I feel the same way, but have some more concrete examples.

It's well know and accepted (and reasonable) that folks like to use examples (precedents, analogies, etc) to make a point, or to suggest best practices, or offer a contrast, and so statements like the following are pretty common:

During the credit crises of 2008+, the banks of Canada weathered the storm much better than the banks in the States - we should model our banking system on Canada's!

New Zealand has this awesome, pro-business tax policy and everyone there is happy - we should follow this model in the US!

I chose these two examples because they are similar in my view: the population of Canada is about 1/10th that of the States, and the GDP of New Zealand is a rounding error to the US.  Further, the demographics and urban/rural distribution of Canada creates a far different banking scenario than could apply to the States.

In neither case does the surface difference between the US and the other countries automatically invalidate the suggested policy, but those differences point out a very different reality on the ground in the example countries.

Based on my anecdotal experience, some folks are naturally more skeptical / sophisticated about applying some basic criticisms to suggestions like those above, but many people aren't...they hear "Canadian banks remained well capitalized" and they readily accepted the suggestion that the Canadian banks were subject to the exact same stresses as those applied to US banks.  So a more thorough acceptance of NTTATS in society could serve to shift the balance towards more critical thinking.

economic tweaking

The US and world economies are incredibly complicated systems, possibly as complicated as any global "natural" systems like the weather.

With that in mind, how long do you have to let a change in policy play out to see if it is a "success" or "failure"?  This question is on my mind as the US campaign cycle is entering the "intense rhetoric" stage.

The primary economic legacy of the Bush administration, at least in terms of policy changes, is likely what are called the "Bush tax cuts".  That restructuring of the tax code turned 10 years old recently...taken in isolation, looking at the state of the economy then and now, would anyone consider the tax cuts a "success"?  (this is rhetorical, I guess...I'm sure that a large number of people who paid significantly less taxes over those 10 years would find that a success).

But there are other tweaks currently under evaluation that have had far less than 10 years to play out; namely, the Obama administration actions are being described as "failures" by several Republican and Independent candidates for the coming presidential elections.  What are the metrics we (the voting public) can use to know if something like a Federal stimulus or tax cut or trade agreement is working?  This part is not rhetorical - I sincerely want to know how we are supposed to conceptualize evolutions in a system as complicated as our economy.

What I have observed is that governments of any ideology tend to reach for the biggest tool in the box every time and adjustment is needed, at least when that adjustment is part of the national conversation.  Tax policy is extremely powerful and creates both immediate shifts in behavior and long term drifts in outcomes.  And massive nudges to monetary supply (throw stimulus or "tightening") is like the fat kid cannonball at the pool party - there are both predictable and highly unpredictable consequences that can really affect the crowd's enjoyment of said party.

If the philosopher poets were in charge, would there be a rule that said "any change in policy must come with a period of X years to study outcomes"?  Wouldn't the presence of such a rule create more robust debate prior to any meaningful changes?

equality in the military? Do tell!

This is a little off topic for me and for the general scope of this blog, but in recognition of the Senate's vote to repeal the policy known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", I thought I would take a shot at placing the change in a broader context.

I was inspired to comment mostly because in the last few years, and particularly during the last round of presidential primaries, the repeal of "DADT" became a big deal, and in the popular consciousness DADT became a sort of shorthand for "closed minded" or "oppressive" policy; the more nuanced reality is that DADT came into being as a compromise in an era of more oppressive policies directed at LGBT people.

President Clinton had his good points and his flaws (that man wore his flaws on the outside like a tweed jacket), but he also knew how to compromise in pursuit of making an untenable and awful situation into one slightly less awful.

The repeal of DADT is a step closer to the utopia of all men/women being equal in the eyes of the law.

My hope is that at some point we all realize that we're in the same boat together.