FLG's Tentative Thoughts On The Blogosphere

FLG received an email from GEC the other day that he's been mulling over, and especially this evening since reading Andrew's comment about Materialism:

I think there's a way of teaching great books that's more than spinning wheels, but there is a sense in which it's always a matter of returning to or evading a relatively short list of fundamental questions about human life. Some people seem to think that there's obvious progress and change that has nothing to do with those questions. But maybe what's at issue is that you want to cut to the heart of the matter and most people in theory like to dwell on the little details like scientists.

I try to meet the theorists and the people who just want to cut through the bs in the middle: clarity requires a little nuance.

FLG thinks this might be his problem with Ezra Klein. Too much focusing on the minutiae of policy with seemingly non-existent macro-level analysis. Better to focus on relatively narrow issues, like factors affecting the relative growth in public sector union jobs vis-a-vis private ones or whatever, then to confront messier and larger issues.

Things that can be quantified and dissected provide a level of security to people of this demeanor, as GEC said, scientists. If we focus on a political philosophy in small enough chunks, then perhaps we can come to definitive conclusions. Conclusions upon which we can build a definitive philosophy. Or, alternatively, definitively conclude their is no definitive, correct political philosophy.

Likewise, if we can just focus on enough details and gather enough data, then we can make the world a better place. So, let's talk about the potential economic gains from having the government use its bargaining power to drive down prices as a benefit, while simultaneously ignoring the argument that this will reduce the incentives to innovation over the longer-term as something that cannot be proven empirically.

In fact, the thing that FLG finds so appalling about the technocratic empiricism of many of the supposed wunderkids, particularly liberal ones, is that they proceed largely unaware of their bias for the present timeframe. Empiricism does that sort of thing. You measure what just happened as best you can, and then make predictions going forward. The facts, the thing they base their analysis on, is the past. The future projection, regardless of these facts, remains subjective because they require certain assumptions. Furthermore, these projections become less accurate as you lengthen the horizon. How can we possibly predict the exact expenditures of Medicare in 2050?

Perhaps FLG isn't completely clear when explaining this point, but empiricism is a bias. Some, perhaps many, would argue that it is better to base analysis and projections upon factual data. This is true. FLG isn't saying that facts are irrelevant. What he is saying is that theory has a place as well. Too often the policy analysis types can't see beyond their Stata results.* They've become so enamored with the statistical hocus-pocus details that they lose sight of what's important.

It's obviously a balance between the empirical, detailed and broad, theoretical forms of analysis. Data is good for relatively short-term thinking. Determining what is now and what will most likely be in the near future given current trends. Even that requires assumptions.

But long-term requires looking at overarching incentives and theories. When Ezra, who is unfortunately standing in as my prototypical empirical type, said that there were no proposed death panels in the health care bills that was technically correct. Nobody is calling for them. Yet, the incentive over the long run is there if the government is trying to control costs. Even if no lawmaker is currently proposing it, it's still a legitimate concern. Now, do I think most of the people rallying against death panels thought they were actually in the works right now? Yes. They were wrong about those details. Misinformed. Yet, the fear isn't completely off-base.

So, to wrap up what is fast becoming a relatively incoherent post. FLG is largely unimpressed with the rather large portion of the blogosphere that concerns itself with details, even as he realizes that the devil is often in the details when it comes to policy. It's predominately a question of correctly weighting the two approaches.

-------------------------
*Full disclosure: FLG has a copy of Stata installed on every computer he uses.