Why My Toddler And I Participated In Today's Climate Strike

Today I took our toddler out of daycare (with his mom's permission!) and participated in the Climate Strike in downtown Chapel Hill.

It was a youth-organized, peaceful protest against climate inaction, featuring student and faculty speakers. The gathering started at Peace and Justice Plaza, where there was music, chanting, and some speakers. We then processed through campus to the Old Well, where there were more speakers and more calls to action.

Many journalists were there as well and I was impressed that they all asked my permission before taking my picture because I had a toddler there with me. One of them asked me why I was there and I gave her a pithy response. Here is a slightly more thoughtful summary of my reasoning:

Too long have our politicians, our businesses, and we as consumers been addicted to an energy system that is fundamentally unsustainable. Our elected leaders are either ignorant or bought and paid for by those telling them to look the other way. Our businesses are myopically driven by quarterly numbers that are rewarded by maintaining the status quo and externalizing long-term costs. We as consumers demand cheap, abundant energy to support our immediate quality of life without regard for long-term impacts. It is easy to point fingers but we are all complicit in this destructive energy chain.

To be clear, I'm not demonizing energy. Energy has been transformative in elevating - and continuing to elevate - billions of people around the world to higher standards of living and quality of life. As Nobel laureate Dick Smalley said, if we can solve energy, we solve the other major challenges facing humanity essentially for free. We have not yet solved energy, though, and the repercussions of our toxic energy chain are already being felt: the Earth is warming, ecosystems are dying, and extreme weather events are becoming more severe and numerous (As I write this, Houston just experienced its second 1,000-year rainfall event in . . . checks notes . . . two years.).

I am also not demonizing capitalism. Capitalism is the mechanism that used energy to improve so many lives and I believe in it as a strong force for good. It isn't perfect, however, and it can run society off the cliff if it receives the wrong price signals as inputs: garbage in => garbage out, as they say. A role of regulators and policy makers is to ensure that our free market has accurate, comprehensive price signals and here we have so far failed. We allow dirty energy to be produced, distributed, and used artificially cheaply (subsidized, even!) by not capturing the cost of cleaning up the mess left behind. In essence we have been mortgaging those costs forward to future generations but the bill (which has been accruing lots of interest in the meantime!) has come due.

Maintaining the status quo is a path to economic and social catastrophe the likes of which we haven't seen . . . ever? We the people elect the political leaders and we the people buy the products that keep the businesses profitable so change must start with us. It is imperative that we demand action with our votes, with our dollars, and - on days like today - with our voices.

I'm actually very optimistic that we will solve energy. Humanity is incredibly effective when we unite around common cause, whether it is putting a person on the moon or defeating the Nazis. We have many of the solutions we need to combat climate change already and I know we can develop the rest. In fact, I believe solving energy will be the greatest economic opportunity we have ever created! It won't happen by itself, though, and time is running out; we need action now.

As many of you know, I have devoted my career to helping solve energy. It was the thesis of my first ever blog post and it is what I spend my day doing at Smart OES. So why strike? Shouldn't I be back at the office working hard on solving energy? Well, I think it's important to let others know that they are not alone in demanding this sort of change. Moreover, I wanted to demonstrate critical mass to politicians and business leaders who may be watching.

Most of all, though, I have been really inspired by this group of young climate activists. Older generations are failing them on climate change and, rather than just giving up, they are taking matters into their own hands. People claim that younger generations are lazy and entitled but what I witnessed today was the opposite; they are motivated, hard working, and effective - so I especially wanted to come out today to support them.

But why bring my toddler? After all, at 16 months old, he isn't going to remember it. That's true, but this is the most significant issue that will affect his life and I want to show him that his parents do care and are dedicated to creating a better life for him. I don't know if we will have righted the ship by the time he is an adult. I'm nearly the age now that I was when my dad died so frankly, I don't know when I will leave him or whether I will leave him anything more than a broken planet. One thing I can leave him, though, is a sense of empowerment and a feeling of duty to stand up and fight for what is right. One day when he is old enough to remember, he will look at old pictures and see himself exercising his civil rights to peaceful protest. As he builds the narrative of his life, one of his early chapters will include publicly, demonstrably doing what's right and that is why I brought him today.

As someone who has always been moved by Les Misérables, which is centered on a small group of young activists protesting against an unjust establishment, I feel like I've been training my entire life for this Climate Strike. I'm not sure exactly what it will accomplish but the experience was moving. The power of human voices and collective action is real.

Do you hear the people sing?
Singing the song of angry men?
It is the music of the people
Who will not be slaves again!
When the beating of your heart
Echoes the beating of the drums
There is a life about to start
When tomorrow comes!

The Paris Agreement

Much has been said recently about the US pulling out of the Paris Agreement and the vast majority of it has been highly politicized by people who have never even read the agreement. Opinions are quite polarized, ranging from "It was a perfect agreement and, now that we have pulled out, the sky is falling," to "It was a bad deal that would have cost hundreds of trillions of dollars and killed our industries." I have read the agreement (It's only 27 pages!) and both of those hyperbolic reactions are inaccurate. I would encourage everyone to familiarize yourself at least with the summary (even fewer pages!) but below are my key takeaways:

GOALS

• Curtail the rapidly increasing global temperatures (mitigation)
• Do so by reducing global green house gas (GHG) emissions
• Recognize that climate change is happening so become better at dealing with it (adaptation)

ACTIONS

• This is a "bottom up" rather than "top down" agreement. There are no specific actions defined or required by the agreement; rather, each country voluntarily commits to its own contributions toward achieving the agreement's goals. There is no enforcement or penalty mechanism in case a country fails to meet its commitments.
• Each country specifies targets for its own GHG reductions. For example, the US is targeting 26-28% reduction (relative to 2005 levels) by 2025 while Switzerland is targeting 50% GHG reductions (I'm not sure relative to which baseline.) by 2030.
• Specific actions taken are meant to be compatible with economic growth, not a hindrance to it. For example, some actions might reduce the number of coal jobs but increase the number of solar jobs by many more.
• Especially for developing and least developed nations, actions are focused on those with "co-benefits," actions that not only mitigate and/or adapt, but that also alleviate poverty, improve health, improve energy access and security, etc. A fantastic example is GIVEWATTS, which reduces GHGs but also breaks the poverty cycle, reduces respiratory illness, and improves education by distributing solar-powered lighting (replacing kerosene lamps) in off-grid schools and clinics in East Africa.
• Countries primarily focus on reducing their own GHGs but the most developed countries have also committed to sharing resources (know-how, technology, and financial capital) with developing (especially small island developing) and least developed countries as they are hardest hit by climate change and have the least capacity to address it through mitigation and/or adaptation.
• The developed countries have committed to making available $100B/year from 2020 to 2025 to help developing and least developed countries meet their goals. The $100B is spread across all developed countries but it is likely that the greatest GHG emitters, the US and China, will together account for at least half of it. The $100B is not an outright public grant (transfer of funds from one government to another) but rather a mix of public grants, loans, loan guarantees, and equity investments. The $100B comes from both public and private sources.
• To date the US has committed $3B - of which only $1B has been paid - for a fund that focuses on adaptation for developing and least developed nations. The total size of the fund is currently ~$9B.
• Beginning in 2018, every five years there will be a "global stocktake," basically an assessment of how GHG emissions are going and how much temperatures are changing around the globe. This is essentially a "management dashboard" to assess how effective the actions are in meeting the goals. It is also a chance to adjust course based on new data.

Looking past the polarizing politics and evaluating the Paris Agreement simply on its merits, I conclude that it is a good deal. It managed to bring nearly every country in the world together (No small feat that!) in common pursuit of addressing a goal that benefits everyone. No country is compelled to do anything by any other country and each country can contribute what it believes is fair and practical. It focuses on actions that align with economic growth and it recognizes the importance of adaptation, not just mitigation.

Regardless of what each individual country commits, having [almost] all countries working together to contribute something is truly laudable. The US, which [unknowingly and with no ill intent] played a significant role in generating the GHGs that have contributed to the rapid rise in temperatures, sends a really bad signal by pulling out of the agreement. It says either that we don't value the goal of addressing climate change or that we do but we want to do it by ourselves. Climate change is a global issue and it will necessarily require global solutions.

With the US pulling out, I worry about two reactions:

1. Other countries pulling out due to, "If the US won't commit, why should we?" This could lead to a tragedy of the commons of epic scale.
2. Other countries staying in with renewed commitment. This would be a huge blow to the US's increasingly tenuous role as a world leader. It used to be that, when the world faced devastating challenges (Nazis, natural disasters, etc.) the US led the way to the solution. Will we really just give up and relinquish that role to, say, China?

I have also heard arguments that our current president is just using this as an opportunity to "renegotiate" the deal. As you can see above, though, there is nothing to renegotiate; everything is voluntary and this is simply a framework for cooperation. I also find it highly unlikely that the president who is all but dismantling the US Environmental Protection Agency has any sincere intent to enter any agreement about climate change.

What do you think? Does this description of the Paris Agreement surprise you? Do you agree with my interpretation/conclusions? Have I made an error on any facts/figures? Let me know in the comments.

ADDENDUM

I have received many questions about China's and India's contributions to the Paris agreements so here is some more information about them:

China's targets:

• Peaking of carbon dioxide emissions around 2030 and making best efforts to peak early
• Lowering carbon dioxide intensity (carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP) by 60 to 65 percent from the 2005 level (~14% overall)
• Increasing the share of non-fossil fuels in primary energy consumption to around 20 percent;
• Increasing the forest stock volume by around 4.5 billion cubic meters from the 2005 level.

India's targets:

• To reduce the emissions intensity of its GDP by 33 to 35 percent by 2030 from 2005 level.
• To achieve about 40 percent cumulative electric power installed capacity from nonfossilfuel based energy resources by 2030 with the help of transfer of technology and low cost international finance including from Green Climate Fund (GCF).
• To create an additional carbon sink of 2.5 to 3 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent through additional forest and tree cover by 2030.

They estimate the total cost to achieve those targets to be $2.5T over 15 years ($167B/year on average). They will of course fund some of that domestically but they will seek financial help from the developed world as well.

Uncomfortable Podcast

Stop what you're doing and subscribe to this podcast right now. My intelligent, worldly high school classmate at ABC News has launched a series of uncomfortable conversations. There has only been one episode so far but it is riveting.

In the first episode she hosts an intelligent, articulate (the most dangerous kind) white supremacist who weaves a tangled skein of rhetoric, fallacy, and hypocrisy but legitimately drinks his own koolaid / believes what he is saying. You need to listen to this because this is exactly the type of rhetoric that is swaying economically disadvantaged whites who are looking for scapegoats and giving rise to white nationalism.

I have mixed feelings on what she is doing here. On the one hand I think it's reprehensible to give someone like this a platform / megaphone and, in some ways, legitimacy. On the other hand (which is the hand that wins out for me), these are the arguments going on behind closed doors (and increasingly out in the open) and we really need to know about them / understand them.

This is not an idiot or a bass ackward hick. This is someone who is educated and has come to [flawed] conclusions that he is able to defend and use to influence weak minded and/or confirmation-seeking people. People will regurgitate his sound bites because he sounds smart and well reasoned and we need to have a response for that besides incredulity.

Give it a listen on Google Play or iTunes and let me know your thoughts/reactions.

Processing the Election

It's been three weeks since the US Presidential election and I'm still processing what happened. It should be no secret that I am disappointed in the election result but what is important now is to understand what happened (and why) and make some sense of it to inform the way forward.

OUTCOME
I didn't support Donald Trump as a candidate in the primaries or in the election. I'll blog in greater detail later but I've analyzed his career and found him not to be a very inspiring businessman (There's a reason why there are business school cases about many other billionaires but not about Trump.) - more successful as a Kardashian-like reality TV show "brand" than as a magnate. Moreover, the litigious, dishonest way that he has conducted not only his career but his campaign turned me off to him. Now, weeks after the election, we can see how hypocritical he is as well: promising to "drain the swamp" and "shake things up" in Washington - while appointing insider after insider to Cabinet positions.

Despite all that, he still won the election - so what happened there? One narrative is that "the people have spoken" and that a "bloodless revolution" has sent a clear message against the policies of the Left. I don't find that compelling as, with something like 100k votes (out of 125m) going the other way, it would have been a Hillary landslide in the electoral college. Coupled with Obama's high presidential approval rating, the decisive popular vote win for Hillary and the net loss of Republican house and senate seats, the main message for me is that we, as a nation, are more sharply divided than ever.

This election was emblematic of the growing divide between urban and rural, between more educated and less educated, between the haves and the have nots, and of the disenfranchisement of a significant segment of the population that is feeling increasingly unheard and abandoned. So it's not unanticipated that Trump wouldn't have appealed to me. He wasn't talking to me; he was talking to people who believe that I - and people like me - am being well served at the expense of people like them.

And that may be a fair assessment. As I work feverishly to build a company, it will create jobs largely for . . . educated urban "elites" like me. So let's consider this election a splash of cold water in the face - of a part of America saying, "Hey! Don't forget about us!" (And let's not focus too much on the fact that the man they hired for the job has a long history of screwing the little guy or that my most ardent conservative friends are fond of criticizing "bleeding heart liberals" for wanting to help the little guy. When it comes politics, hypocrisy knows no bounds!) That's an important take-away and it should inform the path forward.

PROCESS
As disappointed as I was in the outcome of the election, I was many fold more disappointed in the process by which President was elected. My biggest gripe about this election is that it threw facts right out the window.

This "post-truth" era we seem to have entered into makes me want to pull my hair out (ha!) every time I see obviously false, deliberately misleading, or otherwise untruthful information being banded about as fact. The rise of "fake news" sites and the amplification of their disinformation by social networks was a huge problem but we don't really have to look farther than the president-elect himself for demonstrably false proclamations that were bought by a substantial portion of the electorate. The lack of critical thinking and the increased prevalence of self-reinforcing echo chambers (on both sides) is a tremendous danger to democracy. I'm quite bullish on democracy as a political system, but it is still just a system - and garbage into said system will produce garbage out.

As a consequence the actual issues of the election were almost never discussed. From primaries to conventions to debates, there was very little attention paid - by candidates or by media - to the actual issues. Instead everyone focused on goofy conspiracy theories, unsubstantiated allegations, and character assassinations. Shame on all of us for being complicit in letting that approach carry the day. Instead of turning off the TV coverage and passing over clickbait headlines, we indulged and perpetuated it. Kudos to Trump. As a reality TV star, he turned an election - where his politician opponent had an advantage - into a reality TV show - where he clearly had the advantage.

Finally, this was the most interfered with election I have witnessed. From leaked tapes to FBI announcements to wikileaks emails, this election was the most influenced by outside manipulation that I ever remember. To be clear, I am decidedly in the just-because-the-emails-were-hacked-by-Russians-doesn't-make-them-less-true camp. However, when we only get hacked emails from the DNC and not the RNC, it creates information asymmetry and shapes public opinion. We make judgments on the DNC emails but don't have the ability to compare them to judgments on RNC emails. In an election in which so many people reported choosing between which candidate they disliked least, such asymmetry is bad for business. Personally, I suspect we would have seen just as reprehensible behavior in RNC emails.

These shortcomings in electoral process opened the way for an election to be won on charisma - rather than on qualifications or on issues - demagoguery - rather than civil discourse - and fear - rather than hope.

TRENDS
Beyond the election, I've noticed several trends in the course of political discussion:

• Tribalism - Just as you see with fans of rival sports teams, there is an increasing trend toward tribalism in today's politics. I watched as Republican friends who hated Trump in the primaries talked themselves into supporting him just because he was representing their tribe. I watched as friends on both sides refused to acknowledge any common ground with the other side because . . . tribes. I observed the increasing use of labels like "libtard" being used to describe any member of the other tribe. Frankly this type of tribalism reminded me a lot of what we saw in East Africa: there were no machete deaths but the vitriol seemed just as genuine. And indeed in the election states seemed more polarized than ever by tribes (parties).
• Anti-intellectualism - there seems to be a war on rational discourse. Anything that isn't explained in a meme is discounted as biased propaganda - and then of course most of the memes are incredibly fallacious. There are so many instances of, "Well, I just feel that this is the truth," not just on Facebook walls but by public figures as well.
• Anti-establishment - Bernie Sanders was the other side of the Trump coin. Clearly there was - and presumably still is - a groundswell of anti-establishment sentiment.
• Selfish myopia - Trump Campaign Manager Kellyanne Conway put it succinctly in the election post-mortem: ""There's a difference to voters between what offends you and what affects you." It is natural for people to try to simplify a complex decision like an election to a single issue because that is easier to solve. Voters were willing to turn a blind eye to aspects of decency and policy as long as they were told that their particular issue would be addressed. In hindsight that seems obvious.
• Both major political parties are totally broken. Neither represents the vast majority of centrist Americans. And I don't think anyone is taking action to fix that; rather they're just digging in their heels to become even more polarized.
• Heads in the sand - The world is changing. Technology is changing. And a major segment of the population is voting to stay behind because that is more familar. As one example, let's look at manufacturing. A narrative in this election was that US manufacturing has fallen due to outsourcing. When you look at the data, though, manufacturing in the US is huge! We just don't need as many humans to do it because we've been become more productive through process improvement and technology.

• “Dark times lie ahead of us and there will be a time when we must choose between what is easy and what is right." - Albus Dumbledore | It is easy to put our hands over our eyes and blame scapegoats like Mexico and China for these job losses but it is right to think longer term about the implications of the changing nature of work in this and other industries. I don't get the impression that anyone is doing that right now.

At the end of the day, this election is what it is, and we must now move on and deal with it. I'm disheartened that I don't believe the government represents what I care about most. Thus I am more resolved than ever before to be the change I hope to see. Rather than looking to the government for solutions to social problems I continue to work to create those solutions myself through capitalism.

Has Obama Changed the Economy for the Worse? Conclusion

Over the past three weeks I have evaluated nine specific claims made by an article purporting to show that "Obama has changed the face of our economy for the worse." The article was presented to me as definitive proof that Obama has been "a train wreck" as President of the United States.

Of the claims and sub-claims, some of them have merit (2), some of them are technically true but don't actually support the conclusion they are meant to (4), and some are patently false (7).

I would encourage readers to go over each of the claims and my investigations of the but the exeuctive summary is that America under Obama really hasn't changed much during Obama's administration. Using these metrics you certainly can't conclude that Obama is "a train wreck." Given that these metrics were cherry picked to support exactly that conclusion, it is entirely possible that, choosing other metrics, you might even be able to conclude that Obama is "better than a train wreck."

If nothing else, this investigation should be a reminder to apply CRITICAL THINKING to "data" and "facts" with which you are presented - the "facts" presented in this article were mostly false and/or misleading. Nearly everything we see has been filtered through an agenda lens and is tainted with selection bias and interpretation bias. Given that we will each apply our own cognitive biases to information, it is crucial that we get as close to the unadulterated source material as possible.

My suggestion - especially as we head into election day - is to question what you read. If there are no links to sources, that is often an indicator of fabrication/manipulation so your BS radar should be at high alert. If there are links to sources, don't assume that those sources support the conclusions or interpretation of the article you are reading - quite often (This article was a case in point!) they don't.

If your reaction is that this all sounds well and good but you just don't have time to do that kind of research then I challenge you to examine your priorities - what could be more important than being informed as a voter in an election year? As Dumbledore would say, "We must choose between what is easy and what is right."

Choose what is right.

Is trust in Obama's leadership at historically low levels?

As part of my series analyzing the article suggesting that Obama has changed the economy for the worse, let's now move on to the ninth and final claim: that trust in Obama's leadership and administration remains at historically low levels.

Cutting right to the chase, I can't find any support for this claim. I suppose it depends on what the writer means by "trust" but the nearest metric I can find is presidential approval ratings.

Across 10 polls, Obama is currently ~53%, which is much higher than his lowest approval rating (37% in 2011 and in 2014):

Obama's current approval rating is also higher than every other president's lowest approval rating since Kennedy:

Obama's approval rating is neither low within the historical context of his presidency nor within the context of all presidencies. Therefore this claim is FALSE.

That said, Obama's average approval rating (47%) is the lowest since Carter's and is on par with that of W, Carter, Ford, Nixon, and Truman - not the best of company. I'm not sure, though, if it's fair to compare approval ratings of today's polarized, partisan media-driven, post-fact world with those of a simpler time when people got their information with less spin and did more thinking - and approving - for themselves.

CONCLUSION: This is a baseless claim with no substantiation whatsoever.

Was America's credit rating downgraded for the first time ever under Obama's watch?

As part of my series analyzing the article suggesting that Obama has changed the economy for the worse, let's now move on to the eighth claim: that America's credit rating was downgraded for the first time ever under Obama's watch.

Yes, America's credit rating was downgraded from AAA to AA+ by S&P in 2011 so this claim is TRUE. The downgrade followed a record high deficit and public debt (See previous discussion.) but the actual reason for the downgrade was perceived risk that the government would default on its debts due to political posturing.

From S&P's Downgrade Announcement:

"More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011. Since then, we have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging the gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes us pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal consolidation plan that stabilizes the government's debt dynamics any time soon."

and

"The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America's governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy. Despite this year's wide-ranging debate, in our view, the differences between political parties have proven to be extraordinarily difficult to bridge, and, as we see it, the resulting agreement fell well short of the comprehensive fiscal consolidation program that some proponents had envisaged until quite recently. Republicans and Democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings on discretionary spending while delegating to the Select Committee decisions on more comprehensive measures."

This is akin to a credit agency reducing the rating of a married couple. They have good incomes but they also have significant spending, which would be fine but all they do is argue instead of presenting any real plan for repaying their mortgage.

CONCLUSION: Yes, America's credit rating was downgraded during Obama's administration - but the fault lies with both parties and especially in Congress. I hope everyone remembers how Congress (both parties) failed us in this incident when choosing to vote for/against congressional incumbents this election day.

Was there a record number of home foreclosures under Obama's presidency?

As part of my series analyzing the article suggesting that Obama has changed the economy for the worse, let's now move on to the seventh claim: that there were a record number of home foreclosures during Obama's presidency.

This one is pretty easy to research. According to these data from RealtyTrac and the Federal Reserve, indeed there was a record number of home foreclosures during Obama's first term so this claim is technically TRUE.

However, the author uses the claim to imply that the foreclosures are evidence of Obama's failure in economic policy. However, the record number of foreclosures began during the mortgage crisis, long before Obama even took office since the end of the crisis there has been a downward trend such that we are now back to pre-crisis levels:

Fore a detailed breakdown of foreclosure trends, see this report from RealtyTrac.

CONCLUSION: Yes, there was a record number of foreclosures during the worst mortgage crisis in history (duh), which began long before Obama took office. Now we're back to pre-crisis levels of foreclosures.

Are nearly 50 million Americans on food stamps?

As part of my series analyzing the article suggesting that Obama has changed the economy for the worse, let's now move on to the sixth claim: that nearly 50M Americans are on SNAP (food stamps).

According to the Food and Nutrition Service, ~43M Americans (~13% of population) are on SNAP.
This number (both absolute and percentage) has been declining steadily since it peaked ~48M (~15%) immediately following the recession. It seems like a real stretch to call 43M "nearly 50M" so I suspect the author is either sensationally rounding up and/or intentionally using years-old figures because they better fit his narrative. As such, I rate his claim FALSE.

Still the absolute number and percentage are much higher than historical norms - 10 years ago only ~27M Americans (~9% of population) were on SNAP - so why is that?

Analysis by the Congressional Budget Office suggests that ~20% of the increased enrollment in SNAP is due to expanded coverage introduced during the first month of Obama's presidency but that the remainder is due to the economy. The CBO projects that SNAP enrollment will return to pre-recession in ~6 years:

Note that this CBO analysis is from 2012 - but that the number of SNAP participants has indeed fallen as predicted since then.

CONCLUSION: SNAP enrollment increased during the recession and in accordance with expanded coverage in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. It is now falling to pre-recession norms but slowly. Given the previous evidence of the general health of the economy and job market, I would conclude that the aftermath of the recession is disproportionately affecting lower-income Americans.

Are 46 million Americans Living in Poverty?

As part of my series analyzing the article suggesting that Obama has changed the economy for the worse, let's now move on to the fifth claim: that 46M Americans are living in poverty,

First off, what does it mean to be "living in poverty?"

According to the Census's most recent data (2015), to be living "in poverty" a household must have income below:
$11,770 for 1 person
$15,930 for 2 people
$20,090 for 3 people
... and so on.

As a quick aside, let's note that, in many parts of the world, "poverty" is defined as living on less than $1/day so let's take a step back and give tremendous thanks that we live in a country in which our poverty line is orders of magnitude higher than that. This in no way takes away from the plight of the US's lowest earners - but it does remind us how blessed we are even to be here.

Back to work, though, how many Americans are living in poverty according to this standard? In 2015 13.5% of Americans (43M) were in poverty. 43M is less than 46M so the claim is FALSE.

Still, 43M and 13.5% both sound alarmingly high to me so let's look closer at what these figures really mean. 13.5%, it turns out, is in line with recent historical norms.13.5% is a greater percentage of Americans living in poverty than 10 years ago (12.6%) but has been steadily declining since the recession - a good trend.

As one writer points out, though, these Census figures are a little misleading as they measure the number of people who would be in poverty without government assistance (through SNAP - food stamps - and tax credits), rather than those who are literally living in poverty. By his calculations, the percentage of Americans actually living in poverty is ~3.5% (~11M people) while the other ~10% are being buoyed out of poverty through government assistance. Obviously there is a debate about whether such assistance helps lift people permanently out of poverty, does nothing, or contributes to people staying in poverty.

CONCLUSION: the number of people actually living in poverty isn't as high/alarming as it sounds at first blush, but that's only due to assistance from the government. This seems to have been the case for some time without much change over the last decade. I, for one, would rather see investments in programs aimed at addressing the systemic causes of poverty rather than just helping those already in poverty to stay afloat. Such programs may already exist but I would question their efficacy given the low change in poverty rate over the last decade and I would support experimentation with new approaches.

Has Obama Accrued More Debt Than All Other Presidents Combined?

As part of my series analyzing the article suggesting that Obama has changed the economy for the worse, let's now move on to the fourth claim: that Obama has accrued more debt than all other presidents combined.

When Obama took office January 20, 2009, the national debt was $10.626T(!). As of September 30, 2016, the national debt was estimated to be $19.4T. So it is accurate to say that, while Obama has been in office, the national debt has increased $9.2T, nearly doubling(!). By definition that isn't as much as all previous presidents combined ($10.626T) so this claim is FALSE.

Of course, that's a pretty goofy yardstick against which to be measuring anyway since inflation and GDP influence the relative magnitude of the debt over time and some presidents have even reduced the debt with budget surpluses. Still, it's worthwhile to take a look at our federal debt as one indicator of our governmental spending/health. After all, $9.2T is still an epic amount of debt to accrue over 7 2/3 years.

It's not entirely fair to chalk the entire $9.2T up to Obama, though, because each president inherits the budget of the previous president during his first 9 months in office. A fairer comparison is to look at the sum of budgetary surpluses an deficits for which the president (and Congress) have been responsible. A good summary of Obabma's deficits pegs him as presiding over ~$7T in deficits - still a record by far  and ~2x that of his predecessor, W, who presided over ~$3T of deficits.

Since the President and Congress negotiate the budget together each year, it is perhaps even more instructive to look at the costs of a President's specific policies. According to this quora post, Obama's policies have cost ~$1T (The bailout and extending W's tax cuts were his biggest ticket items.), significantly less than Bush's ~$5T (Tax cuts and wars were his biggest ticket items.):

Rather than looking at debt in absolute $ values (which will necessarily increase with inflation), I think it's more useful to contexualize debt as a percentage of GDP - which, alarmingly - is nearing historic (WWII) levels:

CONCLUSION: Obama has contributed to the increase in debt as a percentage of GDP - but so has Reagan, Bush-41, and Bush-43. Surprisingly, Bill Clinton is the only president to have presided over a debt that did not increase dramatically as a percentage of GDP. No matter who the next president is, he/she and Congress need rein in the budget rather than mortgaging everyone's future to do popular things in hopes of reelection.

Has the Labor Market Tanked Under Obama?

As part of my series analyzing the article suggesting that Obama has changed the economy for the worse, let's now move on to the third claim: the labor participation rate is near a 40-year low (with the implication that this is an indicator of an unhealthy labor market).

Indeed, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the current Civilian Labor Participation Rate is 62.9%.

Over the last year we've hovered around the lowest value for this metric since 1978. The metric peaked in 1999 and has been slowly declining since then - so we can rate the letter of this claim TRUE - but let's evaluate the spirit of this claim (that our declining labor participation rate is an indicator of an unhealthy labor market) by examining what this metric even means.

Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate == (# employed + # unemployed-and-looking) / (population 16 and older)

so it basically measures the percentage of the work-eligible population that either has a job or is actively looking for one - sounds reasonable enough.  However, some portions of the population aren't ones we really care about looking for jobs - students, for example, so the calculation can be further broken down to:

(# employed + # unemployed-and-looking) / (# employed + #unemployed-and-looking + # in school + #unemployed-and-not-looking)

And of those not looking for work, there again are some we don't really care about (at least to assess the health of the job market - retirees, for example:

(# employed + # unemployed-and-looking) / (# employed + #unemployed-and-looking + in school + retired + #unemployed-and-not-looking-and-in-prime-working-age)

And then even some people who are of prime working age but not looking for jobs may deliberately have taken themselves off the job market - stay at home parents, for example:

(# employed + # unemployed-and-looking) / (# employed + #unemployed-and-looking + in school + retired + stay at home parents + #unemployed-and-not-looking-and-in-prime-working-age-and-not-a-stay-at-home-parent)

You can see how a lot of nuance gets lost in a big, hairy, single metric - and finding detailed data for each of those subcomponents is hard.

The BLS projections through 2024 has some decent tabular data and the St. Louis Fed has some good analysis/projections as well. This White House report has much more detail (including on some trends in specific minority segments) but may be biased to make the administration look good.

The best nonpartisan anlysis I found is an article at FiveThirtyEight. TL;DR: about half of the decline in labor participation rate can be explained by demographic trends (baby boomers retiring) and has been expected/predicted for decades. The youngest segment is attending school at a higher rate than ever but isn't large enough to move the needle much on this metric. There may be 2-4 million people without jobs that are attributable to a weak economy rather than to demographic trends that began long before Obama took office.

CONCLUSION: it is misleading to point to the labor participation rate as if it's a dire indicator of a terrible economy; metrics like harmonised unemployment rate (currently 6.17%) are more useful. Still, there is certainly room for improvement in our job market and this should be a focus of our next administration. HOW best to stimulate that job market (and with the right kinds of jobs) is, of course, up for debate.

P.S. Given the rate at which the basic tasks of maintaining society are being automated, I think we need to prepare to look beyond jobs as a success metric for the economy - but that is a separate topic!

Has Obama Implemented A High Number of Major Regulations?

As part of my series analyzing the article suggesting that Obama has changed the economy for the worse, let's now move on to the second claim: Obama has implemented 600 major regulations (regulations expected to have an impact of $100M or more), many more than W's 426, and is on track to implement 641 in total by the end of his presidency. These major regulations cost, on average, $1.4B each.

Let's look into each of these aspects of the claim in turn. My source for most of this analysis is a report by the Congressional Research Service entitled Counting Regulations: An Overview of Rulemaking, Types of Regulations, and Pages in the Federal Register.

1. Obama has implemented 600 major regulations.

This is easy enough to verify from the report:

From 2008 to 2015 there have been 570 major regulations implemented. 570 is less than 600 so this claim is FALSE. (Alternatively, perhaps the author was counting rules enacted so far in 2016, which are not included in this report.)

2. W implemented only 426 regulations (We'll assume the author meant major regulations.)

From 2001 to 2008 there were 505 major regulations implemented. 505 is greater than 426 so this claim too is FALSE.

Perhaps a more fair comparison would be Obama's number vs. W's major regulations just in his first seven years, in which case we would be looking at Obama 570 - W 410.

3. These major regulations cost, on average, $1.4B each.

As of the most recent congressional report, the previous 10 years worth of regulations (667 major rules in total) are expected to provide $261B-$981B in economic benefit at a cost of $68B-$103B so I can't see how Obama's 570 rules are costing $1.4B each - even before you factor in expected economic benefit - so I rate this claim FALSE.

4. Obama is on track to implement 641 major regulations in total by the end of his presidency.

Here the author has simply taken Obama's yearly major regulation average (81) and added it to his seven-year tally (570). 81 is also the median number of major regulations per year under Obama so I think this is a reasonable estimate of his final tally - although it would be more accurate to look at his actual proposed regulations instead. This claim is NOT FALSE but it isn't strong enough to be TRUE.

CONCLUSION: Looking at the # of major regulations since 1997, it has consistently been 50-80 per year (~half of which are simply transfer rules, implementing Congress's budgetary requirements) and Obama mostly stayed within that range. However, he is definitely averaging more regulations per year than W (and more than Clinton's second term) although it isn't evident to me whether that is because Obama is Mr. Big Government (as he is being painted by the author) or whether that has been his only tool to deal with an obstructionist Congress.

Is the US Economy Becoming Less Free?

In our evaluation of whether the Obama administration has been terrible for the economy, the first claim we will investigate is that US's Index of Economic Freedom is ranked #11, its lowest ever, and its 7th decline in 8 years, dropping it into the second tier of world economies.

I was unfamiliar with the Index of Economic Freedom but, after a little research, discovered that it is a multicomponent rating of major economies by the slightly right-leaning Wall Street Journal and very right-leaning Hertage Foundation. As with any composite metric, the devil is often in the details of the individual subcomponents but let's assume that this is a worthwhile scoring system (at least from the perspective of those who believe in smaller government / less public economic intervention) and dig in.

Indeed, according to both the Wikipedia article and the Heritage Foundation site, the US was ranked #11 worldwide this year, so we can rate this claim as TRUE.

However, the US was ranked #12 in 2015 and 2014 so we can rate the claim that #11 is its worst ranking ever as FALSE.

Given its ranking improvement from 2015 to 2016 and its flat ranking from 2014 to 2015 (as well as 2012 to 2013), we can also rate the claim that the US's ranking has declined seven times in the most recent 8 years as FALSE. (Possibly the author meant to refer to the US's decline in score rather than ranking.)

Indeed, the US's decline from a brief high of 81.2% to its current 75.4% does mark a shift from the first tier ("Free") to the second tier ("Mostly Free") so we can rate this claim as TRUE (although the 80% boundary between the two tiers seems to be somewhat arbitrary).

The author is batting .500 in his claims so far but, rather than discrediting him, let's look at the actual data to see what it tells us. From 1995 to 2008 the US's ranking in the Index of Economic Freedom bounced between #4 and #8. From 2012 - 2016 it has bounced between #10 and #12 so there has indeed been a decline in rankings over the course of the Obama administration. What could explain such a decline?

1. a change in ranking methodology
2. a rise in the scores of other countries
3. a decline in the US's score

I think we can dismiss #1 as Hong Kong and Singapore have been #1 and #2 respectively ever since the Index of Economic Freedom was first assessed in 1995. If there had been a substantial change in methodology, I suspect that we would have seen a shake-up at the top.

As you can see from the above graph, the average score of other countries has increased modestly over time while the US's is at around the same score it had in 1995. The US's score increased during the Bush administration and has decreased during the Obama administration. Assuming the score responds rapidly to changes in policy and assuming that it isn't just a partisan propaganda machine for its right-leaning benefactors (I don't know how safe either of those assumptions are.), let's dive into its subcomponents to see why the score has fallen in recent years.

• Business Freedom: A country's freedom from the burden of regulations on starting, operating, and closing business, given factors such as time, cost and number of procedures, as well as the efficiency of government in the regulatory process.
• This subcomponent is in line with historic averages - although there was a big blip upward in 2006, possibly due to a methodology change.
• Trade Freedom: Freedom from sizeable numbers and burdens of tariffs and non-tariff barriers to imports and exports of a country.
• This subcomponent has steadily improved.
• Fiscal Freedom: How free is a country from tax burden. It comprises three quantitative measures: top marginal tax rate of both individual (1) and corporate (2) income, and total tax burden as a percentage of GDP (3).
• This subcomponent has been flat while the rest of the world has improved.
• Government Size/Spending: Governments' expenditures as a percentage of GDP, including consumption and transfers. The higher the percentual spending, the lower the score.
• This subcomponent has decreased since 9/11 but has increased again since 2012.
• Monetary Freedom: How free from microeconomic intervention and price instability is a country, basing on an equation considering the weighted average inflation rate in the last three years and price controls.
• This subcomponent has decreased over time.
• Investment Freedom: Freedom from restrictions on the movement and use of investment capital, regardless of activity, within and across the country's borders.
• This subcomponent has been flat except for a blip up during the late 2000s.
• Financial Freedom: A country's independence from government control and interference in the financial sector, including banks. It considers government ownership of financial firms, extent of financial and capital market development, government influence on the allocation of credit and openness to foreign competition.
• This subcomponent has been flat except for a blip up during the Bush administration.
• Property Rights: Degree of a country's legal protection of private property rights, degree of enforcement of those laws, independence of and corruption within the judiciary, and likelihood of expropriation.
• This subcomponent has slightly decreased over time - along with the rest of the world.
• Freedom from Corruption: The non-prevalence of political corruption within a country, according to the Corruption Perceptions Index.
• This subcomponent has been flat since 1997.
• Labor Freedom: How free is a country from legal regulation on the labor market, including those relating to minimum wages, hiring and firing, hours of work and severance requirements.
• This subcomponent has been flat but took a big dive this year (not sure why).

CONCLUSION (at least from these metrics): the US government is a little bigger and a little more regulatory than it was under Bush and about the same as it was under Clinton but has not changed much in 21 years. If you believe in smaller government, you won't be thrilled with the US's performance in the Index of Economic Freedom - but it would be hard to point to it as evidence of Obama's total economic failure.

Has Obama Changed the Economy for the Worse?

A friend of mine posted an article that presents many arguments for the complete failure of the Obama administration's economy. Some of the claims seemed pretty hyperbolic and much of the "evidence" seemed dubious but I thought they were worth reviewing anyway. Over the next several posts I will investigate the following claims made in the article:

• Index of Economic Freedom: #11, lowest global ranking, 7th decline in 8 years, dropped to the second tier in 2010. We'll also want to look into the components of this index and the US's score/ranking since 1995 if we can.
• Obama has implemented 600 MAJOR regulations ($100m+ impact), on track to implement 641 more, many more than the 426 implemented by W, costing $1.4B each
• Labor participation rate near 40-year low (including record number of women) and implication that that is an indicator of an unhealthy economy. Here we'll want to break down LPR into components and understand what's driving it - is it joblessness, or retirees?
• Obama accrued more debt than every other president before him combined. Here I'm especially interested in how much of that figure is attributable to Obama (or any president).
• 46M Americans living in poverty
• Nearly 50M Americans on SNAP (food stamps)
• Record number of home foreclosures during Obama's presidency. Here I'm interested to see if this is a real Obama phenomenon (and, if so, why?) or if most of these are leftover from the 2007-2009 mortgage crisis.
• America's credit rating downgraded for the first time ever. Here again I'm also interested in how much Obama might have to do with that.
• Trust in Obama's leadership and administration remains at historically low levels.

After that it's all a bunch of unsubstantiated, subjective claims that will be much harder to validate or refute - but I think the above list gives us plenty to work with!

No Proof that Hillary Clinton Took Bribes as Secretary of State

While I have never intended for this blog to be political in nature, I am still very much interested in critical thinking, challenging unsubstantiated claims, and questioning data that may be misrepresented to manipulate opinion - and these days that pretty much means talking politics!

Recently I've heard several attacks on Democratic presidential nominee, Hillary Rodham Clinton (HRC), alleging that she took bribes in the form of donations to the Clinton Foundation in exchange for favors to foreign governments. Those are very serious allegations of treason and corruption! Frankly they seem pretty dubious to me given that a Republican-led House and Senate have shown willingness to put HRC "on trial" in multiple hearings about Benghazi and her emails - if these allegations had "meat," why wouldn't Hillary be on trial for them too?

Let's take a look. To prove these allegations, we would need to show that:

A. the Clinton Foundation is some sort of "slush fund" through which HRC can take donations that would otherwise be illegal or seen as untoward.

B. foreign governments received favors in return for making donations to the Clinton Foundation during HRC's tenure as Secretary of State (SoS).

Let's examine each in turn:

A. The Clinton Foundation is a legitimate nonprofit that has raised more than $2B and that spends 89% of its funds fulfilling its charitable mission (according to the American Philanthropy Institute). I have had students involved in one of its projects, the Clinton Global Initiative. Charity Watch has rated it an "A" on an A+ to F scale. It is non-partisan and has frequently collaborated with charitable efforts from both Bushes. For a deeper examination of its use of funds, see this post from factcheck.org. It is legit.

But, legit or not, could it still be used as a front for HRC bribes? Before HRC became Secretary of State, she was on the Board of the Clinton Foundation. Upon her SoS appointment she resigned from the Board and a special agreement was put into place for ethics reviews of foreign donations to the foundation. HRC joined the foundation in 2013 after having left the SoS post. At no time has she or Bill ever been able to withdraw money from the foundation's funds so it does not seem to be a "slush fund."

It does appear that, as SoS, HRC took advice from a former adviser who was at that time employed by the Clinton Foundation. So the most damning thing you can say about her potentially nefarious SoS use of the foundation is that she was able to use it to employ someone whom she could not get hired directly into the State department.

B. The Clinton Foundation did take foreign donations while HRC was SoS, e.g. in response to the Haiti relief efforts. Eyebrows were especially raised around donations that could have impacted decisions on Russia and Algeria. All such donations except one went through State ethics reviews. Since HRC's time as SoS the fund has provided an unprecedented level of transparency, disclosing donors annually and quarterly. No one has ever found any smoking gun of wrongdoing and, again, I'm sure many - with much more time and inclination than I - have tried.

CONCLUSION: There simply isn't enough evidence to suggest that HRC was using the Clinton Foundation as a "slush fund" or that she was quid pro quo'ing with foreign governments as SoS. If you want to believe that HRC's behavior was unethical, you can craft an argument that it was unethical by citing coincidence as evidence and projecting nefarious intent onto HRC's motivations and actions. However, I don't see anything here that would convince an objective observer that there was anything untoward going on.

Lies in Politics

Some version or another of this chart has been making the rounds on facebook:

It is a summary from Politifact of the truthfulness of statements made by several prominent US politicians leading into the 2016 presidential election. Each of the politicians has made at least 50 statements rated by Politifact but, to be clear, this chart represents the rating of ALL of each politician's statements, not the ratings of just a cherry picked 50 statements.

This chart isn't perfect. For one thing, its data comes from Politifact, which claims to be independent but is owned by the Tampa Bay Times, which traditionally has a left-leaning bias. However, factcheck.org (an independent non-profit) largely agrees with these ratings and my own digging indicates that they're pretty legitimate.

One striking takeaway is that the current Republican nominee for President is at the top of the list for telling half truths, misrepresentations of information, and outright lies. Can that really be so?

Let's take a look at statements recently made by the Republican nominee and the GOP alleging that the DNC email leak is proof of rampant racism in the DNC. The statements call out three specific emails; let's examine each in turn:

1. ALLEGATION: The DNC refers to its strategy for Latino voters as "Taco Bowl Engagement."
EMAIL: "Attached is a script for a new video we’d like to use to mop up some more taco bowl engagement, and demonstrate the Trump actually isn’t trying."
It is pretty clear that the email is referring to the Republican nominee's own "taco bowl" tweet, not referring to Latino voters as such.

2. ALLEGATION: The DNC mocked a black woman's name (LaQueenia Gibson).
EMAIL: "LaQueenia is a NAME!
I'm sorry, boo. I hope you got a raise with this title."
The first sentence seems to be impressed with the regal name, not to be mocking it, and the second sentence has nothing to do with the name; it is in response to the previous email about frustration with endless meetings and calls to organize an event. Even if it were a racist email, the author doesn't even work at the DNC.

3. ALLEGATION: The DNC made anti-Semitic remarks about Bernie Sanders.
EMAIL: "It might may no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist. "
I don't see anything anti-Jewish here; the author is pointing out that the religious segment will prefer someone with religion - even if it isn't their religion - to someone who doesn't believe in God at all.

CONCLUSION: While the DNC emails do show some pretty despicable actions to thwart the democratic process, they do not show rampant racism, as the right wing media has claimed.

It is especially worrying that the representation of these quotes has been deliberately provided out of context so as to make them seem racist; I'm sure the vast majority of readers are taking the articles at face value and not reading the original emails themselves.

If facebook is any evidence, today we spend much of our time in echo chambers, surrounded by people and news sources that affirm our already held beliefs. That is why it is more important than ever that we exercise critical thinking, about which I have written before.

It makes sense that the Republican nominee should be hyperbolic and contrarian; he is challenging the status quo so he needs to convince people that the status quo is bad. No one (in my lifetime) did this more masterfully than Bill Clinton, who somehow convinced American voters that it was "Time For a Change" despite George H. W. Bush's record presidential approval ratings, winning the first Persian Gulf War decisively, a healthy economy, etc. Still, the need to be hyperbolic and contrarian is not license to lie to voters.

As I spend more and more of my time debunking fallacious and misleading political claims these days, I will try to include some of the more significant analyses on this blog. As an ardent Independent voter with a 50/50 Republican/Democrat presidential voting record, I don't have a vested interest in hammering any particular party or candidate. After all, the other takeaway from the above chart is that all candidates are lying to us at least somewhat and that is simply disgraceful; America deserves better.

4th of July

This year's 4th of July was one of he best in recent memory. We spent it with family up on Lake St. Clair so it was filled with boating, kayaking, and eating freshly caught fish.

More than just a good, relaxing time, this year's 4th was especially significant given the recent landmark Supreme Court decision on marriage equality. Although I'm generally not very political on this blog, I have been an advocate for marriage equality for years. Katie and I even discussed not getting married ourselves because it didn't seem fair that we should be able to do so while some people were not.

The news of the Supreme Court decision came in while I was in the security line at the airport. The couple behind me was reading the headlines from their mobile phones out loud and I was floored. I hadn't even realized that such a big decision was due so it completely surprised me. I couldn't help it; I actually wept a little right there in line.

I'm not sure why this issue has moved me so much. I'm not gay myself. I don't have that many openly gay friends or family. So it doesn't affect me in a deeply personal way. Rather, it just seems fair and right.

I get that some people don't agree with it for religious reasons, but our country is not a theocracy. If we're going to afford legal and tax benefits to one set of couples, we need to afford them equally to all. Otherwise it seems not only legally discriminatory but, worse, psychologically abusive: "These people over here are OK. You are not." This decision sends a message of compassion and openness - rather than judgment and governmental control - which are values I hold.

I feel more patriotic than I have in years not because I agree with the decision, but because I feel like our system of government really did something right. In recent years I've found myself more and more apathetic about politics as I have become increasingly cynical that our political leaders do anything more than posturing. This court ruling has really re-energized me into believing that our country is able to progress with the times.

Moreover, I'm really happy that our country is asking - and trying to answer - hard questions. Clearly we are a country that is still trying to figure out where it stands on such issues. We have just allowed for one man to marry another man (by a very slim 5-4 margin, hardly unanimous), claiming that, "Love is love." But, if a man wants to marry his cousin, for example, that is not allowed. "Love is love" isn't quite so simple. We (at least in media) rapidly accepted Caitlyn Jenner when she identified with a different gender, but we also vilified Rachel Dolezal when she identified with a different race.

Where do we stand? Where are our boundaries? As a society, what do we think is OK and what do we think we have no right to judge whether it is OK or not? I think it's fine that we don't have all of the answers but I'm glad that we're asking the questions. The answers we come up with today might be different than the answers we provide decades from now - they are certainly different than our answers of decades ago. I think it's key for a well functioning democracy to question itself constantly.

So, congratulations to my friends and loved ones who can now enjoy the benefits of marriage with their loved ones, congratulations to the US women's soccer team on a very convincing World Cup victory, and congratulations to the USA on another birthday. I am feeling very good about the USA today - God bless America!