Policy Doesn't Make a Difference David Brooks (so most of the P&N whining is useless)

[Infohawk]

Great article by the only pundit I regularly read, David Brooks of the New York Times. He is a self-identified conservative.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/opinion/04brooks.html?hp

Basic gist: Swedes in Sweden and the US have drastically different laws. But they have similar wealth and health. Conclusion: all the whining we do about policy is for nothing.

To me, this is an argument in favor of simpler government. I'm fine with basic welfare provisions, but government can only do so much. Your family, neighbors, and culture are a bigger deal.

 

[Jhhnn]

Cliff's notes- Brooks obfuscates on behalf of the Lootocracy...

 

[Infohawk]

So how do you explain the fact that people of Swedish descent in both countries basically have the same quality of life?

 

[MJinZ]

Great article by the only pundit I regularly read, David Brooks of the New York Times. He is a self-identified conservative.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/opinion/04brooks.html?hp

Basic gist: Sweden and the US have drastically different laws. But they have similar wealth and health. Conclusion: all the whining we do about policy is for nothing.

To me, this is an argument in favor of simpler government. I'm fine with basic welfare provisions, but government can only do so much. Your family, neighbors, and culture are a bigger deal.

How long do Swedes work per week?

Is there large wealth division and poverty in Sweden?

Are people more content/happy there?

 

[Infohawk]

How long do Swedes work per week?

You tell me.

Is there large wealth division and poverty in Sweden?

Not as much as in the US but the whole point is that the US issues are likely an issue of differences in culture.

Are people more content/happy there?

You tell me.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

How long do Swedes work per week?

Is there large wealth division and poverty in Sweden?

Are people more content/happy there?

Your questions are the answer. Culturally Sweden is about as different from the US as can be in the context of first world countries.

It's culturally monolitic and small. It's not politically divided. In fact they have the infamous "naming law" to ensure social conformity.

The Swedes are happy with what they have and on average are comparable economically, but the statistical mean is a poor descriptor of any system.

 

[Infohawk]

Your questions are the answer. Culturally Sweden is about as different from the US as can be in the context of first world countries.

It's culturally monolitic and small. It's not politically divided. In fact they have the infamous "naming law" to ensure social conformity.

The Swedes are happy with what they have and on average are comparable economically, but the statistical mean is a poor descriptor of any system.

What are his questions the answer to? The point is that, despite these differences, outcomes are the same for ethnic Swedish in the US and in Sweden. By pointing out differences you are just reinforcing Brooks' conclusion.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Great article by the only pundit I regularly read, David Brooks of the New York Times. He is a self-identified conservative.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/opinion/04brooks.html?hp

Basic gist: Sweden and the US have drastically different laws. But they have similar wealth and health. Conclusion: all the whining we do about policy is for nothing.

To me, this is an argument in favor of simpler government. I'm fine with basic welfare provisions, but government can only do so much. Your family, neighbors, and culture are a bigger deal.

I don't think that is what Brooks is saying at all ...

...try to establish basic security. If the government can establish a basic level of economic and physical security, people may create a culture of achievement...

The gub'mint is in the service business. Our future depends upon the ability of the gov't to efficiently and productively provide that basic level of economic and physical security for the least among us at the lowest possible cost to taxpayers, to foster achievement.

There is nothing simple about that ---- among ourselves we can argue about the level of services but Brooks ends with saying "...proposals we argue about so ferociously will have only marginal effects on how we live..."

In other words, instead of posting in this thread maybe we should be helping a poor child to read

And I think the correlation he uses with the Swedes is lame at best. I suspect the 'whiteness' of poverty levels to be roughly similar over the given time frame, with Asians somewhat similar, and non-whites at a level 3-4 times worse.

Cliff's notes- Brooks obfuscates on behalf of the Lootocracy...

Brooks can come up with some real doozies but he is as moderate a voice of reason that true Cons have these days.

He is not as obsessed with US hegemony and partisanship to the extent of Bill Kristol and his ilk.





--

 

[her209]

David Brooks logic fail

A -> B
A -> C

A = Swedes in the US
B = Swedes in Sweden
C = The rest of America

 

[ProfJohn]

Great article by the only pundit I regularly read, David Brooks of the New York Times. He is a self-identified conservative.

Brooks' political ideology is FAR more complicated than 'self-identified conservative'
He is probably closer to libertarian than conservative.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

What are his questions the answer to? The point is that, despite these differences, outcomes are the same for ethnic Swedish in the US and in Sweden. By pointing out differences you are just reinforcing Brooks' conclusion.

My point isn't that his conclusions aren't literally wrong, but overly simplistic. The spread of wealth in Sweden is far far less than in the US. Poverty in the inner cities of the US commonplace. Enormous wealth more likely to happen here too.

This isn't a moral judgment, because that would be a conflation of issues which I resist here.

So to say that policy has no effect, that is only on the mean. Policies do affect other things which aren't insignificant.

There is a marvelous little book written more than a half century everyone should read called "How to lie with statistics" In it there is a diagram where one shot is fired to the right of a duck and one to the left.

The caption reads "On average the duck is dead". Well that's absolutely true as it reads, yet the duck flies away.

The point is that the average or mean does not give validity to any claim. Understanding the data set in context is paramount to comprehending the real world.

The reference you cite is correct. On average his duck is dead, but the underlying realities do not follow his assumptions.

He's therefore mathematically correct, but off the mark as it deals with the reality of the situation.

 

[ProfJohn]

History shows that he is right.

In the 1960s we set up the great society which created the safety net for poor people. In the years after it was established poverty dropped.

But then poverty stopped dropping. That was because the government can only do so much before cultural issues take over.

We can provide people with food, education and a place to live, but we can't instill them with a desire to work and succeed.

Thus the cultures that value hard work and education succeed regardless of where the people live and what obstacles they face, while the cultures that lack those values fail.

Therefore the best form of government would be one that gives people a positive environment where the people who want to succeed can as opposed to a government that focuses on artificial outcomes based on notions of 'fairness.'


It is a pretty conservative argument.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

History shows that he is right.

In the 1960s we set up the great society which created the safety net for poor people. In the years after it was established poverty dropped.

But then poverty stopped dropping. That was because the government can only do so much before cultural issues take over.

We can provide people with food, education and a place to live, but we can't instill them with a desire to work and succeed.

Thus the cultures that value hard work and education succeed regardless of where the people live and what obstacles they face, while the cultures that lack those values fail.

Therefore the best form of government would be one that gives people a positive environment where the people who want to succeed can as opposed to a government that focuses on artificial outcomes based on notions of 'fairness.'


It is a pretty conservative argument.

I see his point as being there isn't a basis for assuming that Sweden's approach is superior to the US. I disagree with the means he used to reach that conclusion.

If you disagree with my post prior to this, I'm amenable to discussing it.

 

[ProfJohn]

My point isn't that his conclusions aren't literally wrong, but overly simplistic. The spread of wealth in Sweden is far far less than in the US. Poverty in the inner cities of the US commonplace. Enormous wealth more likely to happen here too.

His point isn't about the whole US though, it is about a certain subset of US citizens.

His point is that the spread of wealth among Swedish Americans is similar to the spread of wealth among Swedish people living in their native country.

Look at the wealth of African countries and compare it to the wealth of African Americans and you see a similar trend. African countries are poorer than other countries just as African Americans are poorer than other Americans.

If culture wasn't a factor then we would not see huge disparities between blacks, asians and whites instead we would see similar levels of economic achievement and failure among each group.

Simply put: culture is far more important in the success or failure of people than government policies.

 

[dammitgibs]

Sweden doesn't exactly have open borders and have cultures from all over the world integrating (and not integrating).

 

[Infohawk]

Sweden doesn't exactly have open borders and have cultures from all over the world integrating (and not integrating).

I don't think people are actually reading the article.

 

[ProfJohn]

Some of you need to go back and re-read the article.

He isn't making an argument that Swedish policies are better or worse than American policies. He is making the argument that the polices themselves are nearly irrelevant when it comes to the success of the people who live there.

Look at the success of Asians in Japan and South Korea and compare it the success of Asians in American. Despite the huge cultural differences between the US and Japan/SK you still see similar levels of economic success.

It their culture that largely determines their success or failure, not governmental policies.

 

[sandorski]

Surprised no one has brought out the Old "You can't compare the US to X, because of Size/Population/[something else]" yet. The differences between Sweden and the US are very vast and it would take volumes to make any kind of legit comparison.

Just off the top of my head here are some significant Factors:

1) The US has far more Natural Resources than Sweden
2) The US has a far more varied Economy than Sweden

Those 2 factors alone may vindicate or condemn the Differences(or claimed lack thereof) between the US/Sweden. After all, Swedish Policy might just be far more Efficient at getting Max Value of what they do have than the US does, as an example. That wouldn't mean that Sweden would overtake the US as Super Power or something on that scale, but it could mean that a Swedish like Policy in the US could dramatically improve the Average Americans Life.

It's not quite so simple though, mainly because of Population size and other factors which can quickly eat up Wealth for Basic Infrastructure. However, where the balance is involves many more variables than I can imagine and I suspect more than the Author of this Article can imagine as well. IOWs, it seems like an exercise of coming to a pre-determined Conclusion without serious consideration as to whether that Conclusion is anywhere near true.

 

[Infohawk]

Surprised no one has brought out the Old "You can't compare the US to X, because of Size/Population/[something else]" yet. The differences between Sweden and the US are very vast and it would take volumes to make any kind of legit comparison.

Just off the top of my head here are some significant Factors:

1) The US has far more Natural Resources than Sweden
2) The US has a far more varied Economy than Sweden

Those 2 factors alone may vindicate or condemn the Differences(or claimed lack thereof) between the US/Sweden. After all, Swedish Policy might just be far more Efficient at getting Max Value of what they do have than the US does, as an example. That wouldn't mean that Sweden would overtake the US as Super Power or something on that scale, but it could mean that a Swedish like Policy in the US could dramatically improve the Average Americans Life.

It's not quite so simple though, mainly because of Population size and other factors which can quickly eat up Wealth for Basic Infrastructure. However, where the balance is involves many more variables than I can imagine and I suspect more than the Author of this Article can imagine as well. IOWs, it seems like an exercise of coming to a pre-determined Conclusion without serious consideration as to whether that Conclusion is anywhere near true.

Dude you didn't read the article did you? Just admit it.

 

[sandorski]

Dude you didn't read the article did you? Just admit it.

Dude, the Article is bupkiss.

 

[Infohawk]

Dude, the Article is bupkiss.

I would ask why you think that but I don't care at this point. Bottom line is that your previous post doesn't address any of the arguments that David Brooks makes. In fact, it suggests you don't understand his arguments or conclusions and didn't bother to read his piece.

 

[sandorski]

I would ask why you think that but I don't care at this point. Bottom line is that your previous post doesn't address any of the arguments that David Brooks makes. In fact, it suggests you don't understand his arguments or conclusions and didn't bother to read his piece.

His argument that Policy doesn't matter is incorrect. Despite the factors he brings up.

 

[werepossum]

Brooks' political ideology is FAR more complicated than 'self-identified conservative'
He is probably closer to libertarian than conservative.

Yes, Brooks is conservative only by the standards of the Times. His function is to write liberal dogma in such a way as to make liberals more comfortable with their own beliefs by providing a "real conservative" who agrees with them, to provide a "real conservative" viewpoint to which liberals can link to reinforce their own views. If the government was moving the country closer to the ideals of Gingrich rather than closer to the ideals of Obama, Brooks would never be making this case; it simply wouldn't fit his and the Times' agenda. As things stand now, Democrats and liberals (but I repeat myself) have everything to gain from the populace paying less attention to politics and changes the Democrats make, so Brooks can be trusted to trot out a case for that same thing.

In this particular case he is committing a very obvious logical fallacy. Saying that two different systems providing equivalent results prove that the system is irrelevant is only true if there are ONLY two available systems AND all other factors are either the same and/or also irrelevant. Neither is true. In fact, both are demonstrably false. For the former, almost every nation has a different socioeconomic system; they are not binary, but are analog, and analog in multiple dimensions. For the second, Sweden is as Hayabusa Rider said quite different from the USA in homogeneity as well as in obligations, enjoying the tacit protection of NATO and the USA without having to extend protection in turn.

By the way, I do agree that culture is more important that policy in determining success, but Brooks is willfully overlooking the fact that government policies create culture. Today blacks work in far lower numbers and have a far worse cultural viewpoint on work and education. Prior to the sixties this was simply not true. If anything, blacks had a better than average work ethic and a healthy regard for education, as blacks had to work much harder for the same amount of success. Well-meaning liberal policies created the problems we see today among the so-called "black community" by rewarding young single mothers for having children out of wedlock and raising them without fathers, combining a repetitive message of hopelessness with a sense of entitlement that made education seem useless. Welfare families (enforced to be a mother and her children so that fathers were at best transitory creatures) were locked into huge hosing projects where the only highly visible rich individuals were drug dealers and other criminals. The "cult" of the individual was smashed and the cult of the group identity was substituted, leading to working hard for an education becoming a "white thing". None of this came over from Africa, which admittedly has its problems; it is strictly a result of well-meaning but foolishly short-sighted liberal policies. Culture has been created and shaped by policy.

 

[Jhhnn]

Brooks is a shill for wealth, plain and simple. The US has a GINI coefficient of .45, while that of Sweden is .23. Which means that the middle class in Sweden is broader than in the US, where the middle class is basically being destroyed by income shifts to the top and lower wages and higher unemployment rates below.

And the whole argument wrt cultural differences is a sham, and the interpretations offered by various posters here equally so. The notion that governmental differences exist independently of the underlying culture is false, and obviously so.

As a society, America worships greed and idolizes the greediest among us, whereas the same sort of conduct is regarded as shameful among or Swedish cousins...

Brooks' little ditty is just a paean to that greed...

 

[ProfJohn]

Were, I disagree.

I don't think you can use this article to advance an increase in governmental policies. If anything the articles suggests the opposite.

The article clearly suggests that governmental policies have little effect on long term economic outcomes of various social groups and that those groups own inner dynamics are far more important in determining outcomes.

Therefore creating more government programs and handouts will not change the long term outcomes of groups, at least for the better. But said programs could create long term negative outcomes by making it harder for those who want to succeed to succeed.

i.e. taking money from the rich and giving to the poor won't make the poor richer, it will only make the rich poorer.