Meeting and Bureaucracies and Nazis (Wannsee)

Bureaucrats are supposed to love meetings. By this criteria, Simon Ramo, a major figure in aerospace who has written a book on meetings reviewed in the LA Times is no bureaucrat.

"During his 69 years in the aerospace industry, Simon Ramo figures he's attended more than 40,000 meetings — an average of two or three per workday.

About 30,000 of those meetings could have been shorter or not held at all, he laments."

By bureaucratic criteria, the Nazi's Wannsee meeting, which is dramatized in the HBO movie "Conspiracy", which we watched last night, was very effective. Of course in a tyranny a man like Heydrich (played by Kenneth Branagh) can bribe and threaten to get a bunch of bureaucrats to agree on a course. What was interesting, and effective, in the movie was the differing perspectives brought to the movie by the various participants (the lawyer (Colin Firth) who'd done the original Nazi race laws, with their careful and bureaucratic categorizing of Jews and near-Jews, was especially interesting. What was horrible was the duality: on the one hand watching the tactics and concerns of the bureaucrats; on the other remembering the reality behind the bureaucratic language--that all of this led to 6 million dead.

Good News from Iraq--It's About Time

I learned in the 60's not to overestimate the military's intelligence. This piece in today's Post is good news (note the past tense), but it's rather late. You'd think Rummy and Victoria Clarke would have figured out that the single bit of evidence most useful to those who oppose the Iraq venture was the fact it wasn't safe to drive this highway.

Easy Sailing Along Once-Perilous Road To Baghdad Airport: "BAGHDAD -- It used to be the most dangerous highway in Iraq, five miles of bomb-blasted road between Baghdad International Airport and the capital cityscape. It was a white-knuckle ride, coming or going. To reach Baghdad or leave it, you had to survive the airport road first."

Why Does Time Switch Screw Up Traffic?

Mickey Kaus in Slate posts on the idea that:

"traffic in Los Angeles (and, perhaps, elsewhere) gets horrifically jammed every year right after the switchover from Daylight Savings Time. What's interesting is that this seems to be a purely sociological phenomenon rather than a technological one. As best as I can figure it out, what happens is roughly this: [some people get up by the clock; some by their body rhythms. That results in a changed distribution of drivers, meaning jams.]

As a retired bureaucrat who no longer drives in rush hour traffic and who lives 2500 miles away from LA, I'm well qualified to correct Kaus' answer:

It's also the strangeness. People get used to driving under certain conditions--the amount of sun in your eyes, the glare, the general ambience. Changes to and from DST upset that comfort level--all of a sudden the sun is in your eyes, you slow down as you flip the sun visor down. In near saturation traffic, it requires only the smallest disturbance in traffic flow to upset the whole deal. Change will do that.

Fat Epidemic--Challenges to Conventional Wisdom

MSNBC.com cites a study of the ratio between waist and hip, which correlates to heart risk. Buried in it is a possible indication that we aren't as fat as conventional wisdom says:

"Overall, waist measurements recorded by the researchers were about 90 percent of the hip measurements. People in China scored best at 88 percent, followed by 89 percent in southeast Asia, 90 percent in North America, 92 percent in Africa, 93 percent in the Middle East and 94 percent in South America."

LA Times has a review of a new book that also challenges the conventional wisdom. But I prefer to trust my eyes and my memory--Americans are getting heavier.

Michael Brown's Dogs

Both Times and Post report on the release of some of Michael Brown's emails yesterday, which show he was concerned about his image on and about a dogsitter (apparently for the time he was going to be in Louisiana for Katrina).

It's easy to mock, but, as a great President used to say, the easy course would be wrong. Bureaucrats are people, too, and have a private life. In other contexts people who try to balance their work life and their home life would be praised, not mocked.

Usually workers have spouses who can handle dog care, as my wife has handled cat care over the years. Brown could be criticized for not having planned ahead, or not having previously had the occasion to go out of town to a disaster (that's assuming his spouse wasn't out of pocket or that he was recently separated). Certainly the teams that FEMA and the Red Cross put in the field in response to disasters should be expected to make provision for pet care and house sitting. And true that the head of FEMA should be a model for employees. By that standard, Mr. Brown fails, but not in love for his dogs.

We Expect Republicans to Govern Well?

Jeff Birnbaum had a column in the Post on the process of filing Lobbyist Disclosure Act data with the House and Senate. It seems both places have or are moving to an all-internet process, but with incompatible requirements and software. He then had a discussion on the Post website today which included the following:

Lobbyists' Disclosures Via the Internet: "If the Senate already had a user-friendly LDA disclosure program, why didn't the House leadership confer with them and coordinate a 'joint but separate' type of system? I heard that the Senate even offered to work with the House on that very point but was rejected early on.

Don't you think that the separate filing points lend confusion to the process?

Jeffrey Birnbaum: Thank you.

I also heard that the Senate offered to work with the House to make all this right, but for whatever reason, nothing much has happened.

I don't know who's right or wrong, but I think that the lack of cooperation could lead to a breakdown in a system that already is pretty crippled."

Remember, both houses are controlled by the Republicans, which is the party that believes in efficiency in government.

The Advantages of Confusion--Greenspan

Confusion and ambiguity in the style of Chairman Greenspan has its advantages, so the forthcoming change to Dr. Bernanke with its gain in clarity, as described in the NYTimes, may not be totally advantageous.

What's the advantage to ambiguity? Perhaps several, but the one I'd point to is flexibility. One thing we can be sure of is the the Fed board is going to be wrong at some point. Unfortunately we Washingtonians, unlike the rest of the country, usually respond to error by repeating our error, by coverup and concealment. See our current (and past) President for proof. It's a human thing--in times of uncertainty (and error equals uncertainty) you (I) seek the security of the known.

Unfortunately sometimes the world gets locked in feedback cycles, in vicious circles so we need what the great liberal and bureaucrat J.K. Galbraith called "countervailing power". In sailing terms familiar to readers of Forester and O'Brian, it's "coming around on the opposite tack".

So, if a change of course is needed to break a vicious circle who is more likely to do so: someone who has staked out a clear position and rationale and committed to a model supporting the position, or someone who operates behind a smokescreen (forgive the mixed metaphors)?

Rebuilding Iraq

Dan Drezner blogs on the report of the inspector general for the Iraq Reconstruction effort here.

The report is here.

The lead to the report highlights the shortfall in the number of projects that are being done. Our great aspirations in summer 2003 are sadly trimmed in the gray October of 2005.

Dan cites the criticism of the planning for the effort. I'd like to focus on another area, one that liberals often ignore. It's true, as was cited in a Post article on Katrina reconstruction, that doing stuff for people is lots worse than having people do stuff for themselves. It's a lesson I've seen over and over, whether in the results of much foreign aid from the 1950's on or in a bureaucracy, whether building things or building software.

Why--take an example of rebuilding the Kabul/Kandahar highway in Afghanistan. Very worthwhile, successfully completed, not controversial. But. Highways require maintenance, maintenance requires money, money requires either continuing foreign aid or a functioning tax system. Maintenance also requires equipment and contractors. To the extent that the reconstruction meant developing a base of Afghani expertise and contractors, the highway can be maintained. But reports from Afghanistan don't show the development of an effective bureaucracy that can assess and collect taxes (not even a government that can do a tax law that is complied with).

Similar logic applies in Iraq, whether it's hospitals or schools. Unfortunately, maintenance is not a "sexy" subject. Politicians and political scientists put their time and thought into the policy decisions, but fail to recognize that for a long term achievement you need the supporting web of bureaucracy and resources. Even the inspector general is likely to be focussed on the building, not the maintenance.

Social Learning

Sebastian Mallaby in the Post writes a column, Do Seniors Need Saving?, that raises many questions. The theme is that with globalization and longer lives, and the decline of pensions (see NYT magazine) people should be saving more now, but instead they're saving less.

He addresses a liberal strawman--that the "hidden persuaders" of the 1950's are making people spend more and save less:

"But people managed to save back in the 1950s, so they could also save today. Indeed, the hidden persuaders are surely less insidious now than they were then: People have gotten better at zoning out their messages."

I think it's true that societies learn. Supposedly that's the case for crack: people, particularly young people, in the inner cities saw the ravages of the crack epidemic of the 1980's and decided not to use it. A similar explanation may have been offered for the decline in teenage pregnancies, crime, etc.

But another way to look at this is as an arms race between consumers and commerce, with each side searching for advantage. Advertising has been around for centuries, getting more sophisticated all the time. Consumers have been around for a while, also getting more sophisticated all the time. Unfortunately Mr. Mallaby is a whippersnapper, with no personal memory of the 40's and 50's. There's more and more choice of products, more and more personalized advertising, more and more product placement. For example, I don't remember any vending machines in my high school, nor do I remember Disney doing a lot of product tie-ins when Cinderella was released.

My bottom line: in a race between people who have a direct and immediate financial incentive [to sell] and those whose incentive [to save by not consuming]is more diffuse and more delayed, I'd place my bets on the first.

Postscript: Thomas Schelling, whom I seem to cite repeatedly these days, did work on the idea of two people in one skin--the one who craves immediate gratification versus the one who plans and saves. Rereading that work would be interesting.

Where Is the Economic Man

Economists use the concept of the "economic man", who is a rational seeker of maximum utility.

An exchange with a reader here about real estate prices reminds me of some other articles that challenge this. One was an article in the NYTimes about medical savings accounts. The idea is that of economic man--allow a person to tax shelter money to be used for medical expenses. People will use their money more wisely than if their medical expenses are covered by insurance. It's win/win: better health at a lower cost. The problem is, speaking as someone who each year for the last 30+ has had the chance to change insurance plans, people don't necessarily maximize utility. I just keep renewing my plan; it's much easier than spending the time to compare plans each year. (In that sense, I am maximizing utility.)

Similarly, Henry Blodgett in Slate looked at the investment strategy of Ben Bernanke, Greenspan's replacement as head of the Federal Reserve. Turns out he's not a rational economic man either, at least by academic standards.

The problem is, not that people aren't rational, but people are more multiudinous (see Walt Whitman) than economics, or the law, or other disciplines admit.