Monthly Archives: August 2003

productivity is not always good

Productivity rose in the second quarter at an annual rate of 5.7%,

yet unemployment remained stubbornly high. Businesses did not increase

spending on equipment, so their productivity gains didn’t come from

upgraded technology. Instead, I suspect, they squeezed more profits

out of the workforce the old-fashioned way. Middle-managers, afraid

of losing their own jobs, denied bathroom breaks to sales clerks. Benefits

packages were subtly watered down. More socks were reshelved by fewer

people at your neighborhood WalMart.

If the second quarter was a prelude to widespread economic growth that

will soon benefit everyone, fine. But if it represents the new version

of "growth," "productivity" and "recovery,"

who needs those things?

politicians are sometimes sincere

Since the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform legislation is clearly

benefiting Republicans and harming Democrats, why did most Republicans

vote against it and most Democrats support it?

There are cynical explanations. For example, maybe neither party predicted

the effects correctly. Maybe they all assumed that campaign

finance reform would have to be good for Democrats, and they voted pro

and con accordingly. Or perhaps the reform was viewed as bad for incumbents

as a group (which it is). Republicans may care more about protecting

incumbents, since they have majorities in both houses.

However, I think that a non-cynical explanation is at least partly

true. Republicans stood to gain from McCain-Feingold, but most were

still against it, because philosophically they oppose state regulation

of a financial exchange that they consider completely legitimate. Democrats

stood to lose from McCain-Feingold, but most voted for it, because philosophically

they oppose private financing of campaigns and they want to regulate

donations. Sometimes, arguments and reasons count.

Washington versus DC

I was at a conference out of town recently, sitting with two people

who had previously lived in the nation’s capital, where I’ve resided

for a dozen years. They said that they like "DC," but they

don’t like "Washington." I agreed. For those who live elsewhere,

this is the distinction (as I see it):

"Washington"

  

"DC"
     

Members of Congress, lobbyists, lawyers, diplomats, reporters

   teachers, police officers, artists, store owners, bus drivers,

receptionists, janitors
     

mostly White, with some foreign officials

   mostly Black, very diverse
     
K Street, Connecticut Avenue   U Street, 18th St, Georgia Avenue
     

The city west of the park plus Chevy Chase, Bethesda, much

of Fairfax

   All quadrants of the city plus Silver Spring, Hyattsville, Mitchelville,

Alexandria
     
Georgetown, SAIS, all the law schools   Howard, Gallaudet, Trinity College, UDC
     
Mclean McMansions, Georgetown townhouses, the White House  

row houses with cornice decorations made of bricks and wooden

front porches
     

people "serve" here for a few years and go home

   people live in the house where their grandmothers were born
     

The LaGuardia Shuttle, Lear jets, stretch limos, Air Force

One

   Metrobuses and trains, the Beltway, Greyhound
     

Reagan National Airport

   National Airport
     

The World Bank

   Riggs Bank
     
The CIA   The DMV
     
The Redskins   The Redskins

smart mobs

The latest technological phenomenon to get the attention of the New

York Times is "mobbing." An announcement spreads around

blogs, listservs, and bulletin boards: everyone is supposed to show

up at a particular time and place to do some particular, but random,

thing, like asking a Macy’s sales clerk for a "love rug" or

shouting "Yes, Yes!" Thanks to the viral nature of the Internet,

the idea spreads and people actually show up.

Are smart mobs "The

Next Social Revolution?" as Howard Rheingold is arguing? They

certainly fit the current ideal for social organizations: completely

decentralized, with

minimal costs of entry and exit, no hierarchy, and no rules. I have

absorbed so much conventional social theory that I’m very skeptical

about this ideal. I assume that the creation of public goods is difficult

and requires a solution to the classic free-rider problem (namely: people

won’t contribute much of value if the good is enjoyed by everyone else).

Destroying stuff is much easier. Therefore, I would guess that the new

phenomenon of "smart mobs" will be used much more effectively

to destroy than to create. People may show up to shout "yes, yes!"

(which is funny and costs nothing), but they won’t use "smart mob"

methods for real constructive action. I also assume that one of the

trickiest parts of social organization is finding ways to make actors

appropriately accountable. I don’t see how a smart mob can be forced

to answer for its behavior. However, all this could be wrong. (I’m very

"twentieth century.")

against artificial intelligence

I have lost the reference, but sometime within the last 72 hours, I

read a quote by an official of the Defense Advanced Research Projects

Agency (DARPA), the agency that

helped launch the Internet and recently got into trouble for creating

a "futures market" in terrorism. This official bemoaned the

stupidity of his laptop, which doesn’t know what he wants it to do;

he called for much more public investment in artificial intelligence

(AI).

I have an interesting colleague in computer science, Ben

Shneiderman, who strongly criticizes AI research. His argument is

not that the machines will take over the world and make us do their

will. Rather, he argues that AI tends to make machines less useful,

because they become unpredictable. When, for example, Microsoft Word

tries to anticipate my desires by suddenly numbering or bulleting my

paragraphs, that can be convenient—but it can also be a big nuisance.

Shneiderman argues that computers are best understood as tools; and

a good tool is easy to understand and highly predictable. It lets us

do what we want. All the revolutionary computer technologies

have been very tool-like, with no AI features. (Think of email, word

processing, and spreadsheets.) Meanwhile, untold billions of dollars

have been poured into AI, with very modest practical payoffs.