Iran, Climate Change and Prediction Error

Mark Twain is famous for saying that "it is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future." My mother often predicted that I would become a bum.  She was right. As a happily retired guy I am sure that Betty would agree with my mom’s vision. 

Predicting the future is both necessary and humbling. Squirrels don’t have spreadsheets and mathematical models, but they gather nuts in anticipation of the coming winter. The playboy squirrels who don’t predict so well lose a lot of weight after winter arrives.  Clearly we learn from squirrels and we predict lots of things that improve our lives. But predicting the future is not an easy thing since the future by definition is unknowable. Those who take actions in anticipation of a specific future often make mistakes – sometimes very damaging ones.

Yet we predict and forecast. I grew up in Florida. During hurricane season we all become forecasters. Will that storm turn into a hurricane? Will that hurricane hit land? If so when will it hit? Where will it bring the most disastrous winds and lightning? Weather forecasters are almost always wrong when it comes to predicting these critical facts about hurricanes.Maybe that is an extreme example but I don’t think so. We modern folks with our math and models forecast a lot of things. It is important to do so. And we do so knowing that we are often wrong.

If you are still awake your mind might be wondering and thinking about all the ways we predict the future. My reason for writing today arises because of what I see as a very inconsistent approach by our present leaders with respect to forecasting some very important things.

The Obama administration is VERY sure that climate change is coming and that without major policy changes and a lot of investment, we and the rest of the world will be threatened. I think he said that climate change is our most important future challenge. There are some very important people and very sophisticated models supporting the urgent need to spend trillions of dollars to change and prepare for things that will happen in the distant future – some expected to arrive more than 50 years from now.

Despite the fact that the future is hard to predict and despite the huge sums of money involved, the president is laser focused on attending to these challenges immediately. In his and his supporters’ minds, this expenditure is worth the risk. His policy makes us all invested bettors on future climate.

Compare this aggressive approach to another important future challenge – nuclear weapons. The world is already in accord that countries will not produce more nuclear weapons. And that accord is for good reasons. While it seems highly irrational that any nation, even a rogue nation, would fire nuclear weapons at another country, we worry that all nations are not always rational. It is like the idea of someone yelling fire in a crowded movie theater. It seems quite irrational to yell those words – yet we have laws to prevent crazy or mean people from doing such things. The world has agreed to control nuclear weapons for similar reasons.

Yet the same administration that worries about climate change wrecking our countries is willing to predict that Iran and North Korea can be trusted to not yell fire in a crowded movie theater – or to not unload a nuclear weapon on one of the rest of us. Obama can vividly see water levels rising and shorelines being over run despite knowing that all this future information is model-driven and about the future 50 years from now. Yet the same Obama cannot imagine a religious zealot or a desperate dictator shooting a nuclear weapon. He cannot see those countries most threatened by nuclear Iran and North Korea arming themselves. He seems to minimize any real threat from a world with increasing amounts of nuclear weapons in the most unstable places. 

Kerry and Obama repeatedly say that the recent accord with Iran will prevent them from obtaining a nuclear weapon yet they also agree that within 10 years Iran will be able to manufacture such weapons freely. They publicly agree that after those 10 years it will take only one year to be ready to aim and fire. So why are we not aggressively trying to prevent that outcome? My grandson Nolan will not be 13 yet in 10 years. I am not particularly crazy about him having to worry about Iran or North Korea or some other despotic place. Clearly this is at least as important as the impacts of climate change on him. Right? 

So here is my question. In the case of global warming, President Obama is willing to forecast the absolute worst. In the case of Iran and North Korea his “models” assume the absolute best. Most economic forecasters that I know (who are not ideologically motivated) bring a “show me” attitude to forecasts. They are always skeptical about their model’s predictions. They always discount the certainty of what we think we know. They always follow their forecasts with a list of caveats longer than a drug company’s list of side-effects in a television commercial.

Why is Obama so sure about the intensity of climate change and so sure that Iran and North Korea will turn into the cutest and sweetest puppies? Why can't we apply conservative and consistent forecast approaches to policies related to climate and national defense? 

Low Hanging Fruit and Politicians

What a couple of weeks! If only there were three rings at once we could call it a circus. This has been more exciting than a fireworks display at a Zippo convention.

Obamacare, Gay Marriage, Iran, Race, Greece, Presidential jockeying, the Pope, Ted 2, and Bruce Jenner. You can’t fault Washington if you are bored. Stuff is happening. Of course, depending on which issue it is, you are either happy as a clam or ready to move to Canada.

I am trying to filter it all down. JD helps but there is a lot to get my hairy arms around. So it hit me. There are basically two themes to follow. The first one is that society has gotten to a new place. It is a place where nothing is easy. All the political fruit within arm’s reach is gone. All that is left requires a ladder. And ladders are notoriously dangerous.  In short, there are no easy answers. 

The second theme is that politicians are, well, politicians. I found this on Wikipedia: There have been some publishers who criticized politicians for being out of touch with the public. Areas of friction include the manner in which politicians speak, which have been described as too formal with too many euphemistic and metaphorical expressions, and is commonly perceived as an attempt to "obscure, mislead, and confuse". 

So if you are pissed and possibly confused then there it is – we live in a world where it takes real and tough analysis and negotiation to solve our problems. And the people who should lead the process are simply not up to the task -- caring more about wooing voters with simplistic slogans that actually solving problems. 

Think about some of the problems that got a lot of of time in the last weeks…

            Guns – if there was a simple solution President Obama would have already found it and proposed it.

            Iran, Russia, Syria – being friendly with these people does not seem to be working.

            Healthcare – solving the healthcare needs of more than 300 million people in a country whose national debt is approaching 100% of GDP is not a trivial undertaking

            Racial Discrimination – Stamping out the last vestiges of hateful, persistent discrimination is challenging to say the least

            LGBTs – marrying religious freedoms with economic and social opportunity in a secular society is no easy union

            Income Inequality – despite decades of trying to reduce poverty in this country it hangs on like a drunk at closing time

If you are on the fringe of the debate on any of these issues you will hate what I am about to say. To some of you fringers it is either your way or the highway. What I am about to say is that both sides have at least a smidgen of merit. And both sides hold to their beliefs tenaciously. Iran, Russia, and Syria have some legitimate views. Russia might feel threatened by a growing Europeanization of their adjacent neighbors. Maybe there are racists and homophobes whose lives were somehow diminished by gays or blacks. Having better opportunities for healthcare makes sense for a country. The Constitution seems to allow people to have guns. Poverty makes no one proud.

I am not arguing that any of the above statements in any way proves the point of one side or the other. The above paragraph is meant to say that there are two sides to every debate and we have reached a point in history when resolving these issues is not the real goal.  The real goal is for my side to win. The real goal is to support ideology or to pad the pocketbooks and power of those who represent those ideologies. In the meantime some of us would prefer solutions and we know this will take patience and VERY hard work. Yet the charade goes on. 

We hope our elected officials will assemble all the data and do the analysis and then duke-it-out in government institutions. But so far that is not what we see. What I see are politicians on both sides of the spectrum hurling naïve and damaging statements, cleverly disguised insults, and silly statements. Basically they are saying things like “trust me and I will solve all these problems. Do not trust my adversary as he/she wants to hurt you.” Really!

Since the ice melting is diluting my fine JD I really should finish this. So let me end with one example: income inequality. It seems to be the strongest candidate for my points today. Political candidates make it sound so easy to transfer a dollar from some rich guy to a homeless person on the street. Perhaps we spent too much time reading fairy tales. Ahh Robin Hood. Such a nice boy with tight pants. But please. Spend a little time at a soup kitchen or a park bench and get to know the clients. You could sprinkle hundred dollar bills on many of these people and it wouldn’t do a thing for the poverty rate.

My liberal friends are ready to BBQ my testicles on the nearest Big Green Egg. But wait. I am not saying that poverty programs are useless. I am not saying that government does not have some role to play in reducing poverty. I am not saying that high income people should not share their wealth. What I am saying is that whatever we have been doing for 50 years does not seem to be working well enough. Lyndon Johnson said these programs were going to eliminate poverty! Yet there it is worse than ever.  

To make any real headway today is going to take harder work. It will take real leaders who understand that the easy choices are gone. It will take people who can objectively evaluate, explain, listen, and then implement policies that matter. 

Honestly, can you name a living leader ready for this job?