4 ms·

I thought this was an interesting article as it's more analysis than it is political commentary, something the hacker news community could enjoy from an analyti

by asnyder 15y ago

I thought this was an interesting article as it's more analysis than it is political commentary, something the hacker news community could enjoy from an analytical perspective.

jessriedel 15y ago
This article is a pseduo-analytical wrapper around an extremely partisian stance: My political opponents are irrational idiots (literally mad elephants), having purposely made themselves incapable of rational cooperation. Therefore, I will take the high road as the morally upright and rational person I am. The key thing about the game of chicken is that it is symmetric. And, in fact, the current budget debate is more-or-less so: both the president and the house republicans must agree; it either rejects the deal, there is a terrible consequence for everyone. (It's possible, of course, to argue that one side will come out worse, to break the symmetry, but the article makes no attempt to justify such a claim.) Declaring one side crazy and the other side righteous is hardly analysis.
- donall 15y ago
  "Literally" mad elephants? ;) http://xkcd.com/725/ http://xkcd.com/725/
  - jessriedel 15y ago
    "Literally" referred to the fact that the OP literally called them mad elephants, not that they literally are .
    - donall 15y ago
      I was just reminded of that xkcd comic and thought I would share. I wasn't actually trying to start an argument about the usage of the term "literally" (which is why I'm not continuing it!). In any case, I would have thought the comic portrays the person doing the correcting in a crazy enough light to show disdain for the practice...
- demallien 15y ago
  The situation isn't symmetric - the President will just invoke the 14th Amendment and bump up the debt ceiling next week if needs be. It's just that the Democrats seem to have decided to use this issue to demonstrate to the voting public just how unreasonable the Republicans have become in negotiations, by trying to negotiate when they don't even need to. Looking at recent polling results, the strategy seems to be working.
  - checker 15y ago
    Can you explain how Obama could invoke the 14th? After reading it, it doesn't seem to mention any executive powers (IANAL, I am curious though).
  - bd_at_rivenhill 15y ago
    There's one big flaw in any plan to unilaterally increase the debt ceiling: it's not really clear whether that would be legal. You could make a reasonable argument on either side, and the final arbiter would be the Supreme Court, which is not particularly liberal these days. Nobody who wants a safe investment would buy the new treasury debt issued under those conditions without a significant risk premium above what they are paying now; I certainly wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole without a couple of hundred basis points of spread over the current yield. Not something the government would want to lock itself into for 2 years to avoid skipping some Social Security payments.
    - demallien 15y ago
      It's true that it isn't cut and dried whether or not the 14th can be invoked, which means that any attempt to use the 14th would likely end up in the Supreme Court. It is also true that the Supreme Court is not terribly liberal at the moment. But, fortunately enough for the US and the world, raising the debt ceiling is not a 'liberal' cause - it's something that G.W. Bush, G. Bush, R. Reagan and others from the conservative side of politics have seen fit to do. It is not likely (in my opinion) that the Supreme Court would follow Tea Party rhetoric against the advice of every economics advisor out there. In other words, I think that ending up in the Supreme Court is pretty much a win for anyone that thinks the debt ceiling needs to be raised...
- khafra 15y ago
  Tea Party-leaning legislators have constituents who actually want them to shut down the Federal Government, so they have less to lose than those legislators beholden to sane voters. The problem is, once your opponent in this game of chicken has visibly guzzled a fifth of bourbon and torn off his steering wheel, it's too late for you to do the same.
  - ars 15y ago
    You are falling into the same trap. You see them wanting to shut down the goverment and decided they are insane. They have perfectly sane reasons for wanting that - you just don't agree. And if you are unable to see that, then the fault lies with you, not with them.
    - khafra 15y ago
      Whether they're sane by some objective standard is irrelevant to this understanding of the underlying game theory. If someone handcuffs himself to you on the edge of a cliff and starts dancing a jig, he has the upper hand in negotiations, for pretty much anything he wants to negotiate.
      - ars 15y ago
        You are still stuck. You think they are doing things just to annoy you, or for no reason at all. They are choosing things because they think it's the best thing to do. But you seem incapable of realizing that someone may actually have a different opinion about something. You seem to think that if they have a different opinion it must mean that they are not rational.
    - albedoa 15y ago
      They have perfectly sane reasons for wanting that Name one.
      - ars 15y ago
        Why are you asking me? Go ask them. And whatever answer they give you, if you think that it's not a sane reason then the problem lies with you, not with them. It's hard, but eventually you will learn to accept that other people have different opinions about things - even things that seem totally obvious to you.

by asnyder 15y ago

I thought this was an interesting article as it's more analysis than it is political commentary, something the hacker news community could enjoy from an analytical perspective.

jessriedel 15y ago

This article is a pseduo-analytical wrapper around an extremely partisian stance: My political opponents are irrational idiots (literally mad elephants), having purposely made themselves incapable of rational cooperation. Therefore, I will take the high road as the morally upright and rational person I am. The key thing about the game of chicken is that it is symmetric. And, in fact, the current budget debate is more-or-less so: both the president and the house republicans must agree; it either rejects the deal, there is a terrible consequence for everyone. (It's possible, of course, to argue that one side will come out worse, to break the symmetry, but the article makes no attempt to justify such a claim.) Declaring one side crazy and the other side righteous is hardly analysis.

donall 15y ago
"Literally" mad elephants? ;) http://xkcd.com/725/ http://xkcd.com/725/
- jessriedel 15y ago
  "Literally" referred to the fact that the OP literally called them mad elephants, not that they literally are .
  - donall 15y ago
    I was just reminded of that xkcd comic and thought I would share. I wasn't actually trying to start an argument about the usage of the term "literally" (which is why I'm not continuing it!). In any case, I would have thought the comic portrays the person doing the correcting in a crazy enough light to show disdain for the practice...
demallien 15y ago
The situation isn't symmetric - the President will just invoke the 14th Amendment and bump up the debt ceiling next week if needs be. It's just that the Democrats seem to have decided to use this issue to demonstrate to the voting public just how unreasonable the Republicans have become in negotiations, by trying to negotiate when they don't even need to. Looking at recent polling results, the strategy seems to be working.
- checker 15y ago
  Can you explain how Obama could invoke the 14th? After reading it, it doesn't seem to mention any executive powers (IANAL, I am curious though).
- bd_at_rivenhill 15y ago
  There's one big flaw in any plan to unilaterally increase the debt ceiling: it's not really clear whether that would be legal. You could make a reasonable argument on either side, and the final arbiter would be the Supreme Court, which is not particularly liberal these days. Nobody who wants a safe investment would buy the new treasury debt issued under those conditions without a significant risk premium above what they are paying now; I certainly wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole without a couple of hundred basis points of spread over the current yield. Not something the government would want to lock itself into for 2 years to avoid skipping some Social Security payments.
  - demallien 15y ago
    It's true that it isn't cut and dried whether or not the 14th can be invoked, which means that any attempt to use the 14th would likely end up in the Supreme Court. It is also true that the Supreme Court is not terribly liberal at the moment. But, fortunately enough for the US and the world, raising the debt ceiling is not a 'liberal' cause - it's something that G.W. Bush, G. Bush, R. Reagan and others from the conservative side of politics have seen fit to do. It is not likely (in my opinion) that the Supreme Court would follow Tea Party rhetoric against the advice of every economics advisor out there. In other words, I think that ending up in the Supreme Court is pretty much a win for anyone that thinks the debt ceiling needs to be raised...
khafra 15y ago
Tea Party-leaning legislators have constituents who actually want them to shut down the Federal Government, so they have less to lose than those legislators beholden to sane voters. The problem is, once your opponent in this game of chicken has visibly guzzled a fifth of bourbon and torn off his steering wheel, it's too late for you to do the same.
- ars 15y ago
  You are falling into the same trap. You see them wanting to shut down the goverment and decided they are insane. They have perfectly sane reasons for wanting that - you just don't agree. And if you are unable to see that, then the fault lies with you, not with them.
  - khafra 15y ago
    Whether they're sane by some objective standard is irrelevant to this understanding of the underlying game theory. If someone handcuffs himself to you on the edge of a cliff and starts dancing a jig, he has the upper hand in negotiations, for pretty much anything he wants to negotiate.
    - ars 15y ago
      You are still stuck. You think they are doing things just to annoy you, or for no reason at all. They are choosing things because they think it's the best thing to do. But you seem incapable of realizing that someone may actually have a different opinion about something. You seem to think that if they have a different opinion it must mean that they are not rational.
  - albedoa 15y ago
    They have perfectly sane reasons for wanting that Name one.
    - ars 15y ago
      Why are you asking me? Go ask them. And whatever answer they give you, if you think that it's not a sane reason then the problem lies with you, not with them. It's hard, but eventually you will learn to accept that other people have different opinions about things - even things that seem totally obvious to you.