A rational response to tragedy

Recent events have once again resurrected the gun debate, namely whether or not people should have them. Unlike many of my Facebook friends, I don't see this as improper (though perhaps we should wait until the bodies are in the ground before we use them for political points). The way we can turn a negative event into a positive outcome is to examine the event, determine its causes, and decide on a plan of action to prevent it in the future. That formula is as true for a workplace accident as it is for a schoolyard shooting. Most of the issue with post-tragedy discussion, though, stems from an emotional response to a terrible act. We want desperately to do something, and so we end up doing anything, just to appease our feelings. This is folly. So, the purpose of this post is to frame the argument in a rational way so that we can at least have discussions that are meaningful.

Humans are violent creatures. Our superior aggression is one of the primary factors in our emergence as the top species on the planet. It is why it is Homo Sapiens, and not the Neanderthals, roam the Earth as its unchallenged master. This capacity for violence is an innate part of who we are. Of course, being indiscriminately violent would not be terribly conducive to building a world-spanning empire. Fortunately, evolution equipped us with a mechanism of restraint. Humans don't naturally like killing other humans. Hell, most don't even like conflict.

If this seems like a contradiction, consider the millions of Americans, even in the most violent of cities, that manage to get through their lives and never harm another person intentionally. Even bullies and bruisers tend not to fight to kill, but to intimidate and prove dominance. Normal humans under normal conditions do not mortally wound other humans. It isn't in our nature. (For more interesting reading on this subject I recommend "On Killing" by Lt. Col Grossman) Clearly, though, there are times when this "fail safe" fails. Soldiers are trained to suppress this instinct under certain stimuli, sociopaths have no such block, and even normal humans under extreme duress can tap into their more aggressive natures.

Before it is even brought up, "violent video games" do not cause violent behavior. In fact, the more access to video games a country has, the less likely they are to experience gun violence (with America being a statistical outlier).

Another cause is the ease with which killings can occur when guns are employed. One of the reasons firearms have completely changed the world of warfare (aside from their valuable intimidation functions) is that they enable practically anyone to kill anyone else, regardless of their relative size or strength. Superior aggression will lead the more violent party in a conflict to victory, all other things being equal, but I think there is little doubt that the body count of a school stabbing would be much lower than a similar shooting.

So, we have two causes:

1.  Innate violence of humans, and the failure of the mechanism that controls it.
2. Firearms function as the "great equalizer" of men.

Other factors could be considered: What was the child's upbringing, what was going on his life, was he bullied, was he loved, etc., etc., etc. I would argue, though, that all of these factors are really subsets of issue #1.

But just identifying these causes isn't enough. We must also decide what parts of them we can change or mitigate. Much as a scientist trying to design a better rocket would likely not entertain "lower the gravitational constant" as a solution because it is beyond his power to alter, we must identify what we be changed.

I think it is self evident that the violent nature of humanity has been a constant for millennia and while it may be a noble goal to change this for the future, it is unlikely that any effort of ours will alter this in the foreseeable future. The mechanism that controls it, however, has been demonstrated to be malleable.

It is unrealistic to believe that we will lower the effectiveness of firearms (either by changing the firearm itself or equipping every citizen with armor), or banish them from existence entirely. We could conceivably change the ease with which they could be obtained, though.

Now that we've got a good handle on what we're trying to solve, we can finally move on to the next step in problem solving: Find solutions and compare all alternatives. I emphasize the word all, because the biggest mistake I see happening is the shouted refrain "We can't just keep the status quo! Something must change!" Once again, this sound and feels good to say, but the baseline for any analysis is always option 1: Do nothing. Even if it is not pleasant, if you do not allow the current state of things to be an option then you lack a frame of reference with which to judge other options.

From this point, the solutions we determine are up for debate. I'm not going to set down exactly what I think should happen step by step, because frankly I don't know. Here, though, are some points to consider: 

• We can attempt to strengthen the "violence control mechanism" through better educations about mental health and access to psychiatric care, potentially nipping problems in the bud. Should this be the domain of government? I would submit that the way to fix this is by fixing society, which is possible if difficult. I doubt a government mandate that we all drop the stigma attached to mental health problems would work.
• Unfortunately, even the best system in the world will inevitably miss some. Those that fall through the cracks will go on to be violent, and when someone is intent on harming their fellow man, words often are not enough. Sometimes, the only way to negotiate with violence is with the overwhelming application of violence. The change necessary is that the source of "anti-harm" violence must be nearby and capable of eliminating the threat. Relying on the police alone for this job is, I think, untenable. As the saying goes, "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."
• Outlawing something does not necessarily make it unattainable. If you wish proof, google "Drive-by's in London" (which is a gun-free zone) or look at the statistics for drug use. Laws only restrict those who obey them, and by and large those who obey laws are not the threat. That isn't to say that laws do not have a place, but it is to say that you cannot turn to a new law as some sort of panacea for every problem.

Addendum to debt post: Now with pictures

Saw this neat little graph on Hotair after I made my entitlement debt post yesterday. This comes from the Government Accountability Office.

Click here for a bigger picture. In case it isn't clear, that's the debt held by the public as a percentage of GDP. The blue baseline assumes we reform entitlement programs (such as Social Security and Medicare). The non-unicorns & rainbows option is the "Alternative", without reform. See the difference?

In completely unrelated news, Treasury Secretary Geithner said that Social Security was off the table for negotiations. Because it's not currently a driver of the deficit.

Show your friends this graph, but don't frame the argument in "See all this debt? Isn't that bad!?" Nobody cares about abstract fiscal policy. Instead, bring it on home.

"The government isn't some invisible force that has no effect on your lives. If the government runs out of money, they will start taxing. Those taxes mean less money in the economy. That means fewer jobs. Fewer jobs mean that yours is at risk, and even if you don't lose yours, you will get paid less. The best entitlement program is a growing economy."

Debt-powered rocket engines over the Fiscal Cliff

To hear politicians talk, you would think that those who steward our government's budget are penny pinching mega-accountants. They would have it all figured out if it weren't for those dastardly "rich" folk always getting away with paying less than their share of taxes! Still, they reason with a long-suffering sigh, they can go back to the books and get tough on some kind of spending. They obviously won't touch Social Security or Medicare, they say, but they'll cut the hell out of that damn "discretionary spending" budgets!

Unfortunately, all of the above is balderdash. For your reading pleasure, I direct you to an article in Forbes which breaks down a recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report and explains why it paints a bleak picture.

The Congressional Budget Office recently published “An Update to the Budget and Economic Outlook:  Fiscal Years 2012 and 2022.”   The outlook is bleak.  For the fourth straight year the annual deficit exceeded one trillion dollars.  Accumulated red ink continues to climb:  “Federal debt held by the public will reach 73 percent of GDP by the end of this fiscal year—the highest level since 1950 and about twice the 36 percent of GDP that it measured at the end of 2007.”

Next year under CBO’s most favorable estimate the budget deficit would fall to “only” $640 billion.  Over the next decade Uncle Sam would pile up another $2.3 trillion worth of debt.  The deficit would start climbing again in 2019—for years.

But what are politicians doing about it? They said they were cutting spending, right? Well, forgetting that discretionary spending doesn't include some extremely large expenditures (I'm looking at you, TARP), the levels that Congress has promised to stay below has been met only 4 times in the last 50 years. Not exactly a stellar record.

But is it really that bad?

Moreover, both higher tax rates and higher deficits would threaten the economy.  The former would cut incentives to work and save.  As for the latter, explained CBO:  “larger budget deficits and growing federal debt would hamper national saving and investment and thus reduce output and income.”  That is, government spending would crowd out productive private activity; as a result, we would earn less while having to pay more.  The agency projected that real GDP would be 1.7 percent lower under the alternative fiscal scenario.

Overall, warned CBO, “the policies assumed in the alternative fiscal scenario would lead to federal debt that would be unsustainable both from an economic and from a budgetary perspective.”  Indeed, the financial horror facing America is evident in another recent CBO study, “The 2012 Long-Term Budget Outlook.”

 In case you didn't know, in their reports the CBO usually follows two alternate realities: One "baseline", which has America populated solely by unicorns and kittens, who get to work on pixie powered rainbows. The second, "alternate", scenario is somewhat more realistic (the rainbows are powered by gasoline).

Neither of these scenarios include some very bad, and likely, things. Recessions, foreign disasters that threaten oil supplies, or economic damage caused by fiscal policy (that means the government screwing stuff up again) could all cause the truth to be far, far worse.

In general, the problem we have is not one of revenue, AKA taxes. The so-called "rich" we are supposed to be taxing into oblivion can't possibly bail us out.

Former congressmen Chris Cox and Bill Archer warn:  “When the accrued expenses of the government’s entitlement programs are counted, it becomes clear that to collect enough tax revenue just to avoid going deeper into debt would require over $8 trillion in tax collections annually.  That is the total of the average annual accrued liabilities of just the two largest entitlement programs, plus the annual cash deficit.”  In contrast, the total adjusted gross income of those earning more than $66,000 a year was $5.1 trillion and net corporate income was $1.6 trillion.  Confiscate it all and there still isn’t enough to pay the annual increase.  And you could only steal the money once, since people wouldn’t keep working if government left them with nothing.

If we took literally every penny that corporations and the rich made it would still not be enough to cover the deficit for even one year. The problem isn't income; the problem is spending. Social Security & Health Care, despite being touted as above reproach, are absolutely a part of this spending problem.

This is not something that we can put off till tomorrow. The growing deficits and interest we are stacking up can swiftly push debt to unimaginable heights. By just 2037 debt could be as high as 200% of GDP. Greece, by comparison, peaked at 143%. The longer we wait, the worse it gets.


Increased government spending, deficits, and debt isn't just some abstract problem. This isn't a debate over whether the rich should be able to have more of their money or not. A necessary part of a growing economy is safety and security. Remove that confidence and you remove the profit incentive. If people no longer have reasonable assurance that their investments are secure then they will not invest. Lower investments mean less business being conducted, which lowers demand for capital.

Guess what?  

Your job is capital.