Do pundits ever really know what they are talking about?

"Often wrong, but never in doubt!"

Each day we see "experts" on TV holding forth on various topics. In most cases, the most expert people are least in demand, as TV needs people who are great communicators who have no hesitation or self-doubt. The true expert is often very aware of the fact that no one knows everything about the topic. Even in hard sciences, it was not so long ago that "experts" thought that heavier than air flight was impossible! In topics such as economics or interpersonal relationships, there are many self-proclaimed, or even widely recognized, experts who are quite wrong. If you hear an expert or read an article by an expert, go to the original source. Frequently, you will find that it is far less definitive that it is later presented. Also, it is often less clear or relevant. Even "scientific"studies can be poorly constructed or analyzed.

Perhaps we each seek simple answers and assurance. It may just not be possible.

The changes being made for this crisis will not really change our economic system

There have been many, particularly in the US who have screamed that the introduction of government money into banks and a share of ownership means Socialism. This is not correct. Socialism requires long term ownership of all means of production and distribution as part of the economic system of a country. What is being done now is simply the injection of government money to sustain the current capitalist system and this will be withdrawn when the businesses are stable. Just as the New Deal did not mean socialism, neither does this. Furthermore, in US history, full nationalization even by President Eisenhower, is not uncommon as a temporary solution.

As we emerge from the current economic crisis, however long it takes, we will return to a strengthened private enterprise system in which regulation is more balanced. The only danger is that there will be an overreaction in which the law of unintended consequences could have reign.

The American Exception - making it difficult to vote

The US is the only democracy in which it is the citizen's sole responsibility to register to vote. It is not the citizen's responsibility to sign up for jury duty - government seeks them out. In other democracies, it is the government's responsibility to register voters, though individuals have the right to register. In over 30 countries it is compulsory to vote on the basis that it is a duty. In other countries it is a right, but not a duty. Nevertheless, government reaches out to find potential voters - except in the US. As a result, while voter turnout is close to 100% in Australia, where voting is compulsory, and in the 60-70% range in the UK, where it is optional, it is in the 40s in US General elections, where registration is the obligation of the voter and it is often made difficult. As a result of the difficulty, many Americans are never registered. In 2006 only 67.65 of eligible voters were registered to vote, and 47.8% actually voted. This varies by ethic origin, with 71% of non-Hispanic whites registered, 61% of Blacks, 54% of Hispanics, and 49% of Asians. Voting followed similar patterns. Voting rates also climb as income goes up, ranging from 31.3% for people with family income below $20,000 to 64.2% of people with family income above $100,000.

If GM and Chrysler merge, it will only accelerate both their demises

So GM and Chrysler are talking about a merger. The bringing together of two struggling companies has never been successful. You are doubling the problems while increasing the bureaucracy and trying to bring together two competing organizations. GM needs to simplify its operations - from brands to manufacturing; dealers to union contracts. A radical rethink of what is a GM car is also needed. Sadly, GM is running out of time and wasting it talking about a merger with Chrysler is typical of the myopic lack of professionalism the company has shown over the past 30 years.

Are prediction markets the way to replace voting?

My friend Jonathan Palfrey commented on a recent post that perhaps the seeds of destruction of democracy lie in the fact that so many voters are uninformed. If that is so, perhaps something more like prediction markets could be used to replace the traditional vote. Prediction markets, such as Intrade.com are better at predicting the outcome of events than polls are. The main reason is that instead of simple opinions,m which may be delivered without thought or knowledge, they are more like bets on an outcome. The "voter" has some real money at stake. Much as has been found that people will lose weight more reliably when they have money at stake, so do they become more accurate in prediction when they have something to lose by being wrong.

30% of US bridges are unsafe

Infrastructure is a real problem in the US. Not only are bridges and roads crumbling, but so are power grids - most of the wind farms being built today have no way to transmit all the power they will generate. Drinking water and irrigation systems are atrophying, public hospitals being closed down, and airports are unable to handle the demands on them. Schools are in poor physical shape, railroads inadequate, and telecommunications systems behind the need. Yet, the country is so fixated on keeping taxes low that the investment falls behind what is required. Not only is the country not building new infrastructure, but it is allowing existing infrastructure to deteriorate.