On Funny Punditry (or The Allure of Instant Fame)

Recently I and Ujang talked about the making of Indonesian "funny" pundits that we observed in the last of couple of years-- thanks to widespread of so-called social media and free press.

If you care enough to look at it carefully, there has been a glint of intellectual dishonesty out of this kind of punditry. The obvious one is the habit of setting up a strawman. The less obvious one is to promote something deemed as "new" or "groundbreaking", whereas, in fact, the ideas have been around for years, if not decades, in particular discpline or profession.

Surely, branding something as "groundbreaking" always attracts ones who are not trained on the subject --thus the blame are not theirs. But those funny pundits are, supposedly, aware that the claim might not be as spectacular as it may sound.

Yet, for them, the incentive to commit in such dishonesty is indeed rather high. There are always gullible cheerleaders (and media) out there, eager to celebrate anything labeled as trendy, new, or revolutionary, under the pressure to appear, in our popular lingo, "eksis". Fame, for these faux pundits, is therefore imminent.

Now, in the free-market of ideas, where are the competing forces for such funny punditry? Those well-equipped with training or analytical rigor that can not be easily persuaded with snake-oil jargons and populism.

Here is the Catch-22: most of them are already very busy and occupied with their jobs in the universities, in private sector, and in public sector. They spent great deal of their time pursuing professional objectives -- perhaps, admittedly, for their own different definition of fame or power. In short: they lack of incentive to counter popular fame-inspired pundits in popular (social) media. For many of them the pay-off for engaging in many times repetitive debates doesn't add up with the time they need to allocate for properly analysing the issue.

Moreover, they are also not trained and used to engage in an exchange in which the opposite side are those with "palu gada" attitude (Read: "apa lu mau, gue ada"; or in plain English, the "anything-goes").

Do I believe in wisdom of the crowd then? Yes. Sooner or later, the crowd will know what/who is lemon and what's not. Think of Roy Suryo, if you want.

In the meantime, I believe many people with knowledge, in their limited spare time, look at such funny punditry with amusement (and, perhaps, as source of entertaining gossip over coffee or lunch).

There Are Many (Much) Better Reasons to Hate Economics

Emmanuel Subangun wrote in Kompas 2/27/10 op-ed:

As recognized by anyone who ever attended university and had economics course, economics suffers from two plagues. First, to support the claim of economics as a science, the limitation has to be clear. In economics lingo, economics has to be separated from other social facts -- boldly called as, from Latin, ceteris paribus. From this point, economic model is born and, alas, all economic policies are based on models generated this way. The second plague, economics(sic!) is not willing to be registered as social science, so that (sic!) it self-regards as a star (science) that has best understanding on social issues. This creates a superiority complex.

Geez!

Those who ever took econ courses (and elementary research methodology) seriously would understand that ceteris paribus doesn't mean a separation from the so-called economic and social facts. Ceteris paribus (or all else being held constant) means that when you try to explain the effect of a change of variable, you assume that other variables are constant.

Let me repeat this clearly: This has nothing to do with separating the facts, let alone between economic and non-economic facts.

It is about how to tell the effect of, say, proper Econ 101 education, on ability to write a well-informed op-ed. In your observation, you can not really tell it if you do not hold other variables (e.g overall educational level, writing skills, exposures to relevant readings, political bias, the number of economist friends, etc) constant.

Moreover, who said that economists do not consider non-economic facts in their analysis ? Mr. Subangun probably needs to read a whole series on non-economic factors in economics at the diskusiekonomi blog.

On his second claim that economics refused to be categorized as a social science, well, it surely has different methodology than, say, sociology, but it is a social science. Suppose it weren't a social science, does it mean that now we have social sciences, natural sciences, and economics?

Then Mr. Subangun also thinks that Boediono and SMI represent scientific economics, while Pansus common sense. The former fails to convince the latter, hence political communication dysfunction.

Common sense makes you think that the sun revolves around the earth.

Beside, Pansus does not use common sense, but play ill-informed politics. They just either, like Mr. Subangun, don't get the economics right, or, worse yet, for whatever reason, refuse to take well-founded economic arguments for bailout.

Additional flaw: From the quote, Mr. Subangun argues that economists want to separate non economic social facts; but at the same time he suggests that they claim to have best understanding on social issues. Alas, this argument is a contradictio in terminis.

Wanted: Positive Political Analysis

Can anyone tell me what national interest means? I have been trying to translate it into a kind of operative utility function to which politician might want to maximize as suggested by our numerous political pundits in their so-called analysis of Indonesian election campaign. And it goes nowhere.

The more workable proposition is to take that politicians are self interested or partisan, that is, trying to maximize social welfare function for disproportionate benefit of particular group in society (Persson and Tabellini, 2000). With that, your positive analysis for social calculus could fly better. Of course after you carefully set up the payoff, constraints, political market structure, as well as sufficiently address the problem of time consistency in your analysis.

Otherwise, you'd end up with empty boring statement like politician must put national before individual interest to make everyone happy; or politician running for this year's election must follow the example of (fill in the name of your favorite dead politicians from 1950s) who was a genuine defender of national interest. Yadda yadda yadda.

Minister of Protectionism

Do you know what kind of vision that our Minister of Research and Technology has in mind? I'll give you one. It is called "M16 produces 16M". The former refers to a type of killing machine, the latter market for 16 million (of what? IDR, USD, people? I don't know).

And he wrote in today's Kompas op-ed:

With this fighting spirit, we will see more main weaponry system tools, electronic communication devices, tactical and war vehicles, speed patrol ships, war ships, surveillance airplanes, cargo planes, organic weapons for military and police, armored vehicles, defense and security infrastructure; than imported product."

I kid you not.

Mr. Minister, I'd rather to have inexpensive imported non military stuff any given day, than seeing more of our own made inefficient killing machines around. Does he ever think that import and globalization means you can get cheap product in global market (including even those weapons), in exchange to your competitive export?

That the Minister of Research and Technology turns out just a plain protectionist is disheartening. His job is to make our product technologically competitive in global market, not asking for protection. It's a lame excuse, Minister.

Transfer Is Not Social Cost

I can not believe that Yudi Latif, in today's Kompas Analisis Politik, doesn't get the social cost-benefit analysis of general election right (and presumably, the Kompas editor, too).

We know the benefit of general election is to have better government and public services provision. But apparently it takes a bit of more time to understand its cost.

Yudi thinks the political ads spending is social cost. It is not. The same goes for the spending of political consultancy, polling, printing banners, free T-shirt, and even money politics. They are all transfers. The money does not go out of the economy --or GNP, as Yudi said. It just has the ownership shift from politicians to advertising company, political consultant, T-shirt maker, and potential voters.

Does it mean general election doesn't have social cost? No. When you involve in and spend resources for general election-related activities, alternatively you can work on something more productive --perhaps by staying in academics. Your time and energy to otherwise produce good lecture is the social cost.

The overall election's social cost can be higher or lower than the benefit, but you'd better be clear on this. Particularly when you relate this to someone's argument that democracy is more suitable to the nation with economic surplus than one with deficit (whatever it may mean).

Maybe, but surely not because of such cost-benefit analysis.

Empirical and Theoretical Flaws Questions

Based on this op-ed,

On monetary policy, the government confines themselves into a free capital mobility regime. Since long time ago Rupiah did not act as the master in his own home. The government does not trust in the strength of own currency. The US dollar is allowed to become price benchmark in the country. The illusion is created as if Indonesia is a dollar haven and market psychology is formed to save the dollar as if it is precious jewelry. In other countries, (however), all public transaction are set in local currency.

First off, the empirical questions: Do we now have to pay our lontong sayur with US dollar money only? Are our Pegawai Negeri now paid in US dollar? And, for the other country's example, if China wants to buy Treasury bills from the US, --a public transaction, yes?--can they just hand in the renminbi to the US Treasury, and the latter will happily accept it?

Suggested answers: No, no, and no.

Does it means that the exchange rate, not only against US dollar, is not important? No. It determines our balance of payment, our window to the world economy.

Second, the theoretical one. If you, a sane government, adopt a free capital mobility regime, you must have known and assumed that the interest rates ups and downs, be it domestic or international rate, hence capital inflow/outflow, do not lead to a drastic volatility of your exchange rate --hence trade.

In other words, you trust your currency to stay more or less within a reasonable span.

How do you then relate the first and third sentence of above passage?

Suggested answer: .............(don't ask me, I can't pretend to know the answer, too)

CPO Price Dictator (If Any)

Khudori, in his op-ed in Kompas, lamented that:

We are indeed the world largest CPO exporter, but the price of Indonesian CPO has been dictated by Rotterdam spot market and Kuala Lumpur future market.

and he concluded

Last, as second largest CPO producer after Malaysia, Indonesia should be taking important role in the searching and making of product's price, not dictated by others.

Well, of course the equilibrium price is determined by not only supply (where Indonesia belongs to), but also demand (the rest of the world whose growth has been slumped). And how are you gonna "take a role" in making up the price? Reducing the CPO production, or setting up a cartel with Malaysia? It might not work either, since, perhaps, there are numerous substitute for CPO. I don't know.

By the way, does anyone know how much does the palm cooking oil price in Jakarta cost lately? Palm cooking oil consumer may not be happy, if you cut the CPO production.

Now which one is which?

Linus' Take on Our Nation-state

The op-ed starts with these lines (liberally translated):

Toward the 63th of (Indonesia) anniversary, many things needs to be contemplated about. Clearly, this nation-state is not making any progress and prosperity, but moving backward and defeated.

Really? What about this, or this?

This reminds me a dialogue between Linus and Charlie Brown from an old Peanuts comic-strip:

Linus (hanging on to his famous security blanket): "I think the world is much better today than it was, say, five years ago..."
Charlie Brown (angry and shouting at Linus) : "How can you say that? Don't you ever read the papers? Don't you ever listen to the radio?" and, "How can you stand there and tell me this is a better world?"
Linus (releasing his thumb from his mouth): "I'm in it now!"

Cultural What?

I am scratching my head.

Maybe you can help me to answer my (stupid) question: do you really think that the best way to to influence the perception of Islam in the U.S is to send

[...NU communities in Java have...] many amateur but excellent music, theater and martial arts groups that given the opportunity could easily capture a Western audience for a breathtaking hour or two. The very rich and sophisticated but relatively unknown performing arts of Banyuwangi (a traditional NU stronghold) for example, would be a safe bet to help shift perceptions of Islam in the U.S.

The same goes for the beautiful but devastating, obscure martial art of pencak silat. NU and its Pagar Nusa schools of pencak silat have many young and old masters who cannot only apply punches, kicks, takedowns, throws and joint locks, but can also, to an extent, defy gravity and demonstrate invincibility to fire and sharp blades. Managed creatively NU's artists could put together a show as entertaining as the famous Chinese State Circus, guaranteed to inspire and capture people's imagination.

and call it a cultural diplomacy?

Punches, kicks, sharp blades?

If you do think it is, then maybe the Jakarta Post's opinion editor was right.

Emeritus Professor's Rant

Read this in Today's Kompas op-ed (liberally translated).

One of Indonesian weaknesses and faults is to suffer from complacency (this word does not exist in Bahasa Indonesia, you can try to consult any Bahasa Indonesia dictionaries), ignorance attitude, unpreparedness to increase alertness and achievement, so that we are too easy to be overtaken by others.

Look our badminton (for example Taufik Hidayat), look Indonesian football and Indonesian Football Association now. Even its chairman is jailed but refused to be replaced, despite FIFA warning.

What does it all mean? We, Indonesian, no longer know ethics, no longer have dignity, shameless. Period.

And you know what? He's talking on why Indonesian oil uplifting decreases and mining technology lags behind. I don't know what Taufik Hidayat has to do with it.

The last para in above quote, I daresay, is an insult -- at best a careless generalization. Pointing out a whole nation and people to blame for such technical problem is of no use. With all my respect, he should've known how to avoid over generalization in order to make policy workable --or to write sensible op-ed.

Pundit's Follies

Today, Tuesday, May 27, 2008, Kompas daily, sadly, ran a very disappointing series of op-eds and analysis. It's a real pity.

For some hints, go to Aco's place. I am not in the mood to ridicule tell those deaf ears. Those anecdote on gasoline price and insinuating horizontal conflict are.....never mind.

Commenting the economics of the US presidential candidates, Bryan Caplan once said before the class, "I wish I could fail them." Now I can relate the feeling.