tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21552987.post116108772030892931..comments2023-11-05T04:50:27.094-05:00Comments on Social Econ Blog: The Power of Incentives -- Political Polemic EditionUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21552987.post-1161098323290328422006-10-17T11:18:00.000-04:002006-10-17T11:18:00.000-04:00I disagree. First, I don't think the change in in...I disagree. First, I don't think the change in incentives facing honest and dishonest people are symmetric. For the dishonest, there is some chance of being discovered and disgraced (or worse) (like the guy who gave 60 minutes the fake Bush National Guard records -- of course the swift boat liars were thoroughly discredited and nothing happened to them). Truth-tellers just get a bump up in their own glory or revenge or whatever. On net, I think this creates a bigger positive change in incentives for the truth-tellers than for non-truth tellers. <BR/><BR/>Second, and more importantly, the informants themselves are only one input into the information production process. The other inputs have very strong and clear incentives to find, gather, and release information when it will sell the most copies (of books or newspapers). So even if truth-tellers tell the truth uniformly across time, we should expect to see an increase in the supply of their truth near elections simply because this is when they are asked to tell it. This increase in the supply of truth certainly could offset the increase in dishonesty. <BR/><BR/>There is a tendency to, as Dave argues, treat all information released near elections with a skepticism that I am not sure is justifed. Certainly, the stuff from the parties or the campaigns is full of spin and lies, but that's not really what I am talking about. I am talking about stuff contained in new books or new reporting of "facts". Ultimately, I think that these sources need to be critiqued on their merits. To defend yourself (or your party) by questioning the timing of the release is not, in my mind, a defense. It refutes nothing and is an attempt simply to change the topic. This debate judge gives no points for such efforts and thinks people should stick to the topic.BWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15253628675169664406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21552987.post-1161090762587458162006-10-17T09:12:00.000-04:002006-10-17T09:12:00.000-04:00Think about in terms of relative prices. Honest p...Think about in terms of relative prices. Honest people have strong incentives to reveal the truth always. (That's my definition of honest.) Liars only have strong incentives when their lies can make a difference. (Again, I guess that is my definition of a liar in this context.)<BR/><BR/>So, knowing this, it's not unreasonable to infer that damaging information that comes out in January of an odd-numbered year is more likely to be from an honest source than damaging information that comes out in October of an even-numbered year.<BR/><BR/>You're right that the profit motive is stronger in even-numbered years, but that's not going to make a big difference in the relative incentives, as both the honest and the dishonest have the economic motive-- it mainly means that we are more likely to see damaging info in October of an even-numbered year.Tony Vallencourthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06640680964080820351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21552987.post-1161089659537901502006-10-17T08:54:00.000-04:002006-10-17T08:54:00.000-04:00People may believe that the information is less cr...People may believe that the information is less credible because, since it comes out at a moment where the information can be most politically damaging, that implies that the author is politically motivated rather than an "objective observer." That, of course, assumes away profit considerations. But that said, I actually think this is a reasonable hypothesis TO A DEGREE. The timing may be a signal as to the alignment of the author, and the skeptics argue that the alignment of the author really affects the credibility fo the information.<BR/><BR/>Your point that both liars and honest people face strong incentives in an election season is a good one, though. It's not obvious if those incentives are distinct.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com