Counterparties: The pundits vs Nate Silver
Welcome to the Counterparties email. The sign-up page is here, it’s just a matter of checking a box if you’re already registered on the Reuters website. Send suggestions, story tips and complaints to Counterparties.Reuters@gmail.com.
We’re less than a week away from election, and the political media is setting someone up to lose. Oddly, that person is neither of the candidates, but political polling and statistics blogger Nate Silver. Politico’s Dylan Byersis leading the charge, raising the possibility that Silver “could be a one-term celebrity”. Silver puts a 74% chance on an Obama victory, but that makes no sense to Byers, because “polls have [Romney] almost neck-and-neck with the incumbent”. Byers brings in quotes from insiders and pundits to support the idea that the race is a “toss-up” and that Silver is, in Joe Scarborough’s words, a “joke”.
Silver, however, is completely comfortable with his position, telling Byers:
If the Giants lead the Redskins 24-21 in the fourth quarter, it’s a close game that either team could win. But it’s also not a “toss-up”: The Giants are favored. It’s the same principle here: Obama is ahead in the polling averages in states like Ohio that would suffice for him to win the Electoral College. Hence, he’s the favorite.
David Brooks might not be comfortable with that kind of statement, but as Ezra Klein points out, mathematics is: “If Mitt Romney wins on election day, it doesn’t mean Silver’s model was wrong… the model has been fluctuating between giving Romney a 25 percent and 40 percent chance of winning the election”. Brad DeLong goes back and forth with Byers and Silver in defense of statistical modeling, and the results aren’t pretty for Byers. Jason Linkins slams Politico for failing to differentiate probability from prediction, and instead just “trolling the bejeezus out of Nate Silver”.
Experience, after all, can limit your ability to assess information. Henry Farrell agrees with Paul Krugman that fetishizing inside knowledge and scoops limits what you can learn to what you already know: you become “peculiarly vulnerable to self-reinforcing illusion”. Krugman thinks that in most cases, “careful analysis of publicly available information almost always trumps the insider approach”. — Ben Walsh
On to today’s links:
What $4 Billion Buys You
George Lucas says Disney could make Star Wars films for the next 100 years – MTV
Billionaire Whimsy
The politics and economics of the American austerity lobby – American Prospect
Old Normal
Vocational training: 15-year old interns working on assembly lines – LAT
Hunkering Down
How Wall Streeters endured Sandy: With $1,000 Bordeaux and board games – Max Abelson
“I predict my office will never be cleaner than it will be today”, says New York trader – Reuters
MF Doom
Woman at the center of the MF Global scandal: “They’ve got the wrong chump” – WSJ
#Sandy
The best time lapse video of what #Sandy did to Lower Manhattan – Jalopnik
How the storm brought NYC’s inequality to the surface – David Rohde
Outrage in the powerless zone: Dispatch from lower Manhattan – Gothamist
Primary Sources
Chris Christie’s official order rescheduling Halloween – State of New Jersey
Harvard Business School, deep blue state – Harbus
JP Morgan
JPMorgan sues failed whale-tamer in London court – Reuters
EU Mess
Eurozone unemployment hits record levels, 1 in 4 jobless in Spain and Greece – Guardian
Sad But True
People living in poverty are twice as likely to be depressed – Atlantic
Wonks
Why Kocherlakota is a hero of rigor and intellectual honesty – Matt Yglesias
Alpha
Never mind markets, indices aren’t that efficient – EDHC Risk Institute



Comments RSS
Those Reuters redirect links are annoying; one can’t tell what site a link will take you to by putting the cursor over it.
“Krugman thinks that in most cases, “careful analysis of publicly available information almost always trumps the insider approach.”
I hope he’s not using the stock market as a model…
Seriously, that is what is wrong with the econmics “profession” – whether it be MF Global, or our “natinally recognized statistical rating organizations” or perhaps our wonderful and extremely competent “Justice” Department that can’t find one (whoops – they found ONE) case of fraud on Wall Street.
Or the revolving door between Wall street and Treasury, with every rule legerdermained into a subsidy to finance.
http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2012/08/ perversity-of-economics-culture-of-fraud .html
The pundits are just mad that Nate Silver is giving lie to their horse race narrative and exposing them as the idiots with no more insight than Bob the bartender.
Its like when the Giants beat the Patriots when the Patriots were favored 5:1 and everyone acted as though something impossible had happened.
They are just exposing their own lack of understanding of the concept 4:1.
America is bad at math, almost to the point that some of our policies, and most of our pundits, come across as though they are waging a war on math.
You have to remember that every opinion is wrong. Because if it was right, it wouldn’t be an opinion, it would be a fact.