For good news – we have more research helping to confirm what true free trade advocates have always believed.  We don’t see a decrease in wages or living standards by trading with developing countries.  Via NBER here:

Concerns that (1) growth in developing countries could worsen the US terms of trade and (2) that increased US trade with developing countries will increase US wage inequality both implicitly reflect the assumption that goods produced in the United States and developing countries are close substitutes and that specialization is incomplete. In this paper we show on the contrary that there are distinctive patterns of international specialization and that developed and developing countries export fundamentally different products, especially those classified as high tech….

Which translated means, the US, one of their main agents in their research, has an economic dynamism (here & here)which results in the US never directly competing with other countries’ lower paid labor:

…Judged by export shares, the United States and developing countries specialize in quite different product
categories that, for the most part, do not overlap. Moreover, even when exports are classified in the
same category, there are large and systematic differences in unit values that suggest the products made
by developed and developing countries are not very close substitutes—developed country products
are far more sophisticated….

& this of course isn’t the only research making such conclusions (here & here).

But that’s not all.  We’ve seen historically that creating obstacles to free trade can hurt us severely (here):

One of the major causes of the Depression was Congress’s passage of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, which was signed into law on June 17, 1930. Smoot-Hawley placed tariffs on more than 20,000 imported goods. It halted the recovery from the 1929 downturn and resulted in retaliatory tariffs from U.S. trading partners and a decline in U.S. imports and exports of more than 50 percent….

Though not all would say cause (here):

“The best estimates are that the multiplier is roughly 2. In that case, real GDP would have declined by about 3.4% between 1929 and 1931 as a result of the decline in real exports. Real GDP actually declined by about 16.5% between 1929 and 1931, so the decline in real exports can account for only about 21% of the total decline in real GDP.”

Irregardless, the research and economist communities agree on the benefits of free trade (here):

A 1990 survey of economists employed in the United States found that more than 90 percent generally agreed with the proposition that the use of tariffs and import quotas reduced the average standard of living….

Congress’ answer to all of this? A trade war with China (here):

The Democrat-backed bill passed by 348 to 79, and targets countries that hold down the value of their currencies, as many accuse China of doing….

The Senate’s answer?  A trade war with China (here): 

The chairman of the Senate Finance Committee said Wednesday that the upper chamber is “poised” to legislation meant to hammer China for its currency policies…

To paraphrase an axiom:  With economic heavy weights like this as friends, who need enemies… but I’m sure there’s no way they’ll screw up health care, right?

The President? A trade war with China…. sort of no.  While he’s pushing China just as other presidents have (here):

The Obama Administration believes that China needs to take steps on rectifying its currency value, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said….

He hasn’t stated he would sign anything and other administration officials are pushing different views (here):

Treasury Department Secretary Timothy Geithner said there was “no risk” of a global currency war during a wide ranging interview with Charlie Rose Tuesday evening….

Intelligently, he’s keeping his options open in this very way.  Though I’m not sure I want to bet that he continues down the road of economics considering his approval ratings., but a smart move overall.

It’s a truism of real leaders since the dawn of time; they find themselves, not from true success and stable times, but rather from adversity and chaos. When faced with those seemingly insurmountable odds, it’s the strongest who remain calm, read the landscape, and discover new answers from which they can seek out continued success.

Though under great stress, we humans tend towards the flight or flight response. True leaders however, can use these difficulties against themselves to provide both motivation and a sense of urgency to gain the ingenuity required for such challenges.

This is understood well in society. Like business leaders who understand innovation can be helped significantly by design constraints (here):

Great designers understand this. Charles Eames says design is all about innovating around constraints. And it’s the constraints – the scarcity – that fires the designer’s creativity. Smart business people “get it” too. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos embraces self-imposed scarcity saying, “One of the only ways to get out of a tight box is to invent your way out.”

They understand that principle of economic scarcity. As do military leaders. Sun Tzu notes in the Art of War:

For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.

For President Obama, the Tea Party & the Republicans taking back control of the House of Representatives could give him the opportunity to display true deft.

Assuming it does happen as predicted (here via the Philly Inquirer) however, the President is accorded a tough task ahead.

He would now have the body responsible for appropriations bills (all spending bills much start in the House & they are very important. For instance, they can kill health care by simply not funding it….) mainly in place due to running against him. Secondarily, while they don’t wish to be seen as obstructers, their willingness to work with Obama will be small even without their election strategy. Because any bill passed, regardless of how/why, if it turns out to be a good or well liked idea, Obama will naturally take credit to further his chances for re-election in 2012.

& the Democrats know that neither the President nor health care is a selling point for this election, even if they are communicating differently. The facts are that se hasn’t really made many direct candidate speeches, just backyard BBQs in key districts in key states. They are essentially, and correctly, playing against their weakness – his popularity.

Not a bad strategy in the short term, but I think people have heard him speak enough and any celebrity (yes, while the President is certainly more important and more powerful than any normal celebrity, s/he is still a celebrity) runs the risk of over saturation.

Irregardless, with Obama, the question is can he live inside those constraints?

What we know is given a new landscape, the answer for tomorrow’s question will not be the same answer as today’s. I think if he can push himself with a sense of urgency, surveys the landscape to see what he has and what he can accomplish with what he has. Then uses both the sense of urgency and strategic thinking by changing his game plan when the field of battle changes…. well, then we’ll see a real leader who may live up to his Nobel Peace Prize (here).

Or said more succinctly, it’s a crappy state of affairs you might find yourself in Mr. President, but challenges is how leaders prove themselves.

Honestly, I don’t think he’ll be able to do it. I think he’s too insecure (here) about himself and his handlers seem to know little more than an approval ratings drop equals time for Obama to give more speeches. & I don’t honestly think that’s likely to change…. but predictions are better left to Ms. Cleo.

What is likely however is the people around him understand exactly this point.  They do know it. The question is whether their emotions towards their beliefs (see: Confirmation Bias here & here) combined with the difficulty of telling a President who gives great speeches to shut up. Not to mention game theory predicts leaders to surround themselves with “yes men”.

All of that makes significant and required change seem unlikely, but I’d never count out someone who made it to the Presidency, nor, the team that helped him get there.

So Mr. President, here’s your chance.

NBER has a great new research paper out discussing the size of social networking cliques versus their ability to aggregate information among of sources and whether size of the group is a correlative factor to asymptotic of learning (abstract here):

We develop a model of information exchange through communication and investigate its implications for information aggregation in large societies. An underlying state determines payoffs from different actions. Agents decide which others to form a costly communication link with incurring the associated cost….

We define asymptotic learning as the fraction of agents taking the correct action converging to one in probability as a society grows large…..

Our result shows that societies with too many and sufficiently large social cliques do not induce asymptotic learning, because each social clique would have sufficient information by itself, making communication with others relatively unattractive. Asymptotic learning results if social cliques are neither too numerous nor too large, in which case communication across cliques is encouraged….

The short version: If your social network is small enough in size, you can gain information aggregation and asymptotic learning by conversing outside your normal circle, by conversing with friends of friends…. which among other things, means if your social network is kept to a certain level, you are more likely to have more interactions with different social groups than if your group is too large.

For instance – if you have 100 friends, you might have time to wade through some stuff, even post on a few statuses here and there.  You also have the option of seeing other people post on that status whom you might not even know.  That simple interaction can open a new individual source of information and dialog you might never have encountered otherwise.  I can personally think of a few people this is definitely true with me, but that’s a side note.

From the other side – the opposite side is also true.  When your social network becomes too large, your time, ability, and even willingness to move past all the communications you have to view to possibly even interact with others you might not know becomes prohibitive.  IE – the cost of adding yourself into additional social networks and though which learn more, becomes too high.

Take a mundane example – let’s say you love hot dogs and they’re on sale for cheaper than ever, say 50 cents a package.  Why not buy them all?  Because of the law of diminishing returns.  The first 5 packages you pick up might be worth $2.50 easily, but each additional package you retrieve results in spending a higher percentage of your income on something you already now have 5 of.  So each additional package above some individual amount, becomes worth less and less.

Of course this social network size has implications in government as well.  This line of reasoning can be taken to contemplate how large societies in general should be.  Not that there’s a perfect size and I wouldn’t advocate force for any perfect number, but how many people is truly efficient to be under one local government and when does having a larger community under the same local government possibly discourage social interactions & even a feeling or sense of community.

It seems obvious that 300 million under one federal banner isn’t a good idea & the same can probably be said to be true of most large urban areas.   This isn’t to say 20 million people can’t live in a relatively densely populated place, but that even in that sense, there would be many micro communities of much smaller size to encourage interactions, involvement, & true compromise.

As they say, all politics are local.  For me – I can only say I’ve met quite a few friends through this method.  People I call friends who, like most, agree with nothing I ever say, but for whom I’m a richer person for having met all of them.

The moral of the story – I guess the same old thing, everything in moderation.  But again we see the real genius of the internet, in decentralized information sharing.  Without this mechanism making this possible at all, we wouldn’t even be discussing the size of our social networks.

Not that most humans seem destined to challenge themselves or their beliefs… the data shows most people still seem to only seek out confirmation sources instead of new information (here & here)….meh.

Hopefully someday lots of people will use all that wonderful information to question to their beliefs instead of constantly reinforcing their perceptions, but for now – I wouldn’t hold your breathe