Gamepaign 2008: Primary Vote

Well, it's Super Tuesday. According to the rules of Gamepaign, I needed to vote for the current leader (Obama, 288 Points). Unfortunately for both Arizona and Barack Obama, it is not only illegal for me to vote in Arizona's Democratic primary (as I'm registered Independent), I'm also 2,300 miles away and I'm not anywhere near a piece of paper that says "absentee" on it.

More importantly, though, is the fact that Arizona doesn't want Independents to vote for Republican or Democratic candidates in its primary. Strange, isn't it? If I had to guess, I'd say it's an attempt by the main parties to encourage voters to identify with one of 'em. ...Or maybe there's some sort of voter fraud (voting twice...?) issue... I have no idea, nor am I going to take the time to look it up and ponder it. Anybody have any clue?

I've been sittin' here watching Super Tuesday coverage all day, and I just saw that Hillary Clinton is projected to win Arizona by a large margin... You can't blame me, Obama, I don't live there. Nobody Set Up Them you.



Here is some political interestingness and relevantism:

-- Apparently, people in my current state are so antsy from the all the "Super" things in one week that they came to the polls a week too early. This seems like it should be especially embarrassing, because really - if you're not informed enough to know when to vote, how are you informed on who to vote for?


-- The NY Times has a good election guide for following the vote tallying and delegate counting for the primaries. Check it.


-- Intrade prediction markets are very interesting to watch when people have no idea what is going on. If prediction markets are our best method of getting information from the people, I'm not very optimistic for the future of people. (Just kiddin', I love 'em)


-- Mike Huckabee looks exactly like Kevin Spacey. While doing a Google image search for Mike Huckabee and Kevin Spacey photos, I came across exactly what I originally had in mind for a blog post.


-- I never figured that John McCain would be the Republican nominee - like a lot of other people, I figured he was overflowing with the old juices, and he'd give up running before he had a viable chance at winning. For those of you who don't know him too well (I don't, really, either), here's a list of policy stances and/or statements by John McCain that you might like. Or maybe you'll hate 'em, I don't know:

1. "Every time US went protectionist, we paid a heavy price." (Oct 2007)
Damn straight.
2. Free trade with any country except security risks. (May 1999)
Damn straighter.
3. "In 24 years as a member of Congress, I have never asked for nor received a single earmark or pork barrel project for my state."
That's awesome, even if it's a teensy bit false.
4. "Republicans have forgotten how to control spending."
Agreed. Actually, I'd argue they honesty never knew. I was about to do a post on this.
5. "Ban on same-sex marriage is unRepublican; leave it to states."
Hey, that's a good point!
6. Affirmative action OK for specific programs, but no quotas.
That's a good stance, I'd say.
7. Close Guantanamo Bay prison; announce no-torture policy.
Rock on.
8. We need a simpler, fairer tax code, but not FairTax.
That is absolutely, absolutely correct.

There are a ton of reasons to like John McCain, especially when compared to other members of his party. There are also plenty of reasons to completely dislike John McCain. I figured I'd spread the [carefully selected] info.



-- Last, not least:
Barack Obama is a fantastic speaker. He's got great "economic logic," he's proved it during both the debates and during his speeches - he's by far the candidate with the best and most applicable knowledge of economics (Much more than Clinton, McCain and even Mitt Romney).

The idea of change is often a selling point among out-of-power party candidates that never comes to fruition, but I think this time - if we elect Barack Obama - we're going to get the most "experimental" president we could possibly imagine. I'm not positive this is a good thing for the country, but I'm also not really that concerned about screwin' things up in the interest of exploration. Exploration is good.

I'm glad that, since the Democrats are probably going to win the 2008 election, Obama has such a good chance of being the nominee.





I just saw that California is predicted to go to Clinton. Not sure how many of California's 400 or so delegates are going to each candidate.

If I had to guess right now, at 12:18 AM on UltraWednesday, I'd say we're going to see Clinton vs. McCain for the general election. Then again, maybe California is less important than I think.
Intrade contracts (higher means more likely) for Clinton and Obama at 12:17 AM.

Like I said, though, people don't have any clue what's going on - but they're our best hope for predicting the future.



UPDATE: Here's what the Intrade contracts look like at 11:30 AM on Wednesday, Feb. 6th:
Just about even, meaning that not only do people not have any clue what's going on, but they also now know that they have no clue what's going on. It took a while for the prediction market to reflect the real confusion (instead of the fake confusion from last night)...

I was trying to figure out why there was such a disparity between last night's predictions (63% likelihood that Clinton would be nominated) and today's (50/50). I figured that maybe people don't buy/sell Intrade contracts when they're asleep, but they was just silly.

I think the real reason Obama is given even chances now is that a theory from last night - that he'll get around half of the delegates - is now more of a fact:

"With most of the votes counted in an inconclusive contest, Clinton is projected to win only eight more Super Tuesday delegates than Obama, but will lead the overall race by more than 60 delegates."

This will [probably] leave the overall delegate count, if you're curious, at:

Clinton: 499 Super Tuesday delegates, 872 overall delegates
Obama: 491 Super Tuesday delegates, 793 overall

For a total difference of 79. That's about two smaller states worth of delegates. Whoever gets 2025 first wins... I presume...

Deblogging

Debate Blogging, that is. I figured I'd be a real blogger and be opinionated in real time for once.

During the Democratic debate tonight, both Obama and Clinton mentioned some things which I thought were worth bloggin' about.

First off, I'd like to point out that I've never, ever, seen a more civil and intelligent political debate on TV. I watched the Republican debate last night and was somewhat disappointed with my home-state senator and my favorite economics-oriented politician (running for president), John McCain, for talking like he's in a coma and arguing semantics with Mitt Romney. I was even more disappointed with Mike Huckabee for being useless, Ron Paul for only talking about the gold standard, and all four of the candidates for ignoring policy details and focusing only on cute, generic phrases and referencing Reagan too many times. Outcome from last night: I like John McCain less now, and Mitt Romney more. I'm sure that this will change again after next Tuesday.

Back to the Democrats. Here's some of the interesting stuff from the debate tonight:


1. Higher taxes on the rich, lower taxes on the poor [to pay for health care plans]:

Obama sells it like this: If you want to live in a country where everyone has health insurance, [the higher-income] people are going to have to pay more. This seems fair. Unless, that is, you make more than $75,000. If you do happen to make more than that, though, it seems very, very unfair. Why, exactly, should you be forced to pay for an inefficient system to get the lower classes free health insurance? Good question. Then again, if you rationalize the [rapidly rising] cost of health insurance as a form of market failure, one could argue the government could and should simply reroute some of those billions of dollars spent on other useless things to subsidize the poorest classes' health insurance. That's a bad fiscal policy argument, though, and a tough call for a politician. I do think Obama has a more of a clearer view on the matter.

Clinton agrees, except she calls it a reversal of the Bush tax cuts. This is the opposite of "clear view," I'd say. Rationalizing higher and/or more progressive taxes as "it would have been this way if someone else hadn't screwed it up" ignores the more important point - whether or not the level of progressivity is appropriate, fair or generally good policy.



2. Universal health care

Both candidates believe in mandated insurance for at least some of the populace.

Clinton wants to mandate health insurance coverage for everyone.

Obama wants to mandate coverage for children only, allowing adults to choose. His plan would not significantly reduce the free-rider problem at hospitals, but it seems like it would be cheaper

It took me about an hour of writing about health care until I realized that I should just do a separate post about it. The summary: If I had to choose, I'd take Clinton's plan over Obama's. I'll post the details later.



3. Freezing interest rates

This was Clinton's suggestion of a way to help people who might be facing foreclosure. It's a straightforwardly terrible idea.

Obama totally rocked it in his answer, replying that it would limit the supply of loans to those most in need of loans. He said it as if he actually believed it, too, which is just fantastic.



4. Question: What about the negative impacts of immigrant labor on African Americans?

Obama calls it scapegoating and denies it. I agree. He says, "We can be a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants." Though I can't help but think that some of his answers tonight were specifically pandering to Democratic voters in California, since it's got 441 delegates (about 40% of all Super Tuesday states' delegates.)

Clinton says we need a "comprehensive immigration package," which somehow includes the logic of making citizenship easier for immigrants in order to raise their wages, so American workers aren't displaced. Is she suggesting that immigrants are being paid less than Americans not because they are less skilled, but because they are here illegally? Sounds like Americans are screwed either way (unless U.S. employers have racial preference, of course...) If she were right, this means U.S. companies could get equally skilled labor in Mexico for lower cost. If her logic is correct, we ought to legalize all the immigrants in order to retain all those companies that hire them. My guess is that this is not the problem...

In short, immigration of unskilled laborers affects the wages of unskilled laborers already in this country. What this has to do, specifically, with African Americans escapes me. Yes, I realize the point - but how is this a problem with a specific race, or at least a problem with immigration from other countries, instead of a problem with all unskilled laborers in this country, regardless of race?



5. Driver's licenses for illegal immigrants

Clinton says it's not appropriate, it puts them at risk since it's "clear evidence that they're not here legally" and a diversion from the real issue of "comprehensive immigration reform." Sounds like a dodge to me.

Obama says it'd be safer if illegal immigrants don't hit & run for fear of getting arrested (due to not having a license.) That's just an example, I assume. He says it's a public safety concern.

Again, it sounds like Obama is looking for California's delegates. If he's not, though - if he actually believes all this - it's moderately impressive.


(Speaking of delegates...)


I know what you're thinking: Why use all this policy analysis and all this economic analysis and all these opinions and all these words when we all know that the real way to pick a candidate is to ask yourself this question:

Which candidate would you most like to have a beer with?

My answer:

In retrospect, I don't think I would have minded having a beer with Bush - as many other Americans supposedly said before the 2004 election. Now that I think about it, it probably would have been fun. Actually, I do vaguely recall thinking this in 2004 and thinking, "Yeah, cool, but what the fudge does having a beer with someone have to do with them being a good president?!" Of course I realize the validity of the question now that I'm older, more experienced and mature.

This time around I think I'd most like to have beer(s) with Obama or Clinton. They might take themselves a little too seriously, though, and I think they'd get drunk too quickly (lightweights). I should probably think this through. Let's go through the list:

I would not want to hang out and drink with McCain, but only because he would bore me to tears with hours and hours of talking extremely slowly and telling me stories about his military past. That would be acceptable, even enjoyable, if he only talked a little faster.

Mike Huckabee would be hilarious after a few beers, but only because he looks exactly like Kevin Spacey, and I wouldn't be able to not laugh due to this after drinking a lot.

Ron Paul would probably not shut up about inflation and the gold standard. Also, I think, since we'd probably be at a bar for this beer, he'd completely ruin my chances with the women at the bar. Can you picture it? I'd be trying to talk to some girl, and Ron Paul would get in the way, act flabbergasted that we're not talking about monetary policy and start blathering with that upward inflection of his about how the Federal Reserve is the devil and that the only thing that matters is preventing inflation at all costs. ...Actually, Come to think of it, this a variation of what I do to my friends at bars. Damn.

Giuliani [you expected this joke] would probably not shut up about 9/11. After a few hours of hearing about terrorist threats and crime, I wouldn't be able to resist telling him how he pretty much doesn't deserve any of the credit for the things he thought he accomplished as mayor.

John Edwards would not be understandable with his thick accent as the night progressed and he'd probably reveal his communistic side and scare the hell out of me (in terms of shaking my faith in the U.S. government, that is...) Actually, I'm exaggerating a little. He'd probably be OK to have a beer with, but I think we'd spend too much time arguing about Chairman Mao.

I'd say Mitt Romney would be my choice, but he probably doesn't drink beer. That doesn't jive.

So who would I most like to have a beer with?

I'll reconsider Clinton or Obama. Clinton would be alright, but she probably wouldn't like hanging out with me very much since I wouldn't be able to hold back my need to point out her economic logic problems. She seems very confident, and I don't think she'd listen to my suggestions.

Obama, though, might be more likely to agree with me on - or at least listen to - my economic and social policy stances. I like Austin Goolsbee, his top economic advisor, and hopefully Obama would invite him to join. It would be bitchin', actually, to have a beer and hang out with both of those guys. Also, I'd be able to say "Someone set up us the Obama" to Obama himself after I had drank enough. That alone would be worth it.

So there's the answer: Barack Obama - the 2008 presidential candidate that I'd most like to "have a beer with."

Whatever happened to that dumbass survey, anyway? Is it only around when one or more of the presidential candidates are mentally disabled, or are otherwise unable to convince people they are worthy of the presidency? I think maybe.

Mike Randolph Takes Your Questions

...For Gamepaign 2008 right here.

No question is off the table, so go wild.



I recommend asking something complex, symbolic and/or humorous, such as, "Do you think it would be acceptable to raise taxes by, say, 30% across the board during an economic boom to pay down the national debt now IF 75% of the country's economists predicted that high(er) interest rates caused by our high national debt would render the government helpless in preventing a future major economic recession?"

In simpler terms, if raising taxes significantly during an economic boom now could prevent a huge economic disaster (which is only predicted, not guaranteed) before the very end of your term, would you raise taxes? (...This is assuming that government expenditure has already been cut to the "limit," meaning Congress won't let you cut costs any further - but they'll accept higher tax rates...)

If I were Mike Randolph, I'd dodge this question. In fact, I'll throw it the other direction - but I hope all you limited government types (myself included) realize the implications and consequences of past government actions on the future size and power of our government. Sometimes raising taxes is a good thing (lesser of 100 evils kinda thing, and even then, not that good...)

There. We've all learned some semblance of some kind of valuable lesson about my opinion on the national debt and taxes. Hurrah.



So here's my list of real questions for Mike Randolph:

1. Where did you get your degree(s), and are you a member of any super-secret high-powered clubs that might fuel major conspiracy theories?

2. What's your stance on "universal" health care? Do you hate sick children or are you a crazed socialist? (Please choose one.)

3. Can you convince me that Mexican immigrants are really any different, at all, from Canadian immigrants? If they are different, which is your favorite flavor of immigrant, and why?


So don't be shy, 4ECon readers, go over to Mike Randolph Central and ask something intriguing. He won't let you down.

...And many thanks to Mike Randolph, his wife Winnie and Zazzumplop for believing in democracy.

Gamepaign 2008

It begins...

For those of you using an RSS reader, come on by to Tacky Graphics Central to check out the new Gamepaign 2008 section (and the cheesy layout.)

If you look to your right, you'll see all your favorite characters with links to each of their scoring pages. Click on the candidate's name to see his or her points record and to "play the game" by leaving a comment about something the candidate has said or done to deserve a demerit (be sure to include your suggested number of points lost for the candidate's actions, too.)

In the next couple of days I'll be getting back to regular programming on the 4ECon, so this game will continue being played entirely in the background while the candidates' scores are updated in the Gamepaign section. From now on, any time you see a change in a candidate's score, just click on his or her name to see when and why the points were taken away.

Doesn't all this just sound so official? Yeah, it's great. I'm taking this game seriously, dammit, especially since my vote is on the line... I invite you all, again, to do the same: If you hear something on the radio, see an interview on TV, read a statement in the USA Today or even if you want to see if you can get away with blatantly making something up, come on over to Gamepaign 2008 and let it be known to The 4ECon Market. Even though I've got nothing else to do besides sit around and watch debates all day, I certainly won't be able to get all the juicy presidential candidate info myself.

Also, if anyone wants to pledge their real vote to the winner, you can use this post to publicly announce it. (No hurry, no hurry - I don't expect anyone to have that much faith in The Market yet...)

---

And one more new thing: Check out the General Comments link after Previous Posts over on the right sidebar there if you want to, ya know, just talk about chewing gum or stickers or whatever...

Gamepaign 2008: Candidates

Gamepaign 2008:
Candidate List
10/19/2007


Before I recommend candidates for the game, I figured I'd include some extra summary information and current rankings data that might be useful before the game officially starts (on Monday, 10/22).

Remember: All contributors (players) are essentially working to find "economically incriminating" statements on any candidates they choose to follow. This can include anything from a candidate's tough stance against crime (suggesting higher gov't spending) to a candidate hinting that China is growing too powerful (increases the probably he or she will push for greater protectionism.) Everything in politics boils down to economics in some way or another...

The benefit to the players is that they are not only providing publicly incriminating information (to the 4ECon public, at least) against candidates they don't like (or even candidates they do like, if they're staying unbiased), but they are "buying" - as it stands presently - my vote.

And remember, if anyone else wants to put his or her faith in the power and rationale of a small but intelligent market (4ECon readers), let us all know you're willing to pledge your vote to the winner of Gamepaign 2008 - you'll get "debate priority" and pledge recognition (rule #10). On top of that, I dare you to do it...

Besides, what single person could possibly make a better decision for president than the 4EConglomerate acting as a group?

---

We can't accurately cover all the candidates in this game, nor should we. While we should expect (and hope for) loads of new information to come to light between now and November 2008, some candidates are facing nearly impossible odds of a nomination. So I think choosing about four of the current popular and likely-to-win candidates along with, maybe, two or three of the long shots ought to make the game both more relevant and fun.

Here are some reasonably useful rankings of candidates that might do a good job of forecasting:

(Click on the images to enlarge 'em)

Ranking #1: Candidates ranked by the amount of time they spent talking during their last debate:

In terms of audience captivation and confidence to trample preset time limits, I'd say this list gives us a pretty firm view of the current and future front runners: Clinton, Thompson, Giuliani, Romney and Obama.

Ranking #2: A CBS News Poll random survey of public expectations (I'd say this is a pretty weak indicator so far in advance of elections...)

This ranking suggests Clinton, Giuliani, Obama, Thompson and Edwards. Notice that Al Gore is in there, two spots later...


Ranking #4: Gallup polls, taken throughout the year, of Republican voters' preferences for their party's nomination:

If we took three candidates from this list they'd be Giuliani, Thompson and McCain.


Ranking #5: Gallup polls, taken throughout the year, of Democratic voters' preferences for their party's nomination:
The top three here are, of course, Clinton, Obama and Edwards. It could be my imagination, but when I look carefully at the time series changes in this graph I get the sense that Edwards supporters would become Clinton voters if Edwards dropped out. Actually, it looks more like Edwards voters just don't like Obama, as every other candidate's numbers seem to rise when his fall... A Southern thing, perhaps?

Just kiddin'... Kind of...


Ranking #6: This is the ranking provided by Intrade.com's prediction markets. The "Last Trade" column indicates, basically, the market-based probability that the candidate will win the election. This is a fairly useful tool, even 12+ months away from the election, as the people involved have money on the line and are, by the nature of the market, more motivated to find and relay (through their bets) useful and accurate information:


If we were to take all six Gamepaign candidates from this ranking, we'd get Clinton, Giuliani, Romney, Obama, Thompson, and Ron Paul. Check out Intrade.com, it's a ton of fun.

Assuming Al Gore stays out (who is favored to win the presidency over the majority of the other candidates even while promising not to run...), Stephen Colbert doesn't make it past Edward's home state of South Carolina and Mike Randolph doesn't get on any primary ballots, my candidate list suggestion is this:

• Clinton
• Giuliani
• Obama
• Romney
  
• Ron Paul
  
• Thompson
  

... Oh, what the hell:

• ...And Mike Randolph
  

Mike Randolph is one of the more reticent candidates, though - he hasn't provided too many policy promises in the past. Plus, I have a feeling he's kind of a long shot. We'll just have to see if he provides good debate fodder...

And yes, he's running for president now instead of District 12 of the state senate.

---

As far as I'm aware, that list should satisfy every one of the Gamepaign players that have made their voices heard so far. This list is debatable until next month, so if you want to add or remove candidates, comment away...

...And one final reminder: If your favorite candidate has a head for policy matters, he or she has better odds of winning this game and thus receiving my vote - if not others' votes - in both the primary and final elections. While it's possible a vote for a long-shot candidate may not "count," at least your desire for political debate is guaranteed to get someone to agree with you (vote-wise).

Gamepaign 2008: Rules

Gamepaign 2008
Complete Rules
10/17/2007



1. Like everything else in this game, the rules are up for debate. Nearly everything is decided by "The Market" - all of us, our debate plus our votes. If there is no debate, any suggestion made by any player is assumed unchallenged and automatically stands. Every non-pledging player's vote (see rule #10) counts equally, though if something is deemed "improper" from an economic standpoint, ANY vote(s) can be overruled. Don't worry - overruling will only happen if there is significant indecision and/or asymmetrical information, and therefore should only happen if proper debate can't be carried out.

2. Each candidate starts with 300 points. We are only going to include two types of candidates: Those with a substantial probability of winning, and those preferred by the players. Any candidate can be added at any time provided the candidate's score is subject to the penalty in the next rule (#3)

3. If a candidate joins the race or is added by us to the game after October 2007, he or she loses 25 points per month after October, with November counting as the first -25 points. This doesn't matter much, however, because we can reduce a candidate's score retroactively; i.e. for stuff they said in the recent past. A limitation, though: We can only go back 12 months, and if any future statement rules out the past (e.g. "I was wrong, I meant decrease spending for farm subsidies!" ...Like that'll happen...), then it doesn't count.

4. Points can only be taken away, not added. The only exceptions to this are:

A) If a previous loss of points is revised to reflect new information that benefits the candidates. Past losses, therefore, can be reversed by relevant information. Notice I said relevant information. This implies a clarification or an additional statement that changes the candidate's original meaning.

B) If candidates are going into negative territory too quickly, we can add points (to all candidates equally) to make their scores "prettier." So, 100 points, for example, added to all candidates at once is obviously fair.

5. Default Assumptions used in scoring:

This is a game centered on ranking candidates based on what we decide is good or bad economics. My definition of "good economics," though, is not just about monetary gains or prosperity measured in specific numbers. It's about obtaining maximum prosperity measured in whatever terms people see fit - it's about the choices we make and our ability to choose them.

As a very generalized example: If the people in our country come to a majority decision about what they want, then they should be allowed to pay some price (say, a tax) to get it. If this tax imposes too high a cost on a minority group, and if the public desires could be achieved through means other than higher taxes or more government control, then the default assumption is that it's bad economics. If public desires couldn't be satisfied individually, though - if only a government could provide a certain service the public demands - it changes the entire dynamic. The answer to any variation of this question depends on the weight you apply to its components.

As a more specific example, if trying to stop 3% of all violent crimes will cost the American people 10% more in taxes, would a policy that attempts this feat be considered good or bad in economic terms? While the 3% drop in crime has certain benefits, the 10% rise in taxes has certain bad effects - there's no clear answer to this question, and that's why "good economics" must be defined in terms of the default assumptions laid out at the end of this section.

To tackle a problem we need to first figure out whether a candidate's promises or policy plans are:

A) Only possible through increased government intervention. (e.g. taxes, spending, surveillance, etc.)
B) Harmful to a substantial minority. If so, how relatively harmful compared with the plan's benefits?
C) Going to work. Will they actually work as promised or planned? (This is the most important question, I think, as it's the most objectively based in economics.)
D) Beneficial enough to override the negative effects (in B).

Depending on the answers, we might need the following
default assumptions (ranked by importance):

• More individual freedom is better than (>) less individual freedom.
  
• Lower taxes / government expenditure is better than (>) higher.
• Public demands > individual demands (only assumed in the case of cost/benefit analysis - if the majority of the public wants higher taxes for "all billionaires" for example, their opinion trumps the minority [the billionaires] if - AND ONLY IF - the harmful effects are RELATIVELY weak compared to powerful benefits.)
  
• Global demands > local demands (i.e. state trumps city, world trumps country, etc.)
  
• Rules of "traditional" economics > other guidelines (i.e. the environment & abortion issues do not get automatic preference. We'll weight each accordingly, but with a lack of evidence for an objective argument, we'll default to "best economics" to decide.)
• In the absence of reliable or understandable information, Occam's Razor (simplicity) wins.
  

(We can add more if necessary...)

• But most importantly: We only need default assumptions when a candidate's statement is debatable. If "The Market" agrees on different or more valid assumptions other than or in addition to the defaults, we'll use our heads, not the rules.

6. Points and scoring will be determined through the comments page of their respective candidate's score [blog] post. If Barack Obama, for example, does something worthy of a point reduction, the description of the infraction, a link - URL, or just the candidate's statement quoted by itself will be sufficient. Post the comment along with the suggested amount of points lost and, if you want, an explanation of your choice. The comment is debatable for the duration of the game, but I will determine whether it gets posted to the candidate's official "score post" right away, or if it needs more debate. We can debate "official" scores and comments equally, so turning a "comment score" into an "official score" only shines more light on the matter. Nothing is set in stone. If a comment / score needs more debate, I'll wait to put in on the "official" candidate's score page (post.) This'll be clearer once we start the game...


7. Points must be chosen from the following selection:

(-0) points: No damage / undecided
(-4) points: Minor infraction
(-8) points: Infraction
(-16) points: Major Infraction
(-24) points: "Course-altering" action/statement
(-40) points: Candidate-destroying action/statement

...And continuing in this pattern, if necessary - but no 12, 28, 36.3 points or anything else outside the pattern. (I chose multiples of 4 since it's the coefficient in 4Econ, and it's therefore both useful AND it points out the Econ part of the blog title. The pattern is only slightly more clever...)

These ideas next to the points are very relative and subjective, of course, so we'll have to add meaning to them as we go...

8. Any information taken from a candidate's web site can lose the candidate a MAXIMUM of 8 points. This should prevent "background" (i.e. lazy) information from being too detrimental to a candidate. While the issues and policies laid out on a candidate's page are important, they automatically become more important if they're used in a debate / public speech / etc. While this rule is up for debate, let me suggest one thing: The candidates have a LOT of info on their pages, and evaluating every issue at once is a lot of work. I think it might be easier just to ignore most of it, or at least only score the big ones. Since this will probably be the case (just scoring the most important stuff), I decided to limit it to 8 points to make the game last longer for those candidates that leave out important stuff on their web pages... Besides, web pages don't give us a true picture of a candidate - they just show him or her in the most staged way possible.

9. I've pledged my vote: I will vote in the Arizona (or wherever I may be) primary election for whichever candidate is leading by midnight of two days (not 48 hours, but 24 hours and 1 second), before the primary day, provided the candidate hasn't dropped out. I'm registered independent, so every candidate is on the table. (Unless the rules have changed...?) Of course, in November '08 I'll be voting for president using the same guidelines. By then, this game should be pretty settled, I'd think...

If YOU want to pledge your vote to the winner of Gamepaign 2008 in the primaries or just in the final election, I would highly recommend it. As long as everything works out even remotely as planned, I think we'll all be a lot more knowledgeable, informed and objective by the end of this thing. If you pledge your vote, you'll be psychologically more inclined to participate and pay attention, and thus force yourself to be a "better" voter... Or so one would think...

10. In addition to the paragraph just above, if you pledge your vote you'll get automatic priority in determining scores, points, outcomes, etc... This is like "Preferred Stock," by the way, in which your vote will technically count as more than one vote, but only in times of "need." I think it will be pretty obvious when the times of "need" are once the game starts.

Also, anyone who pledges their vote gets a permanent "player" link under the game section of the 4ECon. Don't worry, you can pledge any time before your state's primary elections. This game promises to be fair, but pretty informative at the least, so pledging your vote my not be as dangerous as you may think...

How will we know if you actually vote for the person you've pledged to vote for? Just the honor system, of course. I'll trust that anyone willing to play this game and pledge their vote would not doubt the validity of the game's outcomes. We'll see how it turns out...

Finally:
11. We're all incredibly nice people - so nice that I hesitated suggesting this rule: Don't offend anyone purposely, and even more importantly, don't let anything (ANYTHING!) offend you. I can't actually imagine a scenario in which this rule might apply, so I'm mostly just writing it to fend off any criticisms or fears people might have of a "political debate game." The 4EConglomerate is way too debate-oriented to not know how to do it right, I think...
---




---
Some commentary:

This idea started out as an individual project, where I could have a running commentary about politics and politicians. While the game needs as much input as possible, I'm guessing that I will be the one posting the majority of scores and information. Don't forget that everything I do is up for debate, and even if it seems like I'm off and running on my own, don't let that stop you from stopping me. Everything you (Gamepaign players) do and say will be given maximum importance, so even if I don't personally acknowledge a piece of information, it's assumed that another player will. In time, I will post all relevant information from the comments. While I might not use the comments as much for information I find, that doesn't make my scores and suggestions any more valid.

This might seem like a major undertaking, but it shouldn't be: As long as each of us comments about this or that candidate's statements they heard or read or saw, we'll have a lot of information and fodder for economic and political debates. The bigger question is whether or not we feel like using the fodder and arguing a point... If not, the candidate loses points. If so, you can save a candidate.

So, basically, if nobody cares about any of the candidates, it'll be a fair game with very little work. If people care about some of the candidates, it means more information will come to light from the passionate people instead of the unconcerned. This should be a nice filter, I think; those that are informed and/or passionate will save some candidates and hurt others, those that are ill-informed or just lazy will have little effect. Fortunately, being really passionate is moderated by the fact that candidates can't gain points, only lose them. I'd say that's a pretty good system.

If anything needs clarifying, or if you want to contest a rule, comment away!

For now, the game starts Monday 10/22/07 so we can make sure everything is settled and give the 4ECon readin' laggards time to feel like they're part of the beginning of the game (if the laggards care about such things...)

---

And thanks to Zazzumplop for a little advertising - If anyone else knows any motivated folks who would make this game easier on us current information gatherers, let 'em know. The bigger the market, the better the data... Presumably...

Gamepaign Pocket-Sized Rules

Gamepaign 2008
Rules: Short Version
10/17/07


1. Everything is determined and voted on by the 4EConglomerate. Majority wins. If a contribution/suggestion receives no opposition, it stands (until it is opposed.)

2. Candidates start with 300 points. This might be increased later on...

3. Late-entry candidates lose 25 points per month after the beginning month, October. Candidates can lose points over statements spoken or written starting from October 2006.

4. Points can only be taken away, not added, unless new information comes to light.

5. Here are the default assumptions used as a backup for debate:

> means "preferred over"

• More individual freedom > less individual freedom
• Less taxes / government expenditure > more
  
• Public demands > individual demands
  
• Global demands > local demands
  
• Rules of "traditional" economics > other guidelines
• In the absence of reliable or understandable information, Occam's Razor (simplicity) wins.
• Using your head > using strict rules

6. We'll use the comments section of each candidate's page for all scoring and relevant debate.

7. We have only the following options for point deductions:
0, -4, -8, -16, -24 or -40 points

8. Information from a candidate's web page can warrant a maximum loss of -8 points.

9. I, David Foree, have to vote for the score leader in the state primary elections and for the winner of Gamepaign 2008 in the presidential elections.

10. Any player who pledges his or her vote to the score leader / winner of Gamepaign gets voting priority (see full description) and "pledge" recognition.

11. Finally, don't be a bastard.


All rules are up for debate and revision, and new rules can be created at any time through a players' majority vote.

Gamepaign 2008: Introduction

When you choose a candidate for a political race, the majority of your appreciation of the candidate is subconscious, subjective and incredibly biased. Yes, it varies from person to person, and you might think you're completely objective and informed when picking candidates, but you're not. Did you like Al Gore? Could you explain to me why you liked HIM and not just his party? How about Nader, or Bob Dole, or even George Bush before he was elected? Do you know exactly what these candidates' thoughts are on education, abortion, the death penalty, states' rights, drug legalization, free trade, the minimum wage, environmentalism and property rights?

Of course you don't know all of that stuff. If you think you do, I'd be willing to bet that you're more likely to vote for a party, and not a person, and confuse the hell out of the two. ...But is there anything wrong with this? Yes. Yes there is. Picking a candidate by party affiliation alone is the reason we have such a solid two-party system and also why both parties - as well as the general public - seem to be so willing to prejudge people without knowing anything about them: Oh, she's a republican? Must hate the environment. A Democrat? Probably likes Roe v. Wade...

While this sure makes things easier, it also makes them more wrong.

We need to know what a candidate actually believes, what he or she actually is thinking about doing with all that power before we can cast our one, single vote. It's your duty to be as informed a voter as possible before you decide what's best for the other 300 million people in this country. That's a serious responsibility, and either you do it right or not at all, I say.

Having a gut feeling, respecting a candidate's party, or watching the candidate give speeches is not enough for an informed, objective opinion.

However, actually being objective is too much work; it's too complex and intricate and it's generally impossible to explain to other people how a single human could possibly be "the best" option for the most powerful political office in this country.

So what we really need to do is approach the candidate-choosing process with an informed, objective and fair, yet simple and efficient method. We need an unbiased system that incorporates as much information as possible but still reflects the natural way of choosing a candidate: throughout the year, every time you hear or read something about a candidate, your opinion changes or adapts. Unfortunately, the natural method leads you to form a year's worth of subconscious quasi-information that you feel is valid. It's not. While the method is great (incorporate as much information as possible and judge each bit using certain guidelines), the result is not. Our guidelines themselves will not stay standard and objective; they will adapt to fit our biases and our changing opinions. What we need is standardized guidelines, standardized rules and a context that can't change to cater to varying opinions.

So how do we get these things? How do we remain as objective as possible while making an informed and responsible decision on a candidate?

Simple. Rely on "the market" to provide the information, and rely on science to provide objectivity. Well, in this case it'll be a social science. You guessed it: Economics.

"The market" will be the 4EConglomerate, and 4EConomists will be the judge of the information. If a candidate spouts out something with economic implications, the Conglomerate will record it, judge it, score it, then debate the score until consensus.

That's assuming the market gets involved, of course.

Fortunately, I am also a member of this market, so even without the participation of loyal 4ECon readers we'll get candidate scores.

And what do I mean by scores? Well, I mean, literally, scores - As in points. If a candidate says something that has bad implications for our future economy, he or she will lose a certain amount of points. If a candidate says something shattering, he or she will lose a lot of points.

Here's the interesting part: If a candidate does a good job - or says something with great economic intuition, he or she will not gain, nor lose, any points. This will prevent bias in trying to build up candidates. If candidates can only lose points, us supporters cannot translate a favorable bias for a candidate's opinions into more points, regardless of whether those opinions are unique to the candidate or not. Make sense?

So instead of building up some candidates and knocking down others, we're going to do nothing but knock 'em down.

---

So what's the point? Well, besides all the information collected and compiled in one place (the 4ECon), we'll all have an opportunity to learn differing viewpoints about what a candidate's opinions, beliefs, actions or policy promises might do for (or against) the future. This alone should make us all a little more likely to make a more informed decision on election day.

More importantly, I hereby promise to vote for the winner of the competition. That's right, I don't care who it is - If it's Giuliani, Obama, Clinton, Ron Paul, Stripe the Gremlin or even Mitt Romney, I will vote for the winner of Gamepaign 2008, provided the competition survives with updates, contributions and conversations on at least a semi-regular basis until elections (or at least until nominations.)

The reason I'm willing to do this is that, if I can somehow objectively vote for who I think will make the best economist and most decent president (two separate things, sometimes), then I should take that information and act on it, right? If the game works out the way I'm thinkin' it might, then I'll be more than happy to vote for the winner. (Because I'd be playing the same kind of game in my head all year anyway...)

And one more thing regarding purpose: I personally believe that economics is pretty much the most important thing a president should have a grasp of. I mean, he or she should be concerned about moral issues somewhat, but I do not want a religious leader as a president. While I'm concerned about other things such as the environment and privacy issues, I truly, truly believe that these problems can't be solved without having a good understanding of incentives, human behavior and proper policy - AKA "good economics."

So if anyone is already "into" the idea of this game and wants to pledge their vote to the winner, let your pledge be heard. If you don't want to bind yourself to your friends' (The Conglomerate's) opinions, or if you want to wait until the rules & candidate list are clarified, I understand. In the mean time, maybe I can think of some good incentives to make Gamepaign 2008 more enticing.

---

I'll be back with a little more explanation, the official rules and the candidate list pretty soon.

If you haven't already noticed, I'm not screwing around. It's time to get political, dammit - I am totally, absolutely, completely 94% serious. Super serial.

And no, I couldn't come up with a better name than "Gamepaign."

John McCain

John McCain
Beginning Score: 275
(Late Entrant: January 2008 - Decided on 25 point penalty instead of 50 since most candidates' scores are still above 275.)

Score History:


Here's a good resource for economic issues (and others): OnTheIssues.org

And here's another interesting one that's more clear (Thanks, Fred): 2Decide.com



[...Waiting for damage...]

Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton
Beginning Score: 300

Score History:

10/22/07: Paul recommends a 4 point loss based on "being a bad motivator" (in so many words.) Being the first player to supply candidate activity information, he gets his wish along with my squashy agreement. (See comments)


NEW SCORE = 296


10/26/07: Fred & Dave come to an agreement on a 24 point loss on Clinton's health care proposals & subsidized savings plans (combined).

The debate is in comments #3 through #9, if anyone cares to join in (it's never too late...)


NEW SCORE = 272



[Waiting for more...]




***
By the way, it's easier to read the existing comments if you scroll all the way down and click on the "Post a Comment" link
***

Rudy Giuliani

Rudy Giuliani
Beginning Score: 300

Score History:

10/22/07: Dave - Giulini: "Open Strategic Petroleum Reserve to battle high oil prices." This, along with his support for other energy interventions for the purpose of temporary cost reduction specifically removes natural incentives for country-wide energy efficiency & longer term cost reduction. A government intervention to decrease energy costs would be more costly than doing nothing at all, especially when "nothing at all" involves maintaining emergency oil reserves. Lower reserves have commonly been credited with higher oil costs. This is a dangerous intervention in a market dependent on individual & government planning and rational expectations. I'd say -8 points, for now on this one. This is debatable, of course, so post your disagreements...


NEW SCORE (unless debated) = 292



12/19/07: I just read these bullet points:

• He supports abortion rights & backs late-term abortions & Medicaid funding.
• He is for affirmative action based on race & gender and energetically administered set-aside programs in NYC to encourage minority contractors.
• He favors controls on handguns and rifles, and presided over the most restrictive gun controls in the nation as mayor of NYC.
• He supports greater immigration and the delivery of public services to those who are here illegally.

Funny enough, they're not talking about Kucinich, Obama or even Mike Gravel. Instead, they're talking about Rudy Giuliani. Strange, isn't it? I just figured I'd post 'em here, just in case anybody's interested.





[Waiting for more...]

Barack Obama

Barack Obama
Beginning Score: 300

Score History:


10/24/07: A quick summary of an Obama speech included the following phrase:

"Mr. Obama has said he would scrap President Bush's tax cuts for Americans making more than $250,000 a year when they expire in 2010, and he has backed more than doubling the tax rates for managers of hedge funds and private equity firms."

I know hedge fund mangers and the big-capital Wall Street guys seem like the enemy of the little guy, but they're arguably much more imperative to our overall economic health than most other single groups. Targeting a specific group because they have a lot of money doesn't make sense when that one group is using its money for high-return investment - decreasing their take increases overall risk, which has a direct effect on their ability to fuel economic growth. This is far more complicated than I just made it sound, I swear... The basic point remains, though.

Also, even though I'm more in the reduce-the-deficit-before-we-have-huge-tax-cuts camp, I will fall back on the default assumptions (Rule 5, assumption #2) on the anti-Bush Tax Cuts statement and decry Obama's general threats of major tax increases with -4 points for the anti-Bush tax cuts phrase and -8 points for the other one.

(If our national debt wasn't so high, I'd take off more points for these infractions...It's a tough call... Any disagreement?)


NEW SCORE (unless debated) = 288



[...Waiting for more...]

Ron Paul

Ron Paul
Beginning Score: 300

Score History:


10/31/07: Fred, Chris Jeffords & Dave decide on a small punishment (-4 Points) for Paul's stance on the Federal Reserve (or rather, possibly, his lack of a better alternative). This matter is not necessarily closed, by the way (he might redeem himself or even cause more damage...)



NEW SCORE = 296



1/12/07: Though it probably doesn't matter much, since we're coming up on mass-candidate-dropout time, I figured I'd point out some of the unresolved problems I have with Ron Paul:

1. I must be insane, because I can't seem to get a hold of any good argument for going back onto the gold standard (especially the kind of gold standard that we would/could probably revert to), and yet there are countless Ron Paul fans who think it's a great idea. The best and most readable argument against it that I've come across is right here.

2. The anti-Federal Reserve sentiment is basically the same thing: He wants to abolish the Fed because it is the evil manipulator, and a gold standard would solve the problem without the Federal Reserve, supposedly. What's annoying, though, is that people rally against the Federal Reserve because they don't understand economics... If there is a good argument against the Fed, Ron Paul doesn't know it, and neither do I.

3. Ron Paul acts like a big free trader, which is good, but he's against ideas that would lead us in that direction because, I assume, they're politically unpopular. Exhibit A: The supposed Nafta Superhighway. Technically it's a big effin' road that would run through the country. The easiest answer to Paul's criticism is this, I think: Would he be against it if it was a privately funded construction project? Of course not - you can't tell people they can't buy land and build stuff (even roads) on it. Paul's problem is that it represents a "loss of sovereignty." I find that to be a little juvenile, mostly because - really - who the hell loses political power if we happen to have a large, essentially private (or multi-governmentally-owned) road running from some point to another? If you think you've got an argument against the "Nafta Superhighway," you're missing something. (Unless you actually do believe that terrorists will suddenly blow us up if we have wider highways...)

4. He's been accused of being a major racist, or at least allowing someone to use his name to promote racist beliefs... Reading some samples of the newsletters, though, it seems pretty clear Ron Paul himself did not contribute to the writings - which means that he is instead, at the least, a victim of some elaborate, multi-year racist-hoax. I'm not sure if I believe that, though. Either way, it has little to do with economics... Figured I'd point it out (Curtsy to Chris Jeffords).

5. He's incredibly anti-immigration. I honestly can't understand how someone with his "education" (he claims to be a student of the Austrians) doesn't see how diverting many, many more resources to preventing illegal immigration is not only useless and nearly unnecessary, but inefficiently puts the power of deciding which immigrant is "useful" to our society in the hands of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT... Depending on who we want to keep out of our country, shouldn't we at least give some weight to the fact that illegal immigration is implicitly endorsed by our economy itself?


So here's some arbitrary scoring (which I wasn't going to do, but then I figured it'd be nice to have a "numerical record" after the primaries are over):

1. -4 points for the gold standard thing (If he's an Austrian, he must also have selective, temporary amnesia - ask for details.).

2. We already scored him on the Fed thing (-4 points).

3. Nafta Superhighway: -4 points for choosing politics over proper economics, though that's a pretty common mistake...

4. No comment, except that I actually think Ron Paul might not really be a racist... I'm sympathetic...

5. I took away eight points from Mitt Romney for a lesser offense, technically; I would take more, but I feel I'm being a little too harsh on Ron Paul - I'll do the same: -8 Points for, again, choosing politics over economics in immigration.

So that's -16 points, total. Anyone care enough about Ron Paul at this point to disagree?

(Don't worry, Ron Paul supporter(s): I'll finalize my distaste for all the other soon-to-drop-out candidates soon enough. It's just that Ron Paul's been on my mind a lot recently, since every freakin' blog I read won't stop talking about him...)




NEW SCORE = 280




[...Waiting for more...]

Fred Thompson

Fred Thompson
Beginning Score: 300

Score History:


11/07/07: Check out some selected (by me, for maximum damage) Fred Thompson history:

- "Solar system is warming, not earth." [I have a problem with the confidence behind this statement. And so do a lot of other people... This is only related to economics in a round-about way, though...]

- Voted YES on $75M for abstinence education. [My tax dollars should help convince people not to have sex? Really?!? I hereby propose the unrelated "Stupidity Abatement Bill." I need $75 million.]

- Voted YES on Strengthening of the trade embargo against Cuba. [Boy, That'll teach those Cubans to... um... uh..... exist...]

I'm not going to score the first statement, but as to the second: I can't imagine wanting to spend 75 million dollars to tell people not to have sex. Just like the drinking age problem, trying to convince people to abstain from sex is only going to work on those who are not going to get sex in the first place.

Sure, maybe some girls will say "No" more often, but should I really be paying for that with my tax dollars? That seems slightly counterproductive... It would make more sense to just give teenagers the $75 million directly, and pay people like me, say, a hundred bucks to settle for a BJ.


...I'm sorry I said that.

And besides, who's going to enforce compliance? Video surveillance?


Heh heh heh...

---

...In all seriousness, though, I'm thinkin' -8 points for trying to destroy teenage fun and making me pay for it. Oh, and -4 points for destroying Cuban fun. (Though most candidates agree with him about the Cuban embargo - that's why I only recommend -4 points. It's not his fault, really...)

But maybe we should place trade restrictions on horny teenagers... eh? If the Cuban embargo is any indicator, IT'LL WORK GREAT!


NEW SCORE (Unless debated... But who would possibly want to debate me on this?) = 288



OK, it's been debated - at least the part about abstinence... 11/7/07: Fred & Dave agree on -4 points instead of -8 for the $75M "abstinence charge."


NEW SCORE (Unless the other part is debated...) = 292




1/12/07: A Final hurrah for Mr. Thompson - This is from Fred Thompson, On the Issues:

Vote to add an additional $53 million (raising the total to $213 million) to international narcotics control funding, and pay for it by taking $25 million from international operations funding and $28 million from development assistance.

Is it just my quasi-Libertarian side, or is taking $25 million from international operations (whatever it may be) & $28 mil from development to pay for drug control a really stupid idea?

Another spending/voting issue for Fred Thompson that's dissin' economics in favor of politics: I'd say another -4 points.




NEW SCORE = 288




[...Waiting for more...]

Mike Randolph

Mike Randolph
Beginning Score: 300

Score History:

10/22/07: +2 Points for liking puppies.

New score = 302.


11/15/07: Mike Randolph answered questions. Point deductions, anyone?



11/19/07: As far as I can figure, Mike Randolph's only score-able offenses during this round of Q & A were his promises for complete tax-funded health care and giant walls blocking Mexicans and Canadians from entrance.

So here are my initial recommendations: -4 Points for the "exchange education for health care" concept:

“Children are the future, remember — we don’t have to worry about them yet. People are mad at their HMOs now. Let’s deal with the present.” Socialists think that the government should solve everything. I think that the government should pick a few things and solve them completely.

The problem I have with that statement is that it implies tax dollars can be taken from some source and spent on a resource more efficiently than if we used private dollars to buy the resource. In other words, whose tax dollars are going to pay for the health insurance for the middle class? I can understand taxing the reasonably rich to pay for a service for the reasonably poor, but when everyone gets health care, what's the point in taking $300 a month in taxes from a guy who makes $60,000 a year to buy him $300-a-month health insurance? My point, basically, is that government trying to solve a problem completely will cause more problems than an incomplete solution, in this particular case.

For the record, though, I wanted to give him credit for suggesting we remove universal education funding and balance it with increased universal health care funding. Unfortunately candidates can't gain points (except that once, see "Puppies.") and the two ideas are too different to cancel each other out.




And second, the border wall:

"...grant amnesty, then close off the borders completely with a ten-foot-high fence. It’s fair, it’s doable, and it gives a firm deadline to anyone who currently can’t decide on a homeland. It also creates a whole lot of domestic jobs (we’ll do Canada along the north AND the Alaskan border for good measure). "

Ooooooooh..... Mike Randolph has committed a fatal economics error. I'm assuming he means that building a wall will require a lot of laborers - which is true, but tax dollars come from somewhere. If our economy could function better with more money in the government's hands, then what's the point of capitalism?

Besides, who exactly would be willing to build this wall? Not private companies using immigrants, because illegal immigrants have suddenly been granted amnesty and are employable in the legitimate job market. That leaves, mostly, able-bodied young men - immigrant or otherwise - who all suddenly face higher opportunity costs, since the particular skills required to build large walls makes them very employable in the construction sector, which likely would pay anywhere from $10 to $20 per hour. Put simply, amnesty, paired with the variance from skilled (legal) pay in Mexico & the U.S, would raise the cost of building a wall by, let's say, 50%, if not greater (some large part of the difference between minimum wage and the construction wage, we'll assume...) In theory it would be smarter to contract Mexican firms to build the wall on their side of the border. Wouldn't that be offensive? I don't know about the Canada side, though...

On top of this is the crowding-out effect on private sector wages, which means that construction type jobs will have to raise their salary offers to individuals in order to compete with the new "wall building" market. This means higher general construction costs, which is reasonably important to the economy, and in an era of higher competition and declining real estate, cost increases are more likely to convert to profit losses instead of inflation, which means slower job growth, if not job losses.

So we'll get longer-term job losses in the economy, higher inflation due to no influx of low-wage (illegal immigration) labor, and a whole bunch of human & natural resources lost, all for the purpose of building a giant wall that is designed to stifle free [human resource] trade, and will therefore hurt our economy in countless more ways than I've already described.


So I was about to say -16 Points, but Mike Randolph definitely shows some cleverness with total amnesty. Clearly his intentions aren't all bad, so I think I'll recommend -8 Points, just because the value lost from near-zero future immigration would be pretty substantial.

So that leaves us with -4 and -8, total of -12 Points.



NEW SCORE (Unless somebody feels otherwise...) = 290.


[...Waiting for more...]