[PEN-L:6710] Re: Re: Mistakes, randomness, accidents andeconometrics

["Charles Brown" <CharlesB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yea,

In law there are torts (or civil wrongs) and crimes. Lets just call them all wrongs for this discussion. There are intentional wrongs and unintentional wrongs. In other words, they have mental elements. The mental element of unintentional wrongs is called neglegance or gross neglegence ( recklessness).

For example, the crime of murder requires that it be an intentional killing. Manslaughter is an unintentional or negligent killing.

Neglegance or recklessness is a failure to fulfill a duty of care.

The liability question in your mistake/accident examples depends on whether the actor was negligent , or failied to fulfill a duty of care. I suppose we could say that you may be differentiating between negligence and non-negligence by your mistake/accident differentiation below, but I think the "US" is culpable for either a mistake or accident in this case. I don't disagree with those who are arguing that there is evidence that this might be intentional

There another issue here that a legal framework deals with: cause. There are "but for" (or necessary) cause and proximate cause. For example, a butterfly flapping its wings in China might have been a but for cause of the bombing, but it is not a proximate or culpable cause. U.S. President and generals dropping so many bombs and not doing super checks on what they are bombing, is negligence or recklessness that is a but for cause and a proximate (culpable) cause of this incident.

So, the "U.S." is probable culpable whether this is an accident or a mistake in your terminology, because if you drop this many bombs ( and don't do a super-duper check) , it is foreseeable that you will mistake one building for another OR that one missile out of many will go astray (accident).

In sum, this incident might have been intentional (see many arguments by others on this thread). But even if it was unintentional, the "US"' negligence or recklessness was a "but for" and proximate (culpable) cause of the harm  done.



The econometrics stuff has to do with correlations of events. But two correlated events (raising the minimum wage and prices going up)  could be both caused by a third factor , and not be but for causes of each other. The classic Marx critique of this is not that raising wages (minimum or otherwise) won't raise prices, but that that prices don't have to go up, rather profits can go down. There is not a necessary causal connection between wages up and prices up , except with capitalist assumptions.


Charles Brown



>>> Ken Hanly <khanly@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 05/11/99 11:03PM >>>
The difference is roughly as follows. If A does X intentionally but it turns out that  even though A does not know it A is actually doing Y, that is doing something by mistake. If A intends to do X but unintentionally causes Y that is doing something by accident -or at least one way of doing something by accident.
      Consider the bombing of the embassy. According to the official story this was a mistake. The pilot
intentionally bombed the bldg that he targeted (X), a building that he thought was an arms depot, but he is actuially bombing the Chinese Embassy (Y). Contrast this with a case where a pilot intends to bomb
a military barracks (X) but the bomb veers off course and hits a market place (Y) The pilot unintentionally causes the market to be bombed,  and thus bombs it by accident. Both accidents and mistakes are unintentional. The first explanations of the bombing were that it was an accident. The target was said to be a TV
studio or an arms supply depot but the missiles somehow
or other missed, wandered off course and hit the embassy. This was totally ludicrous, as I pointed out.
There were three bloody missiles fired from different angles. The pilot, whatever else he was doing, was
firing at the goddam CHinese Embassy bldg. not some studio or arms depot several blocks away.
Even the nincompoops at NATO finally figured out that their first explanation could not work in the circumstances Hence the new story about the mistake. It was no accident.
   Given that it is a mistake, someone is responsible. THere seems precious little concern for ascertaining
who is responsible for the mistake and making sure they are properly punished. Accidents happen. Mistakes are made.
    To put it another way. A mistake is doing one and the same thing under two descriptions--ie bombing a building the pilot took to be an arms depot, and bombing the Chinese Embassy. An accident is when two
different things are involved. Bombing barracks (intended), actually bombing a market place (uinintended).
I am speaking of course of doing something by accident, not of events per se as accidents.
    Cheers, Ken Hanly
Charles Brown wrote:

> >>> "J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." <rosserjb@xxxxxxx> 05/11/99 04:43PM >>>
> Charles,
>      1)  I believe that I have been using the term "mistake'
> not "accident" with respect to the Chinese embassy
> bombing.  Certainly that is what I have meant, even if
> I have said otherwise.
>
> CB: I'll bite. What is the difference between a mistake and an accident ?
>
> ((((((((((((
>
>  I have repeatedly said, that,
> mistake or accident, the bombing of the Chinese
> embassy was not justified and should be condemned,
> along with the bombing of other targets in Yugoslavia,
> which has resulted in many more innocent civilian deaths
> than did the one of the Chinese embassy, although that one
> is certainly going to lead to much more negative consequences
> for the US.
>
> CB: Agree
>
> (((((((((((((
>
>      2)  I am only going to respond to your remarks about
> econometrics on pen-l because I am already overquota on
> lbo-talk and the econometrics discussion has been here.
> Properly done (according to the textbooks) an econometric
> test should be of a hypothesis derived from some economic
> theory (however bourgeois, alienated, misguided, or ideologically
> twisted).  Thus, when Card and Krueger set out to look at the
> relationship between increases in the minimum wage and the
> impact on employment, they were looking at something that,
> although subject to a certain amount of randomness, nevertheless
> supposedly had a causal relationship.  When they produced
> serious evidence that the expected relationship was not there,
> it created quite a stir.
>
> CB: Not to be picky, but isn't there a difference between causation and and statistical correlation ?  Seems they would be setting out to show a statistical correlation that would be some empirical evidence of a causal connection. Anyway, I read on.
>
> ((((((((((((((((
>
>       Everything has noise, even if governed by probability
> distributions a la quantum mechanics.
>
> CB: As Engels said, the laws of nature assert themselves amidst a welter of random events.
>
> ((((((((((((((((
>
>  The embassy bombing
> looks pretty noisy to me, whether mistake, accident, plot by
> Serbian spy, plot by super-sneaky Clintonites too smart for
> their own good, or plot by secret cabal of ultra-militarists, or....
>
> CB: Just to be clear, what would be an example of this not being part of the noise ?
>
> If they were bombing the Chinese embassy ON PURPOSE, INTENTIONALLY, not neglegently or recklessly, they might use the excuse that it was an accident or mistake to coverup or for plausible denial. But as you say, the U.S., is culpable whether it was on purpose or reckless.
>
> ((((((((((((((((
>
>       BTW, I agree with whoever it was (Peter Dorman?) who
> said that a lot more effort should be put into getting better
> data than on developing ever fancier ways of torturing the data
> that we have.  One of the strengths of the Card-Krueger study
> was that they developed their own data set.
>       I also agree with Peter (I think) that a serious look should
> be made at the McCloskey critique of the standard practice
> of econometrics, along with the related Leamer "let's take the
> 'con' out of econometrics" stuff.
>       Finally, I would note that econometrics has been used to
> expose bogus baloney from racist ideologues.  The example
> that comes to mind most sharply is the expose by Arthur
> Goldberger and Charles Manski of the fallaciousness of the
> Murray-Hernnstein _The Bell Curve_.
>
> Chas.: I'm not opposed to the use of statistics, including econometrics. But if you were using probability theory on this bombing, it would be a pretty good correlation, as some others have pointed out, no ? I'd have to think about how you set up the correlation, I guess.
>
> On econometrics in general, I don't have enough experience to really enter the discussion on this thread, however, I find credible the criticisms from those who do (probably including you) who say that it has in fact been abused by many , and there must be an ongoing struggle by progressive economists to clean it up.
>
> Charles Brown
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles Brown <CharlesB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tuesday, May 11, 1999 4:27 PM
> Subject: [PEN-L:6684] Mistakes, randomness, accidents and econometrics
>
> >
> >
> >>>> "J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." <rosserjb@xxxxxxx> 05/11/99 01:48PM >>
> >     BTW, for those who come up with half-baked probability
> >calculations and then declare that this could not have been
> >a mistake, I would remind you that the chances of the Three
> >Mile Island accident happening were supposedly something
> >like one-in-ten billion.
> >
> >((((((((((((((((((
> >
> >Random Barkley,
> >
> >Maybe it was a butterfly in China flapping its wings that caused this
> mistake, this accidental bombing.
> >
> >Funny how econometrics is used to find order and correlation in plottings
> of points that seem random. But when it comes to explaining events that look
> causally connected, you tend to see it as random , an accident.
> >
> >As Engels said, the laws of nature assert themselves through a series of
> accidents.
> >
> >Charles Brown
> >
> >