Skip to main content

Causation: A Political Imposition

As I admitted two days ago, during my vacation I did some trawling in MEN'S JOURNAL for blog topics. This will be my second and last entry drawing upon that source.

There's a fascinating though brief item about contemporary changes in van design. For purposes of historical perspective, the author [Jamie Lincoln Kitman, portrayed above]  mentions an action of President Johnson in 1963. The new President, unhappy that France and Germany had imposed duties on US poultry exports, retaliated with a tariff of his own, one that amounted to a 25% increase in the price of imported vans. Kitman refers to this act of retaliation as the "chicken tax."

What Kitman didn't say was whether this was something Johnson did by slipping a relevant amendment into some omnibus tax bill that then became law, or whether it was something accomplished by executive order (pursuant to some earlier mandate) or ... what. He writes as if Jonson unilaterally decreed the chicken tax, which leaves me a bit puzzled, though it isn't the sort of thing that would cause me to cross the road for an answer.  (Get it?)

Anyway, let's continue with Kitman's story. he believes that the chicken tax killed US vans, that is, it is an industry that has only quite recently resurrected itself.

"American carmakers sensed an opportunity to coast, and they took it, denying American consumers the latest van technology for more than a quarter of a century. Where an ordinary car or a minivan (which are based on passenger cars) went four or five years between redesigns, some full-sized American vans went essentially unchanged for 30 years. Old-fashioned body-on-a-frame construction, crude suspensions, lousy fuel economy -- if it's what they did in 1975, it's pretty much what they did in 2005."

Now, that at first seemed a wonderful microcosmic confirmation of how I see the world. Government action on some unrelated issue (protecting chicken exports) produces unintended but quite negative consequences of a godawful sort for a long period. Insert libertarian or anarcho-capitalist sermonizing for yourself here. I don't know anything about Kitman's politics. He's an automotive journalist, a blogger for Car Talk among much else. Even better -- a neutral source confirming my political prejudices with the facts from his field of expertise.

But then I started thinking about the time line. Kitman is saying that an action in 1963 had certain consequences in the period 1975-2005. In another place in the piece he describes the early 70s as the "heyday" of the US manufactured van, putting them at the height that made such coasting possible. But what was going on in the model years from 1964 to 1974? There was already a chicken tax, the foreign competition was absent but ... things kept getting better for awhile before they started getting worse.

Something about this cause-effect claim seems off. Was there a progressive momentum in the design world that continued for a decade until companies decided they could coast?  


Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.

We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majestic wate…

Cancer Breakthrough

Hopeful news in recent days about an old and dear desideratum: a cure for cancer. Or at least for a cancer, and a nasty one at that.

The news comes about because investors in GlaxoSmithKline are greedy for profits, and has already inspired a bit of deregulation to boot. 

The FDA has paved the road for a speedy review of a new BCMA drug for multiple myeloma, essentially cancer of the bone marrow. This means that the US govt has removed some of the hurdles that would otherwise (by decision of the same govt) face a company trying to proceed with these trials expeditiously. 

This has been done because the Phase I clinical trial results have been very promising. The report I've seen indicates that details of these results will be shared with the world on Dec. 11 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. 

The European Medicines Agency has also given priority treatment to the drug in question. 

GSK's website identifies the drug at issue as "GSK2857916," althou…

Hume's Cutlery

David Hume is renowned for two pieces of cutlery, the guillotine and the fork.

Hume's guillotine is the sharp cut he makes between "is" statements and "ought" statements, to make the point that the former never ground the latter.

His "fork" is the division between what later came to be called "analytic" and "synthetic" statements, with the ominous observation that any books containing statements that cannot be assigned to one or the other prong should be burnt.

Actually, I should acknowledge that there is some dispute as to how well or poorly the dichotomy Hume outlines really maps onto the analytic/synthetic dichotomy. Some writers maintain that Hume meant something quite different and has been hijacked. Personally, I've never seen the alleged difference however hard they've worked to point it out to me.

The guillotine makes for a more dramatic graphic than a mere fork, hence the bit of clip art above.

I'm curious whe…