Slashdot Mirror


Edward Tufte Appointed To Help Track and Explain Stimulus Funds

President Obama recently announced several appointments to the Recovery Independent Advisory Panel, including data visualization expert Edward Tufte, author of The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. The purpose of the panel is to advise the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, whose aim is "To promote accountability by coordinating and conducting oversight of Recovery funds to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse and to foster transparency on Recovery spending by providing the public with accurate, user-friendly information." Tufte said on his website, "I'm doing this because I like accountability and transparency, and I believe in public service. And it is the complete opposite of everything else I do. Maybe I'll learn something. The practical consequence is that I will probably go to Washington several days each month, in addition to whatever homework and phone meetings are necessary."

36 of 186 comments (clear)

  1. Blech. by Pojut · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "I'll show you politics in America. Here it is, right here. 'I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs.' 'I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking.' 'Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding out both puppets!'" -Bill Hicks

    1. Re:Blech. by anaesthetica · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Now, there's one thing you might have noticed I don't complain about: politicians. Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says they suck. Well, where do people think these politicians come from? They don't fall out of the sky. They don't pass through a membrane from another reality.

      "They come from American parents and American families, American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses and American universities, and they are elected by American citizens.

      "This is the best we can do folks. This is what we have to offer. It's what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out.

      "If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders. Term limits ain't going to do any good; you're just going to end up with a brand new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans. So, maybe, maybe, maybe, it's not the politicians who suck. Maybe something else sucks around here... like, the public. Yeah, the public sucks. There's a nice campaign slogan for somebody: 'The Public Sucks. Fuck Hope.'" —George Carlin

      link

  2. Academics by Hatta · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just another feel good appointment of an academic to a position where they can't really do anything. Meanwhile Obama staffs his cabinet with wall street insiders. If Obama really wants transparency and accountability, he should fire Geithner and replace him with Elizabeth Warren. But no, he won't do that.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    1. Re:Academics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's also inexcusable that billions upon billions of dollars were given out without anything in place to track where that money was ending up. It's only after the fact that they consider such accounting?

      A mere $10,000 student loan has greater financial controls in place than the stimulus funding.

    2. Re:Academics by vlm · · Score: 4, Interesting

      he should fire Geithner and replace him with Elizabeth Warren. But no, he won't do that.

      Warren? Well, anyone would be an improvement. Wouldn't Ron Paul be better? As treasury secretary, his peculiar opinions about abortion would be about as important as Tom Cruise's insights about foreign policy, i.e. quaintly irrelevant to the task at hand. Would be a nice last job for a smart old man (I mean RP not Cruise)

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    3. Re:Academics by raju1kabir · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Just another feel good appointment of an academic to a position where they can't really do anything.

      I took a grad school seminar with him at Yale. The man is loopy, but he has a truly powerful brain. He comes up with ways of looking at problems that are like time bombs. First you think he's a crackpot - how could anyone propose something so ridiculous? Then a few days later, it's been stewing in the back of your head, and your mindly slowly blows as you realise just how much cleverer it is than anything you've heard before. Simply putting him near anything involving information is almost guaranteed to make it better somehow.

      --
      "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
    4. Re:Academics by ottothecow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Right, because the best choice would be someone who seriously believes that replacing our arbitrarily valued currency with vaults full of arbitrarily valued metal will fix everything wrong with our economy.

      --
      Bottles.
    5. Re:Academics by ArsonSmith · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't think he ever once said it would fix everything. It would seriously help though to have it based on something that the supply isn't as easily gained as hitting a print button.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    6. Re:Academics by hazem · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Just another feel good appointment of an academic to a position where they can't really do anything

      Yeah, I just don't see what good it would be to have someone who's known for being able to deal with large amounts of complex information and present it in easy-to-understand ways... especially an academic. I mean, just look at what horrible failure it was to have that academic Richard Feynman on the committee studying the Challenger explosion. Those ivory tower types just have no grasp on how things really work.

      So, clearly you don't like Obama or Tufte... who do YOU recommend be put on this committee? And if you don't think the committee should exist, what do you suggest for better tracking and visibility of the stimulus funds?

    7. Re:Academics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're confusing TARP and the Stimulus.

    8. Re:Academics by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think someone in favor of more regulation and not less would be best for the job.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    9. Re:Academics by jfengel · · Score: 3, Informative

      I don't think Ron Paul expects to end paper currency. Nor does he think that's the problem. He knows that only a tiny fraction of the money will ever be in the form of paper.

      The problem, he believes, is that the currency is ultimately backed by nothing more than a government's promise to limit its availability. Printing the actual paper bills is chump change. Inventing more money is even easier than that: they just enter a number in a computer.

      It's not the computers themselves he sees as the problem, but rather that the accounting rules make the total arbitrary under certain circumstances. He wants to make that impossible by fixing it to a quantity which is relatively fixed: a rare metal.

      Unfortunately, that doesn't really solve the problem. For one thing, as long as there is paper currency, checks, and bank payments, rather than actual bits of gold, there's no way to enforce it. The government can set the exchange rate any way it likes. You can limit that by law, but then, you could do the same for the numbers entered into the computers.

      And truly fixing the value of the currency slows the economy drastically. Fractional-reserve banking puts more money in circulation than there is backing for, but as long as that money is invested in things that turn a profit (in sum), it gets paid back and you have real economic improvements to show for it. Without it, those improvements happen far more slowly, and other countries out-compete us.

      It leads to booms and busts, but those happen anyway. We saw that even when we were on a gold standard. We were on the gold standard going into the Great Depression. Breaking off the gold standard allows the big banks the flexibility to try to solve such crises, using the tools I just mentioned: fractional-reserve banking multiplying money until the crisis of confidence ends and productivity returns to pre-bust levels.

      And what institution managed that? The Federal Reserve, another institution Paul despises. Paul is not a stupid man, but if he imagines that the economy was free of the boom-bust cycle before the invention of the Federal Reserve, he's simply missing history.

      We may need a new solution, but the old solutions have already been disproven. That's why the Fed was created in the first place.

    10. Re:Academics by khallow · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're confusing TARP and the Stimulus.

      Maybe he's confusing them with Cash for Clunkers. I can't remember which program was the one without accountability. They all look so much alike in that regard.

    11. Re:Academics by Uberbah · · Score: 4, Informative

      1. he is not stupid - he is a strict constitutionalist.

      Oreaaaaly? What's the Constitutional basis for Paul's Sanctity of Life Act, which defines human life as beginning at conception?

      Founding fathers knew the opression from the almighty government first hand and were reluctant to give federal government more power than necessary.

      Right, which is why all the "strict constitutionalists" also rant and rave about the CIA, the NSA, the FBI, the USAF, spy satellites and NORAD. Because the Constitution only allows Congress to fund an Army and a Navy. Oh wait, they don't - which means the entire lot are political hacks.

      They chose gold and silver to be a legal tender so nobody has a print button - fiat currencies were tried in their times already and failed.

      Nevermind that we actually had more financial collapses under a backed currency than under a fiat currency. It's like gold bugs have excised the 19th century from their minds.

      When people start to gamble and overinvest (prosperity) they compete for loanable funds. These funds shrink rapidly and IR raises to match high demand.

      Nevermind that the current crisis was banks making insanely risky investments at 60:1 asset ratios. What would the gold standard done to prevent this? Nothing whatsoever. And of course we were on the gold standard when the economy crashed in 1929, for much the same reasons as it did in 2008.

      There was a recession of 1920 (caused by retooling to peace time production and returning soldiers sharply increasing workforce numbers), more severe than the Great Depression - it ended in 1,5 years because government did nothing to fight it. Great depression was enlarged and stretched out by failed policies meant to end it.

      Wow. You should have stopped digging a hole in your credibility when you passed Baghdad Bob. When there's a total economic collapse, the only entity that can stimulate demand is the government. Know when FDR actually made the depression worse? When he listened to fiscal conservatives and slashed spending in 1937 to cut the deficit.

  3. tufte has it easy by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Interesting

    just take one of the most famous graphs from his book, and reproduce it:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Napoleon's_Invasion_of_Russia

    relabel the advancing french soldiers "good intentions for accountable government"

    relabel the retreating french soldiers "obfuscation by entrenched special interests"

    job done

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:tufte has it easy by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's not scary. Try retitling it from "Napoleons invasion of Russia" to "Bushes invasion of Iraq". That sounds possible enough to be terrifying.

      Well, yeah, if you take a person and surgically remove all their knowledge of history, awareness of current events and their critical thinking center, I can see how that person might confuse the two events. Or just drop them on their head a bunch of times. That'd work, too.

  4. Mercy me... by MaggieL · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This should be - v e r y - interesting indeed.

    I have enormous respect for Tufte and his integrity. I can;t wait to see what happens.

    Remember, this is the guy who put Stalin on the cover of his pamphlet on "The Cognitive Style Of Powerpoint"

    I'm reminded of Feynman on the Columbia commission.

    --
    -=Maggie Leber=-
  5. Its mis-named so it will feel better. by Stumbles · · Score: 4, Funny

    It should be called the Recovery Advisory Panel Enhancement

    --
    My karma is not a Chameleon.
  6. Tufte scandal by Jodka · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I own his books and recommend them but it seems Tufte is difficult to deal with in person. He charged credit cards for pre-orders before shipping his not-yet-published book and then called someone who politely objected to that a "whiny sanctimonious asshole."

    See Flip Philips' blog entry about the scandal here

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature.
    1. Re:Tufte scandal by Abcd1234 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Err... so? He could be the biggest asshole in the world for all I care, so long as he does a good job and injects some accountability and transparency into the process.

    2. Re:Tufte scandal by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 3, Insightful

      An asshole also might try to cover things up. That's the problem with assholes... you just never know.

  7. So, no Power Point presentation? by Big_Monkey_Bird · · Score: 4, Funny

    So, no Power Point presentation?

  8. Stimulus is a dead issue. by tjstork · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The stimulus is a dead issue. GOP won the round. Considering Bush essentially ran .5 stimuluses a year in deficits for 6 years and then capped it off with a stimuluses worth of bailouts for banks, its rather remarkable that the GOP could do so, but they did.

    Trying to keep refighting the stimulus battle is just bad politics...

    Obama ought to be a good enough fighter to know that and move on. His best hope for 2010 is to get the troops out of Iraq and declare an epic victory, then use the mantle of victory to take his case before the people.

    --
    This is my sig.
  9. Dumb question by IWantMoreSpamPlease · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Shouldn't this post have been created first, *before* the gov't let loose billions of our taxpayer dollars, seems once in the wild, tracking that cash is going to be difficult.

    --
    So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
  10. Re:The whole world loves us now! by DigiShaman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not surprised.

    The Republican party lost it's spine a long time ago and have splintered into many factions. Effectively, the party was dead even before the 2000 elections and since then has been without leadership.

    The Democratic party however, has been very unified but has been rotting from the core since the days of JFK. Now, it too is crumbling apart with rampant thuggery and corruption.

    I think we all know how the November elections will turn out. However, there is no way in hell we can foresee who the next president will be. Our political system as we know it, is fucked. I reckon this is a good thing. Perhaps now we can get people more involved with how politics happen in DC and start voting based on someones voting record, and not based purely on party. At least, I hope so.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  11. Re:Background anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Because this is really, really complicated and he'll be able to put it into pictures you will be able to understand.

  12. Re:The whole world loves us now! by Pojut · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think we all know how the November elections will turn out. However, there is no way in hell we can foresee who the next president will be. Our political system as we know it, is fucked. I reckon this is a good thing. Perhaps now we can get people more involved with how politics happen in DC and start voting based on someones voting record, and not based purely on party. At least, I hope so.

    This isn't an ageism thing, but I honestly feel that anyone in the house or senate over the age of 45 should not be allowed to be reelected, at least not for the next few cycles. Part of the problem is that so many people running this country are stuck in the past without an eye for the future. This worked fine in the 80's and 90's, but nowadays that just doesn't cut it.

    Term limits in general would be a great thing...

  13. Re:Background anyone? by Mab_Mass · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I know about this guys books, but I fail to see why he is going to be helpful.

    Quite simply, he will be helpful because when he puts together a report, there will be one or two incredibly informative graphs that explain where the money went and how that money changed things.

    By having this information in such a concise, digestible form, it will help bring transparency and accountability to the government.

    One of the major issues we're having in the U.S. is that one side is saying one thing and claiming absolutely that they are right while the other side is making contradictory claims just a vocally. Getting some real, solid, hard numbers and easily understand representations of these numbers will make these kinds of useless back and forth arguments less possible.

    At least that's the theory. We'll see if he can make any difference in practice.

  14. Re:The whole world loves us now! by operagost · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You have to be 35 to serve, so that leaves a rather narrow window.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  15. Re:The whole world loves us now! by Dishevel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's hard to be impartial with shivers running up your leg.

    --
    Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  16. Re:At least we know... by localman57 · · Score: 3, Informative

    No, it won't. Tufte's whole point is that the focus should be on the data, and that anything that doesn't contribute to understanding ("chart junk") should be dropped. It may well contain elegant graphs, though. The other thing you can count on is that Tufte won't let them pull dirty tricks, such as using log scales, charts with a y axis other than 0, non-propotional areas, etc.

    I'd reccomend both his books and his seminar to anyone, by the way. You'll never look at another graph or powerpoint wihtout critiqeing it.

  17. Re:Background anyone? by gibson123 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Tufte is amazing. I expect he'll be able to convey in an easy to understand display what is happening w/ our recovery effort. If your a bit skeptical of him, you've got to read his books

  18. Re:Background anyone? by CodeBuster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    At least that's the theory. We'll see if he can make any difference in practice.

    In practice, political operatives will maneuver behind the scenes to ensure that whatever information the commission receives is carefully selected, filtered and sanitized so that the "right" conclusions are reached. The stakes are so high in this case that it is incredibly naïve to think that there won't be skullduggery.

  19. Re:The whole world loves us now! by pdabbadabba · · Score: 5, Informative

    he has never run even so much as a convenience store

    I realize this is really only intended as empty rhetoric but, come on. Here are a few things Obama has run, for everyone's information:

    The Harvard law Review
    Chicago's Developing Communities Project (DCP)
    Illinois's Project Vote
    Chicago Annenberg Challenge
    Illinois Senate's Health and Human Services
    U.S. Senate's subcommittee on European Affairs

    Now, I realize that it is at least arguable that none of these provide the leadership experience required to be an effective president. You probably would like to have seen a former governor/mayor/head of a large agency. I don't think that sort of experience is strictly necessary, but I see how reasonable people could disagree. (Though, if I may ask, what leadership experience does John McCain have that qualifies him in your eyes? Is it just length of service in the Senate?)

    But to say that Obama has not run so much as a convenience store is just totally false and it smacks of an either mean spirited (or, at best, willfully ignorant) parroting of the popular right-wing line that Obama is somehow a lightweight.

  20. You've got to be kidding me... by sean.peters · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Unfortunately, the extremes of the parties are the ones in control...

    Unless by "extremes of the parties" you mean the rightmost extremes of both parties, I think you've gone round the bend. If the extreme left wing of the Democrats had been in control, Dennis Kucinich would have been the nominee. That guy really is far to the left. Obama? There are few Democrats more centrist. Just a quick example: health care. The current plan in play in Congress is almost exactly the same as the one Mitt freakin' Romney signed into law when he was governor of Massachusetts. Until recently, this would have been a Republican health care plan - the mainstream opinion among Democrats is that single-payer is the way to go.

    Regardless of your personal preferences on issues like health care, it's an absolute fact that the Democratic party is controlled by highly centrist types, and the Republican party is being run by, not to put too fine a point on it, whackjobs.

  21. Re:The whole world loves us now! by Bassman59 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Not surprised.

    The Republican party lost it's spine a long time ago and have splintered into many factions. Effectively, the party was dead even before the 2000 elections and since then has been without leadership.

    True, it's splintered into factions (Teabaggers vs business conservatives vs religious wackos) but in the current Congress it has been remarkably unified. It says "No!" to everything. Of course, it's easy to be the minority opposition. You don't have to have any ideas on how to solve problems and move the country forward. (As an example of what happens when Republicans are fully in power, look to Arizona. Here the Republicans remain unified and committed to "No!" Our state is on beyond fucked.)

    The Democratic party however, has been very unified but has been rotting from the core since the days of JFK. Now, it too is crumbling apart with rampant thuggery and corruption.

    What Democratic party are you talking about? In what bizarro world is it unified? Asshats like Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln seem to want to be all "mavericky" like that idiot McCain and his boyfriend Joe Lieberman, so any notion of party unity is a pipe dream. As for "rotting at the core," this happens as the Blue Dogs triangulate and try to have it all ways instead of having any principles.