Monthly Archives: July 2016

Big-Time Regulatory Rewards

26 Tuesday Jul 2016

Posted by in Big Government, Central Planning, Regulation

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Government Control

Why does regulation of private industry so often inure to the benefit of the regulated at the expense of consumers? In the popular mind, at least, regulating powerful market players restrains “excessive” profits or ensures that their practices meet certain standards. More often than not, however, regulation empowers the strongest market players at the expense of the very competition that would otherwise restrain prices and provide innovative alternatives. The more complex the regulation, the more likely that will be the result. Smaller firms seldom have the wherewithal to deal with complicated regulatory compliance. Moreover, regulatory standards are promulgated by politicians, bureaucrats, and often the most powerful market players themselves. If ever a system was “rigged”, to quote a couple of well-known presidential candidates, it is the regulatory apparatus. Pro-regulation candidates might well have the voters’ best interests at heart, or maybe not, but the losers are usually consumers and the winners are usually the dominant firms in any regulated industry.

The extent to which our wanderings into the regulatory maze have rewarded crony capitalists — rent seekers — is bemoaned by Daniel Mitchell in “A Very Depressing Chart on Creeping Cronyism in the American Economy“. The chart shows that about 40% of the increase in U.S. corporate profits since 1970 was generated by rent-seeking efforts — not by activities that enhance productivity and output. The chart is taken from an article in the Harvard Business Review by James Bessen of Boston University called “Lobbyists Are Behind the Rise in Corporate Profits“. Here are a couple of choice quotes from the article:

“Lobbying and political campaign spending can result in favorable regulatory changes, and several studies find the returns to these investments can be quite large. For example, one study finds that for each dollar spent lobbying for a tax break, firms received returns in excess of $220. …regulations that impose costs might raise profits indirectly, since costs to incumbents are also entry barriers for prospective entrants. For example, one study found that pollution regulations served to reduce entry of new firms into some manufacturing industries.”

“This research supports the view that political rent seeking is responsible for a significant portion of the rise in profits [since 1970]. Firms influence the legislative and regulatory process and they engage in a wide range of activity to profit from regulatory changes, with significant success. …while political rent seeking is nothing new, the outsize effect of political rent seeking on profits and firm values is a recent development, largely occurring since 2000. Over the last 15 years, political campaign spending by firm PACs has increased more than thirtyfold and the Regdata index of regulation has increased by nearly 50% for public firms.“

A good explanation of Bessen’s findings is provided by Guy Rolnik, including an interview with Bessen. Law Professor Glenn Reynolds of the University of Tennessee put his finger on the same issue in an earlier article entitled “Why we still don’t have flying cars“. One can bicker about the relative merits of various regulations, but as Reynolds points out, the expansion of the administrative and regulatory state has led to a massive diversion of resources that is very much a detriment to the intended beneficiaries of regulation:

“… 1970 marks what scholars of administrative law (like me) call the ‘regulatory explosion.’ Although government expanded a lot during the New Deal under FDR, it wasn’t until 1970, under Richard Nixon, that we saw an explosion of new-type regulations that directly burdened people and progress: The Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, National Environmental Policy Act, the founding of Occupation Safety and Health Administration, the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency, etc. — all things that would have made the most hard-boiled New Dealer blanch.

Within a decade or so, Washington was transformed from a sleepy backwater (mocked by John F. Kennedy for its ‘Southern efficiency and Northern charm’) to a city full of fancy restaurants and expensive houses, a trend that has only continued in the decades since. The explosion of regulations led to an explosion of people to lobby the regulators, and lobbyists need nice restaurants and fancy houses.“

Matt Ridley hits on a related point in “Industrial Strategy Can Be Regressive“, meaning that government planning and industrial regulation have perverse effects on prices and economic growth that hit the poor the hardest. Ridley, who is British, discusses regressivity in the context of his country’s policy environment, but the lessons are general:

“The history of industrial strategies is littered with attempts to pick winners that ended up picking losers. Worse, it is government intervention, not laissez faire, that has done most to increase inequality and to entrench wealth and privilege. For example, the planning system restricts the supply of land for housebuilding, raising property prices to the enormous benefit of the haves (yes, that includes me) at the expense of the have-nots. … 

Why are salaries so high in financial services? Because there are huge barriers to entry erected by government, which hands incumbent firms enormous quasi-monopoly advantages and thereby shelters them from upstart competition. Why are cancer treatments so expensive? Because governments give monopolies called patents to the big firms that invent them. Why are lawyers so rich? Because there is a government-licensed cartel restricting the supply of them.“

Ridley’s spirited article gives emphasis to the fact that the government cannot plan the economy any more than it can plan the way our tastes and preferences will evolve and respond to price incentives; it cannot plan production any more than it can anticipate changes in resource availability; it cannot dictate technologies wisely any more than it can predict the innumerable innovations brought forth by private initiative and market needs; it almost never can regulate any better than the market can regulate itself! But government is quite capable of distorting prices, imposing artificial rules, picking suboptimal technologies, consuming resources, and rewarding cronies. One should never underestimate the potential for regulation, and government generally, to screw things up!

Clinton Foundation Domain of Darkness

23 Saturday Jul 2016

Posted by in Privilege, rent seeking

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Clinton-Foundation-600-LA

Hillary and Bill Clinton provide a fascinating case study in the art of graft, and the Clinton Foundation provides them with brilliant cover. The foundation masquerades as a legitimate charity, avoids taxes, and provides a vehicle for what’s known as “pay-to-play” influence-buying. It appears that Bill Clinton made a lucrative career of this while his wife was serving in public office. It was a sensitive issue when Hillary was Secretary of State, given the potential for compromising national objectives. It is still sensitive in view of the many gifts to the Clinton Foundation provided by foreign entities, not to mention the handsome speaking fees paid by foreign entities directly to the Clintons.

Here, I discuss some of the suspicious activities of the Clinton Foundation. This post is the last in a three-part series on Hillary’s most recent scandals. The first in the series covered Hillary’s Benghazi disaster; the second post dealt with her negligent email practices and handling of classified information, as well as her prevarication in responding to investigative efforts.

Last year, the New York Times published a report on the Clinton Foundation’s (CF) connections to a series of deals that ultimately gave a Russian company control of a large share of worldwide uranium supplies:

“At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One. … the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. … Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.“

The amounts involved are far greater than the figures in the quote suggest. One individual with intimate connections to the deals gave in excess of $31 million to the CF. The Times report gives details on the shifty ways in which some donor money found its way into CF coffers, often not attributed to the donors themselves in official records. These practices look an awful lot like a sophisticated way of laundering money for influence buying:

“A person with knowledge of the Clinton Foundation’s fund-raising operation, who requested anonymity to speak candidly about it, said that for many people, the hope is that money will in fact buy influence: ‘Why do you think they are doing it — because they love them?’“

There are many other suspicious links between the CF and rent-seeking individuals and institutions. Jonathan Turley has detailed the unsavory nature of the Clinton’s connection to Laureate International Universities, an online college that encompasses Walden University Online, known in some circles as an operator of scams far-exceeding the allegations against Trump University. The chairman of Laureate, Douglas Becker, has been a major donor to the Clintons and their foundation. As it happens, Laureate received $55 million in funds from State Department Grants. Bill Clinton was paid $16 million to serve as Laureate’s “Honorary Chancellor”. Here is one interesting comment from Turley:

“Laureate has come up in the Clinton email scandal. In her first year as Secretary of State, Clinton is quoted as directly asking that Laureate be included in a high-profile policy dinner — just months before the lucrative contract was given to Bill Clinton. Hillary Clinton later references ‘Laureate Universities, started by Doug Becker who Bill likes a lot.’“

There might not be anything to top the cronyism inherent in the activities of the CF in pretending to rebuild Haiti after a massive earthquake struck the island in 2010. The article at the last link offers descriptions of a number of projects, ostensibly funded for the benefit of Haiti, that involve double-dealing by the Clintons and CF:

“The Haitian protesters noticed an interesting pattern involving the Clintons and the designation of how aid funds were used. They observed that a number of companies that received contracts in Haiti happened to be entities that made large donations to the Clinton Foundation. The Haitian contracts appeared less tailored to the needs of Haiti than to the needs of the companies that were performing the services. In sum, Haitian deals appeared to be a quid pro quo for filling the coffers of the Clintons.“

Foreign governments gave to the CF while Hillary Clinton was serving as Secretary of State and have continued to do so even after her presidential candidacy was made clear. This was reported more recently, and includes gifts from “friends” of foreign governments and other foreign interests including Mexico, Turkey, Japan, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and of course Russia. Many contributions are “bundled” by third-party entities, an apparent but ineffective effort to obscure the true sources of gifts:

“A number of Hillary Clinton’s top lobbyist bundlers, who have raised millions for her presidential campaign, either directly represent foreign entities or work at firms that represent foreign entities, according to documents from the Justice Department’s Foreign Agents Registration Unit.“

Here is a New York Times review of “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich”, by Peter Schweitzer. Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R – TN) is urging the FBI, the IRS and the FTC to investigate the activities of the Clinton Foundation.

The CF is guilty of ignoring widely accepted charitable best practices, according to this report. Its small board of directors is insular and lacking a sufficient degree of independence. Its record-keeping is suspicious, such as a $12.6 million expense for Bill Clinton’s 60th birthday expensed as “fund raising costs”. Inappropriate gifts to the Clintons from directors have raised eyebrows, and apparent “payoffs” for retiring directors, in the form of appointments to powerful positions, have made the CF into a veritable revolving door for Clinton insiders.

I include this last bit because it amuses me: according to Dr. Ben Carson, Hillary Clinton is Lucifer in the flesh. The explanation is that Hillary liked Saul Alinsky in college (and maybe still does), and Alinsky acknowledged Lucifer as the “first radical”. That probably leaves a few degrees of separation between the two. Economist Tyler Cowan does not agree with Carson, but he toys with the notion in a short analysis on Marginal Revolution. Here are a few of his bullets on the topic:

“This topic seems to have entered the news cycle. I am not sure how, so I thought I would add a few observations in the interests of clarity: 

1. Under the most plausible ‘yes’ scenario, Lucifer inhabits the corpus of us all, not just the Clinton family, grandchildren included. 

2. The correct answer is still ‘probably not.’ 

3. Is there a greater chance that Hillary Clinton is in fact Lucifer himself, rather than merely being possessed by him? (Would that not also be a new kind of transgender relation?) No, more likely she would have a Satanic familiar. In most equilibria, the number of familiars is greater than the number of Satans. Far greater.“

A better argument for Hillary’s connection to the Prince of Darkness would rely on the self-serving nature of the “charitable” Clinton Foundation while disguised as a charity. It is both a repository for future policy influence and a pool for enrichment of the Clintons themselves and their cronies. The CF represents a grotesque distortion of the charitable motive. Let’s hope James Comey, Director of the FBI, can direct a competent investigation into the CF’s activities. More importantly, let’s hope that come November, the better judgement of American voters will deny Hillary the presidency.

Postscript: The FBI’s original investigation of Hillary’s emails, presided over by former Director James Comey, was an apparent effort to exonerate her. An investigation of the CF is underway, and the investigation of Hillary’s email shenanigans has been renewed.

Hillary’s (C)mail Fail

13 Wednesday Jul 2016

Posted by in National Security, Privilege

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Clinton email

Hillary Clinton’s classified email scandal might look like a minor distraction once facts about the suspicious dealings of the Clinton Foundation are unraveled. I’ll cover the foundation later this week. In this post, I’ll review some considerations relevant to the email case. This is the second in a three-part series of posts on Hillary’s more recent foibles, following the first installment on her role in the Benghazi disaster.

Hillary Clinton’s “grossly negligent” misuse of classified email during her tenure as Secretary of State was harshly criticized by FBI Director James Comey last week. Nevertheless, the Bureau declined to recommend an indictment to the Department of Justice (DOJ) based on their inability to prove mens rea, or any awareness of guilt or an intent to do harm. It is doubtful that Clinton had any intent to harm the country. At a minimum, however, Comey’s statements implied that she did not take security seriously.

The basis of any claim that Clinton lacked awareness of her security responsibilities is shaky, to say the least. Clinton’s private email stunt was a willful effort to avoid legitimate scrutiny, such as FOIA requests. The IT expert who set up her private servers and other devices pled the Fifth Amendment to avoid self-incrimination! There have been reports that Clinton asked aides to remove classified markings (also see here). All we have from the State Department on that allegation is a denial. Clinton repeatedly lied to the public and to Congress (under oath) about classified material and the number of devices she used. She also lied to a federal judge (under oath) about having turned over all work-related emails to the State Department. Many of those emails were deleted, leaving suspicious gaps in the pattern of traffic. Indeed, Clinton’s actions in the case give every appearance of an effort to obstruct justice.

Some of the missing emails will come to light. Wikileaks has released a trove of Clinton’s emails showing additional classified material. There are also pending civil cases related to the emails in which the plaintiffs wish to subpoena Mrs. Clinton. Needless to say, her lawyers are making every effort to stop the subpoenas.

Jacob Sullum at Reason discusses Comey’s decision in the context of mens rea. He notes that Clinton’s offenses were certainly prosecutable under the letter of the law. Despite denials from Clinton apologists, the case of a Navy operations specialist in 1992 is instructive. The defendant in that case claimed that willingness to mishandle classified information was not sufficient for a conviction, but the military court disagreed under the same provision of the law referenced by Comey:

“… the court turned to the subsection at issue in Mrs. Clinton’s case: ‘Section 793(f) has an even lower threshold, punishing loss of classified materials through ‘gross negligence’ and punishing failing to promptly report a loss of classified materials.’”

Nevertheless, Sullum thinks Comey’s defense of mens rea protections for individuals accused of certain violations of law is admirable, and I agree (except Comey’s second clause in the quote below, regarding “in that statute in particular“, is not strictly true). The explosion of federal law, especially regulatory law, makes this more crucial than ever from a libertarian perspective. Here is Comey:

“‘The protection we have as Americans is that the government in general, and in that statute in particular, has to prove before [it] can prosecute any of us that we did this thing that’s forbidden by the law, and when we did it, we knew we were doing something that was unlawful. We don’t have to know the code number, but [the government must show] that we knew we were doing something that was unlawful.’“

For background on the issue of a defendant’s willingness to violate the law, Paul Rosenzweig of the Heritage Foundation has a great article called  “Ignorance of the Law Is No Excuse But It Is In Reality“. By that title, Rosenzweig means that there are so many federal crimes today that ignorance of the law very often should be a valid excuse. However, the contention that Hillary Clinton was ignorant of the law regarding her duties in handling classified information is dubious at best.

Unfortunately, Clinton’s interview with the FBI just days before Comey’s announcement was not conducted by Comey, was not made under oath, and was not recorded. That leaves significant doubt about the seriousness of the FBI’s effort to learn the truth about the record, or any contradictions in the record, that might shed light on Clinton’s awareness or intent to violate the law. And Attorney General Loretta Lynch, after a “personal” meeting with Bill Clinton, recused herself and her office from prosecutorial duties prior to Comey’s announcement, stating that she would accept the FBI’s recommendation without examining the case. That step casts doubt on her seriousness as an independent prosecutor. Hillary skates, for now.

 

Beastly Hillary Benghazi Baggage

10 Sunday Jul 2016

Posted by in Diplomacy, Terrorism

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

HillaryDifference

The Clinton Can-o’-Worms is just as slimy and writhing as ever. We’ve heard about Hillary’s misadventures for decades: defending the rapist of a 12-year-old girl and later gloating (on tape) about the light sentence she’d helped arrange; dismissal from the staff of the House Judiciary Committee for lying during the Watergate case, and the shady Whitewater land deal. The most recent trio of scandals include 1) questionable decisions and misleading public statements in the Benghazi affair; 2) exposing national security to compromise via her private servers; and perhaps the biggest of the biggies: 3) suspicious relationships between the Clinton Foundation and foreign governments with whom she dealt as Secretary of State for four years. I’ll discuss Benghazi in this post, but I’ll return to Clinton’s grossly negligent email handling and the Clinton Foundation pay-to-play activity in the next few days.

The Benghazi attack in 2011 was at least in part a reaction to arms shipments that Libyan Ambassador Chris Stevens was attempting to arrange. This is believed to have involved weapons belonging to Libyan rebels, some of them jihadists, and to the deposed Libyan regime of Muammar Gaddafi. Apparently, Stevens mission was to work to get those arms into the hands of Syrian rebels, many of whom turned out to be jihadists as well, of course. Apparently there were Libyans who wanted to see those arms stay at home. Stevens and three other Americans lost their lives in the attack. It turns out that Stevens had asked repeatedly for additional security in Benghazi, but the requests ware denied by Clinton’s State Department. When the attack went down, requests for aid in the form of air support and even a tactical team were denied, despite the fact that “assets” were within reach. “Stand down” was the order of the day, in keeping with the Obama Administrations “no boots on the ground” policy.

It is now clear that the attack was planned, but Mrs. Clinton, who knew the facts, told the American public that the attack was precipitated by an amateur video critical of radical Islamists. Why the misleading statements? The Benghazi mission was politically sensitive, of course. In addition, an objective during the presidential election season was to play down terrorism, to propagate the myth that the terrorists were “on the run” under Obama. There is no doubt that Clinton lied to the American people in this case, but apparently her supporters think that’s unimportant in a leader.

A recent defense of Clinton and the administration has it that aid should never have been expected for the Americans in Benghazi during the 13 hours of the siege. After all, according to this reasoning, Ambassador Stevens and the other personnel knew it was a risky mission. Well, so much for “leave no man behind“, which has a long and honorable tradition in the military. Soldiers on patrol often accept great risk, yet no one would suggest their acceptance of risk as an excuse to refuse them aid when in dire need.

While it is true that the host country is presumed to be responsible for providing the first line of security for foreign diplomats, that was not realistic in Libya at the time. The guards and contractors attached to the mission in Benghazi were obviously inadequate to defend the staff under the circumstances. Military assets are in place to respond under just such a contingency. Given the nature of Stevens’ mission, which was apparently to transfer arms to parties intended to serve as sub rosa U.S. military proxies in Syria, the military should have been allowed to honor the “leave no man behind” imperative. Unfortunately, the administration’s political objectives, and the terrorists, won the day in Benghazi. Hillary Clinton was complicit in this.

Race and Crime, Cops and Race

09 Saturday Jul 2016

Posted by in Discrimination, racism

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Good Cop Bad Cop

Blacks are arrested in the U.S. at a disproportionately high rate relative to their share of the population, and they are killed by police at a disproportionately high rate as well. Does that prove that police target blacks unfairly? No, it depends on additional considerations not revealed by a simple comparison of police actions against blacks to their representation in the overall population.

This matter was put into perspective earlier this year by Heather Mac Donald in the Wall Street Journal (the link is to a Google search that should get around the WSJ paywall). Her analysis relies in part on a data base of fatal police shootings in 2015-16 maintained by the Washington Post, available here. Some of the most telling points noted by Mac Donald were the following:

  •  “… in 2015 officers killed 662 whites and Hispanics, and 258 blacks. (The overwhelming majority of all those police-shooting victims were attacking the officer, often with a gun.)” The most recent data for 2016 are incomplete, but of the 509 police shootings recorded so far this year, the proportion involving blacks appears to be roughly consistent with the 2015 figures.
  • “There were 6,095 black homicide deaths in 2014—the most recent year for which such data are available—compared with 5,397 homicide deaths for whites and Hispanics combined. Almost all of those black homicide victims had black killers.“
  • “Over the past decade, according to FBI data, 40% of cop killers have been black. Officers are killed by blacks at a rate 2.5 times higher than the rate at which blacks are killed by police.“
  • “According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, blacks were charged with 62% of all robberies, 57% of murders and 45% of assaults in the 75 largest U.S. counties in 2009, though they made up roughly 15% of the population there.“
  • “Such a concentration of criminal violence in minority communities means that officers will be disproportionately confronting armed and often resisting suspects in those communities, raising officers’ own risk of using lethal force.“
  • “A March 2015 Justice Department report on the Philadelphia Police Department found that black and Hispanic officers were much more likely than white officers to shoot blacks based on “threat misperception”—that is, the mistaken belief that a civilian is armed.“
  • “A 2015 study by University of Pennsylvania criminologist Greg Ridgeway … found that, at a crime scene where gunfire is involved, black officers in the New York City Police Department were 3.3 times more likely to discharge their weapons than other officers at the scene.“

It is a tragic fact that the black community is plagued disproportionately by crime and violence. However, that has nothing to do with the manner in which police perform their duties when confronted with danger. Rather, it has to do with historical inequities, poor educational institutions, dismal economic opportunities, and a number of misguided government policies. The latter include minimum wages that diminish opportunities for black workers to gain job experience, anti-poverty initiatives that destroy work incentives and undermine family structure, a failed public school system, and the misguided war on drugs. Drug prohibition ensnares those who face insidious alternatives to legal market activity, which is often unavailable. Unfortunately, all of these policies have a disproportionate effect on the black community.

Any assessment of police conduct must acknowledge the circumstances under which officers work. If a particular demographic is disproportionately involved in crime, and affected by crime, then it is reasonable to expect that police action will be disproportionately focused on that group. This is not prima facie evidence of racism in police work. Quite the contrary: it is evidence that the police are fulfilling their obligation to protect innocents within that demographic, even if other institutions are aggravating the social dysfunction.

 

Our Stardust Scrutiny, A Reverie Thus Far In Vain

01 Friday Jul 2016

Posted by in Extraterrestrial Life

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

smbc_klingons

The Fermi paradox juxtaposes the fact that we’ve heard no signal from extraterrestrial life against claims that life must be common in the universe. The paradox, named after physicist Enrico Fermi, is not so inscrutable given 1) the immense distances in interstellar space; 2) the likelihood that few civilizations have survived long enough to attain a high level of advancement; and 3) the slim chance (until recently, perhaps) of detecting messages from a distant civilization.

These points are addressed in recent paper by Evan Solomonides and Yervant Terzian of Cornell University entitled “A Probabilistic Analysis of the Fermi Paradox” (the full PDF is available for download on the upper right at the link). The authors note that the first broadcast from Earth that could be detected beyond the planet took place roughly 80 years ago. Unfortunately, it was Hitler’s commentary on the superiority of arian athletes at the 1936 Olympics. That seems a shame, but then it’s unlikely that the recipients can interpret the signal at all. Still, the authors estimate that by now, that broadcast will have reached over 8,000 stars and over 3,500 earth-like planets within an 80 light-year sphere around the Earth. That might sound like a lot, but it is an infinitesimal fraction of the Milky Way galaxy. There is roughly a zero chance that an advanced civilizations exists within a population of potentially habitable planets that small.

How Common Is Life?

Solomonides and Terzian extend their analysis using a version of the so-called Drake equation, which relies on a series of assumed probabilities to calculate the number of of active, intelligent civilizations in the galaxy, call it N. However, the authors assert that their version of the Drake equation yields an estimate of N for the entire history of the galaxy, but it looks very much as if they’ve simply redefined the equation’s terms. They use the equation to specify a relation between 1) the average length of communication history for all intelligent civilizations; and 2) the total area of all spheres of coverage, which is dependent on N. They assert that as of today, this combined area must encompass less than one-half of the galaxy because that implies that we are less likely to have heard a signal from extraterrestrials than not to have heard one. And we haven’t. However, this seems like a thin foundation from which to draw implications, and it is based on an expectation. Even if those spheres covered 90% of the galaxy or more, it would not rule out the silence we’ve “heard” to date. Nevertheless, the authors use this inequality to derive a lower and upper bound on the number of intelligent, communicating civilizations in Milky Way history.

Expanding Broadcast Spheres

Again, Solomonides and Terzian define “spheres of communication” extending into space as far in light years as the length of a civilization’s broadcasting history in earth-years. Earth’s sphere of communication now extends outward by 80 light years. But imagine that a long-extinct civilization on the other side of the galaxy sent messages about 30,000 years ago. The signal might be reaching us just now. But if that civilization’s broadcasting history lasted 1,000 years before an untimely extinction, its broadcast sphere would be like a hollow, expanding dumpling, now almost as wide as the galaxy itself but with dough walls a constant 1,000 light-years thick. Only the walls contain broadcast information, so the areas of spheres like these are not simply additive. The hollow “inner spheres” must be subtracted to get the total broadcast area.

Revisiting the Duration of Broadcasts

The communication spheres defined by Solomonides and Terzian are “disks” rather than spheres, because collapsing the galaxy into two dimensions simplifies the analysis. They do not appear to allow for the sort of hollowness implied by an older, advanced civilization with a limited survival time. That matters in terms the history relevant to our failure to detect signals thus far. If a civilization’s broadcasting history is of short duration relative to its distance from Earth, then its communication sphere has thin broadcast walls. If that now-extinct civilization originated signals on the other side of the galaxy more than about 35,000 years ago, the signals would be irrelevant to “our” Fermi paradox because by now, Earth is almost certainly inside the wall of its expanding broadcast “dumpling”. The signal passed us by before we were advanced enough to have thought about it. So the relevant history of the galaxy, for purposes of identifying the broadcasting histories of civilizations we might have heard from by now, goes back a bit farther than the total width of the galaxy, which is roughly 32,600 light years. The relevant history might be 35,000 years, give or take, not the 13 billion years since the galaxy’s birth. At least that limits one dimension of the problem.

I find the following sentence somewhat troublesome because Solomonides and Terzian seem to focus on the length of broadcasting histories only with reference to the present time:

“The planar area of the galactic disk reached by communication from any intelligent civilization (assuming such civilizations are uniformly dispersed throughout the galaxy) can be modeled as the area of N disks with radius Lh (average length of broadcasting history in years)…“

Some of those N disks are probably hollow. The idea that civilizations are commonplace may not mean that they all exist contemporaneously, and while the authors must understand that point, the description above implies that all disks are saturated with broadcasted information from center to outer rim rather than hollow.

Solomonides and Terzian then attempt to place the radius of earth’s own minuscule broadcast disk within the hypothetical distribution of all such discs within the galaxy:

“… we know that humanity was almost certainly not the (or even one of the) first species in the galaxy to develop broadcasting technology, nor one of the last. Put statistically, it can be said with a high degree of confidence that humanity is somewhere in the median 90% of the population of galactic species as far as broadcasting history is concerned. That is to say, we are not among the first nor last 5% of civilizations to develop this technology. … Taking a very conservative estimate, we posit that we have been broadcasting for 5% as long as the average communicative species has been, and as such this upper limit on the average is approximately 1600 years. This can be substituted back into the inequality derived previously to give an idea of the frequency of life that our apparent loneliness suggests.“

A couple of notes on this statement: First, it assumes that the lengths of broadcasting histories are distributed uniformly from 0 to 1,600 years. Second, it seems to preclude any history of broadcasts prior to 1,600 years ago. If that is the case, then the number of civilizations they consider are what I’d call “near contemporaneous”. The authors do not seem to be accounting for all history after all.

Few Neighbors Or Many?

The authors go on to calculate lower and upper bounds on the number of communicating civilizations in the Milky Way, but again, in light of the quotes above, the implied existence of civilizations seems to be near-contemporaneous. Perhaps that’s okay for arriving at a lower bound. Again, Solomonides and Terzian assume that our 80 years of communication history puts us below 95% of all other communicating civilizations. Therefore, the longest history among such civilizations would be just 1,600 years. Because we have heard nothing, there must be great distances between relatively few civilizations: only about 210, according to Solomonides and Terzian.

In light of the relevant history of the Milky Way, 1,600 years seems outrageously short for the longest communication history. To my way of thinking, broadcast histories, whatever their number, must be distributed over the entire galaxy and over a time span of about 33,000 years. If extinctions shorten the duration of those histories, then it is possible that we’ve simply missed the outer walls of a number of broadcast disks that have already reached us. In that case, civilizations must be sparse both spatially and over time. Unfortunately, the authors’ lower bound for the number of communicating civilizations must be taken as an estimate for civilizations whose existence is near-contemporaneous with our own. However, that does not fit as neatly into an explanation of the Fermi paradox as the authors would like.

For an upper bound on the number of communicating civilizations, the authors assume that we are on the verge of hearing from another civilization in response to our initial communication. If so,  then we have a very close, neighboring civilization about 40 light years away, which implies an outrageously high frequency of civilizations in the galaxy: about 78 million, according to the authors. The upper bound relies on an assumption that it’s necessary for Earth to receive a response to our communication, as opposed to receiving an independent communication from afar. Perhaps the signal/response requirement is imposed for reasons of estimating a more densely populated galaxy for the upper bound.

The lower and upper bounds imply that life is either rare or ubiquitous; the authors claim that either is an unreasonable violation of the so-called “mediocrity principle”, which posits that our civilization is “run-of-the-mill”: the first is a violation because we are rare; the second is a violation because we’ve somehow managed to avoid hearing anything despite the denseness of communicating civilizations in the Milky Way.

Great Filters

It’s reasonable to question the assumption that an advanced civilization’s broadcast history would be of relatively short duration. The galaxy is a hazardous place, however, presenting extreme natural threats to any planet finding itself in a “Goldilocks zone” near its host star and capable of harboring life over an extended period. Threats range from interloping space rocks to variations in a planet’s exposure to radiation. Then, there are hazards to life arising from natural conditions on the planet itself, such as extreme volcanic activity and perhaps natural toxins. Finally, the development of technology brings hazards as well, including the possibility of chemical, biological and nuclear calamities. All of these constitute “Great Filters” that may prevent civilizations from reaching a stage of advancement sufficient for interstellar travel and colonization of other worlds.

Can such hazards be expected to put a halt to a representative civilization’s broadcasting, and within how many earth centuries? In some cases, it’s likely to be as few as 10 or 20 centuries, but even if extinction is common, there are also likely to be a few civilizations making it to the far right tail of the survival distribution. Those few civilizations, or even one, could have begun broadcasting so long ago that their communication spheres are much larger than the galaxy itself. We might just hear them if they exist, but perhaps that argues that they do not.

Detection and and Understanding

Beyond the limits of communication spheres, another compelling reason for our failure to detect signals from other civilizations is signal degradation over great distances. According to Solomonides and Terzian, signal strength weakens with the inverse square of distance. Even today, messages of extremely distant origin might be impossible for us to discern, let alone understand.

“Though a handful of these signals have been designed to be picked up by extraterrestrial intelligence (…. i.e. Fibonacci, the prime numbers, the squares, all broadcast in binary), the vast majority would be indecipherable. This is because an alien civilization would need to first decode binary into sound (and figure out our tone encryption method) or video (with very specific, inconsistent formats), and if they could somehow do that, they would then need to decode the resulting 3,000 human languages … into something they could parse successfully.“

Given sufficiently well-equipped listening centers here on Earth, detection becomes something of a mathematical exercise. Over the past 10-15 years, there have been advances in developing algorithms to extract signals from an otherwise noisy background.

Conclusion

With plausible assumptions, the Drake equation yields the conclusion that the galaxy may be populated with a large number of intelligent civilizations, larger still if we count those existing at any time over the past 35,000 years. The Solomonides and Terzian paper shows that the lack of detection on Earth is not very surprising, but in a limited context. The silence might be even less surprising if many of the historical civilizations had a broadcasting age of limited duration, generating hollow broadcasting spheres, because the walls of many of those spheres would have passed us by long before our own radio age. Therefore, the Fermi paradox does not seem to be such a paradox after all.