Tim Harford has a fantastic column today talking about the campaign behind the Robin Hood tax. He argued previously that the campaign was misguided, but what scares him more are the ways in which those who support the campaign - bloggers, commenters, twitterers - have tried to 'argue' to support the tax. What did they do? They appealed to authority. How? The supporters reiterated that 'Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman said [X]' or 'Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz said [Y]'. Harford playfully suggested the following three other Nobel Laureates and their ideas:

• We should not levy a price on carbon. Why? Because Nobel laureate Thomas Schelling thinks that cap-and-trade schemes are a silly way to think about climate change policy.
• We should be able to buy and sell kidneys. Why? Because Nobel laureate Gary Becker thinks that it would be a good idea. [pdf]
• We should stop laying into economists. Why? Because Nobel laureate Robert Lucas thinks macroeconomics performed well during the financial crisis.

I shall host this month's Carnival of the Africans on Feb 28th. If you happen to be an African Sceptical or Scientific blogger, please email me your submissions by 9pm Feb 27 so I can attempt to publish by 9pm Feb 28th. The guidelines are here. Angela, the Skeptic Detective, hosted the previous edition here. You can contact me at simon{dot}d{dot}halliday{at}gmail{dot}com. I look forward to your sceptical and scientific posts. I will trawl the web to find additional un-submitted posts that fit the criteria, but I prefer submissions to trawling.

This week's Nature has a paper by Elizabeth Tricomi, Antonio Rangel, Colin F. Camerer & John P. O’Doherty, reporting on 'Neural evidence for inequality averse social preferences'. Eurekalert reported on it here. I would have read the paper anyway, but a quotation from one of the researchers, John O'Doherty in the Eurekalert article pricked my ears up, "[We can] try to understand how these changes in valuation actually translate into changes in behavior. For example, the person who finds out they're being paid less than someone else for doing the same job might end up working less hard and being less motivated as a consequence. It will be interesting to try to understand the brain mechanisms that underlie such changes." Now this interpretation would be great, if that's what the experiment had examined. But it didn't. I suspect that O'Doherty was led on by the journalist to say something 'print-worthy'. I comment briefly on the paper, and examine what we need to do to make more claims like O'Doherty's above.

Here's the description of the method from the article:

Twenty pairs of healthy, previously unacquainted male participants participated in the experiment. They were each paid a base $30 fee; each then drew a ball from a hat, labelled ‘rich’ or ‘poor’. The ‘rich’ (high-pay) subject received an immediate payment of $50, whereas the ‘poor’ (low-pay) player received no bonus payment. They then performed an identical task in consecutive fMRI scanning sessions. In each trial subjects viewed possible monetary transfers from the experimenter to themselves and to the other player, ranging from $0 to $50 (Fig. 1). Participants rated how appealing they found the possible transfers on a scale of -5 (very unappealing) to 5 (very appealing). After both players’ scans, a single trial was randomly picked from the set, and the transfers for that trial were paid out.

Oh gosh, it looks like I'm going to have to comment on South African politics again. Floyd Shivambu waxes incoherent about Jeremy Cronin's recent public letter about transparent debate about nationalisation. Shivambu said, "Why a communist cadre in the form of Jeremy Cronin refuses to constructively input into the nationalisation of mines perspective even when humbly requested to is worrying. But as they say, blood is thicker than water." What does that mean? Let me get this straight, Cronin writes constructively about the debate (having been asked to do so), but Shivambu thinks Cronin is incoherent and destructive? Well let's look at why.

Let me state outright that I'm not a communist, but I think Cronin is one of the most coherent, if occasionally wrong, members of the communisty party and of the tripartite alliance. Otherwise, I am a big fan of his poetry and have substantial respect for him as a white man who stood his ground during apartheid. We needed more like him.

Anyway, back to the article. Cronin says, "Behind the headline stories of high-life parties and the flaunting of ill-gained wealth, lies the sordid reality of manipulative sponsorships, wheeling and dealing, organisational factionalism, arm-twisting and the general subversion of our democratic order.” Ahhh.... so that's what annoyed Shivambu. Cronin was criticising Shivambu's, Malema's and many other fair-weather socialists' proclivities to parties and spending. Oh well, poor Floyd.

Next thing, Cronin says that “Our socialism is fundamentally about waging a struggle, here and now, with and in defence of the workers and poor.” How can Shivambu have a problem with that? The workers and the poor? I must have misunderstood the position of ANCYL to not see this as a problem.

Cronin goes on to say, “[SACP policy] is certainly NOT about "capturing" the ANC by infiltrating communists onto ANC electoral lists! If communists enjoy popular support and endorsement from within ANC structures that's great. But they serve in ANC positions as ANC members. We want to have capable, honest and hard-working ANC cadres as ANC leaders - some will be communists, many will not be. Rather a capable non-communist ANC comrade in a leadership position, we say, than a less capable ANC member who happens to be a communist.” Oh gosh! There's another potentially veiled insult. Cronin would prefere efficient and effective capitalists in the ANC than ineffective communists. Again, how can that be a problem? Oh wait, maybe Shivambu realises that Malema is basically an incapable and ineffective croney capitalist. Oh well...

Cronin makes several other coherent comments:

1. Recent bank bailouts could be considered 'socialism for capitalists'

2. Better to quote it, “public sector ownership, on its own, is no guarantee that this public property will not be plundered by senior management for their own private accumulation purposes.” And also, “It would be the height of hypocrisy, by the way, to be calling for "nationalisation" on the one hand, while being intimately involved in the private plundering of public resources on the other.” Ahah! I can see why Shivambu might dislike that - no lining the pockets. Poor Floyd.
   

3. “In advancing our perspective on socialisation, including progressive nationalisation, the SACP fully intends to locate this advocacy, and any other discussion on nationalisation/ socialisation, within the context of our shared alliance strategic priorities - jobs and sustainable livelihoods; health-care; education; rural development; and fighting crime and corruption. We must all guard against the opportunistic appropriation of "nationalisation", treating it as a stand-alone issue and using it as a rhetorical badge of "radicalism". Any progressive call for nationalisation needs be a coherent and do-able part of an overall democratic programme.” Wait, you mean Cronin actually wants to have democratic processes? You mean he doesn't want to be populist. Floyd, Floyd, Floyd how is this not constructive?
   

4. “Grand-standing doesn't help. Threatening comrades that you won't vote for them in future elective conference unless they support your position is infantile and unhelpful.” Ahah, there it is again, not-so-veiled criticism of grandstanders like Malema and Floyd. Understably, Floyd doesn't like it. Floyd labels all people who disagrees with him 'reactionaries' or 'counter-revolutionaries'. Evidently Floyd doesn't understand Democracy or Freedom of Speech. Poor Floyd.
   

5. “The current crisis around governance, golden hand-shakes, exorbitant tariffs, and failures to actually effectively deliver in many SOEs provides us with an opportunity to advance (not the cause of privatisation, as the DA will do) but rather their effective and increasing socialisation - i.e. subordination to the logic of meeting social needs not private profits.” Ahah! Something else constructive that Floyd doesn't think is constructive: a clearly articulated position on nationalisation. But Floyd doesn't seem to like being articulate. Poor Floyd.
   

So I don't venture into political commentary too regularly, but I thought I'd highlight the role of evidence in the recent ANCYL vs. The Star conflict. The Star ran a report on the lifestyle of SA leaders, beginning with Julius Malema. ANCYL then responded saying that the report was 'untrue and opportunistic'. So let's go with the claims and counterclaims, the evidence presented, and the interpretation of this by the parties. One general comment, the ANCYL representatives evidently don't understand redundancy because they kept referring to 'untrue fabrication's, by its nature a fabrication is untrue, else it would not be fabrication, therefore calling it an untrue fabrication simply evidences your own silliness. Anyway, on to the claims and the evidence.

• The Star claimed that Malema owned two houses worth R4,6 million that he bought with cash. ANCYL responded saying he didn't buy them for cash but 'like every body [sic] else, he has purchased whatever houses or property registered in his name through banks.' The relevant evidence here is embodied in housing deeds and reports claiming the houses are worth R3,6 million and R1 million each, not whether the houses were bought with cash or not. Does ANCYL produce counter-evidence about him not owning the houses, which is what is relevant given that the article is about Malema's lifestyle? No, they do not produce such evidence.The argue that the report is false because Malema did not buy the houses for 'cash'. Irrelevant. Fail ANCYL.
  
• The Star claimed that Malema had Johnny Walker gold worth R700 and Moët et Chandon 'French Champagne [sic - redundant because Champagne must be French] at his house warming party and that a famous DJ did the music. The Star did not know how much the party cost in total. ANCYL could provide the evidence by giving records of the party's cost and confirm whether or not these items were consumed. They could provide photographs of the party which may or may not indicate whether such beverages were consumed. This would be evidence. My quick inspection suggests The Star had the right price for Johnny Walker Gold, though it could have been donated. Even so that would be relevant. Fail ANCYL.
  
• Staying on the party, The Star reported, "A police reservist said at the time that he was assaulted by the youth league leader. Neighbours complained about the noise and mess that Malema's party had caused." ANCYL did not comment on this and did not present any counterevidence, that is they did not produce evidence indicating that Malema did not assault the reservist and they did not produce evidence indicating that neighbors did not complain about the party. Not particularly relevant, I know, but still potentially important. Fail ANCYL.
  
• The Star reported that sources claim that Malema's salary is R20 000 a month. ANCYL countered by saying that was 'far from the truth'. That doesn't help. They should print his payslip and lead the way against corruption by making his bank transactions transparent and provide evidence that Malema isn't involved in any corrupt relationships. That would help to explain how Malema is living beyond his means. Maybe his salary is greater than R20 000, which would in itself be valuable public information. Fail ANCYL.
  
• The Star made the following claim about vehicles: "The 28-year-old politician owns a black Mercedes-Benz AMG, which retails at R734 000, and reportedly drives an Aston Martin and a red Range Rover Sport, too. Last night he went to a lecture at Wits University in a brand-new white Range Rover - with no number plates - which sells for R1,2m." ANCYL responded by saying, "The second untrue fabrication is an impression created through the report that Cde Julius owns four expensive cars. We like to state on record that Cde Julius has one car in his name." The Star did not say Malema owned four cars, they said he owns one and has driven or been reported as driving another three. The one he owns is worth R734 000. What would be relevant to know is how he afforded that car given the evidence about his salary. Also, it would be relevant to know who owns the other three vehicles. It is of public interest if an official in the youth league of the national governing party owns and drives vehicles that are priced more than houses in some areas of South Africa. Fail ANCYL.
  
• The Star reports that Malema is the director of four companies: 101 Junjus Trading CC, Blue Nightingale Trading 61, Ever Roaring Investment and SGL Engineering Projects. The relevance, again, is that he is a leader in the youth league of the national governing party. The Star has the evidence of this in copies of registration documents or something similar (I assume, The Star doesn't say in the report). ANCYL did not respond to this claim. Fail ANCYL.
  
• The Star reported that Malema attended a press conference in a Gucci suit, and sported a Breitling watch worth about R250 000 (prices for these are obtainable online and, I assume, this can be verified photographically). ANCYL did not respond to this. Again, where Malema gets the money for these items is relevant because of his role as in the youth league of the national governing party. Fail ANCYL.
  
• The Star followed journalistic protocols and contact Floyd Shivambu, ANCYL spokesperson for his comment on the report. He said, "I think you need to rethink what you are doing. What business is this of yours? How dare you call me and ask for comment on this?" Let's consider these three sentences. The first sounds like a threat (See also the report by ANCYL linked to above with more threats). The second asks about whose business is it; as I already explained it is in the public interest to know about the spending, salary, funding and relationships of its leaders, which explains why it's The Star's business. Moreover, Pravin Gordhan, SA Finance Minister has explained that targeted personal audits would occur to increase transparency and decrease corruption. On the third sentence, it shows that Shivambu evidently does not understand journalistic integrity which might require that the newspaper contact a spokesperson before publishing a potentially damaging story. Fail ANCYL.