The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies

In theory, democracy is a bulwark against socially harmful policies. In practice, however, democracies frequently adopt and maintain policies that are damaging. How can this paradox be explained? The influence of special interests and voter ignorance are two leading explanations. I offer an alternative story of how and why democracy fails. The central idea is that voters are worse than ignorant; they are, in a word, irrational -- and they vote accordingly. Despite their lack of knowledge, voters are not humble agnostics; instead, they confidently embrace a long list of misconceptions. Economic policy is the primary activity of the modern state. And if there is one thing that the public deeply misunderstands, it is economics. People do not grasp the "invisible hand" of the market, with its ability to harmonize private greed and the public interest. I call this anti-market bias. They underestimate the benefits of interaction with foreigners. I call this anti-foreign bias. They equate prosperity not with production, but with employment. I call this make-work bias. Finally, they are overly prone to think that economic conditions are bad and getting worse. I call this pessimistic bias. In the minds of many, Winston Churchill's famous aphorism cuts the conversation short: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." But this saying overlooks the fact that governments vary in scope as well as form. In democracies the main alternative to majority rule is not dictatorship, but markets. A better understanding of voter irrationality advises us to rely less on democracy and more on the market

From SRI to ESG: The Changing World of Responsible Investing

The terms socially-responsible investing (SRI), mission-related investing, impact investing and environmental, social and governance (ESG) investing -- all frequently grouped under the heading of responsible investing -- have become a familiar part of the vocabulary of institutional and retail investors. Just what these terms mean in practice, however, and how their practitioners' claims can be impartially assessed, has been less clear. Responsible investing can be broken into three main categories: Socially-responsible investing (SRI) A portfolio construction process that attempts to avoid investments in certain stocks or industries through negative screening according to defined ethical guidelines. Impact investing Investing in projects, companies, fund or organizations with the express goal of generating and measuring effecting mission-related social, environmental or economic change alongside financial returns. Environmental, social and governance (ESG) investing Integrating the three ESG factors into fundamental investment analysis to the extent that they are material to investment performance. While these terms may all be gathered under the term responsible investing, these approaches serve very different purposes. SRI and impact investing use funding and investment activities to express institutional values or advance the institution's mission. In contrast, ESG investing aims to improve investment performance, thereby making additional resources available for mission support. For a long time, SRI was by far the most widely-used of the three approaches. In recent years, however, it has been argued that, although negative screening can be a useful tool for institutions desiring to express ethical, religious or moral values through their investment portfolio, for many it may prove too restrictive. ESG analysis, on the other hand, takes a broader view, examining whether environmental, social and governance issues may be material to a company's performance, and therefore to the investment performance of a long-term portfolio. Thus, while not every institution will choose to engage in SRI or impact investing, fiduciaries of long-term institutional investors should seek to develop a well-reasoned view on their institution's approach to ES

Restoring the Balance: The Second Amendment Revisited

In this article, the Second Amendment is analyzed through a discussion of the history of the right to private arms under English common law, the Second Amendment\u27s legislative history and context, and the United States Supreme Court\u27s decision in United States v. Miller. The articles argues that the private right of keeping arms plays a fundamental role in the constitutional system of checks and balances and that the Second Amendment supports the twin goals of individual and collective defense against violence and aggression. The article concludes that efforts to limit firearms possession to the organized militia undermines these twin goals and that the theories behind such efforts do not withstand constitutional history

WSAmacd handbook 2012-13 PDF edition

The story, syllabus and course information handbook for the MA in Communication Design at Winchester School of Art. www.facebook.com/WSAmac