Blog

A good piece in the Times about the evolution of “Big Data” and using data to make decisions. The crux of the article is the need for people who can interpret the mess of data.

A Forrester Research report, published Friday, provides some leavening perspective on the big data phenomenon. The report is based on a survey of 60 Forrester clients who are using or experimenting with big data computing. It tries to define big data, assess its current applications and offer tips for corporate managers.

The takeaway points, from reading the report and an interview with a co-author, include: big data is an applied science project in most companies, and a major potential constraint is not the cost of the computing technology but the skilled people needed to carry out these projects — the data scientists. …

Indeed, big data is about finding patterns in the proverbial noise of vast, unstructured data sets…

Yet if the tools are comparatively low-cost, the skills needed are specialized and technical. Exploring for patterns in the data is not yet for the corporate rank and file.

“In big data today,” Mr. Evelson said, “it’s all about programming. You need Java programmers, computational statisticians and mathematicians.”

The above quote made me think a lot about FantasySCOTUS. When we start looking at the data, we really don’t even know what question we want to answer. In many respects, the data point out trends and patterns totally divorced from common sense or preconceived notions.

Ann Althouse, paging Barry Friedman:

By the way, I think the decision in the case is likely to track the will of the people, as perceived by the Court. So, it’s important to advocates to create the appearance of public acceptance or public outrage over the law. This demonstration of public opinion should happen anyway as the presidential campaigns move forward. It will be fascinating to see what happens when the Supreme Court decision plops into that discourse.

This quote from FDR makes me relish in the virtue of doing nothing.

The country needs and, unless I mistake its temper, the country demands bold, persistent experimentation. It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.

Far too often, doing something is worse than doing nothing.

Todd Zywicki has a great piece about the unintended (but not unforeseen) consequences of Dodd Frank on banking customers–particularly the poorest consumers, who will not be able to afford the new feeds imposed on checking accounts.

Faced with a dramatic cut in revenues (estimated to be $6.6 billion by Javelin Strategy & Research, a global financial services consultancy), banks have already imposed new monthly maintenance fees—usually from $36 to $60 per year—on standard checking and debit-card accounts, as well as new or higher fees on particular bank services. While wealthier consumers have avoided many of these new fees—for example, by maintaining a sufficiently high minimum balance—a Bankrate survey released this week reported that only 45% of traditional checking accounts are free, down from 75% in two years.

 

Some consumers who previously banked for free will be unable or unwilling to pay these fees merely for the privilege of a bank account. As many as one million individuals will drop out of the mainstream banking system and turn to check cashers, pawn shops and high-fee prepaid cards, according to an estimate earlier this year by economists David Evans, Robert Litan and Richard Schmalensee. (Their study was supported by banks.)

 

Consumers will also be encouraged to shift from debit cards to more profitable alternatives such as credit cards, which remain outside the Durbin amendment’s price controls. According to news reports, Bank of America has made a concerted effort to shift customers from debit to credit cards, including plans to charge a $5 monthly fee for debit-card purchases. Citibank has increased its direct mail efforts to recruit new credit card customers frustrated by the increased cost and decreased benefits of debit cards.

 

This substitution will offset the hemorrhaging of debit-card revenues for banks. But it is also likely to eat into the financial windfall expected by big box retailers and their lobbyists. They likely will return to Washington seeking to extend price controls to credit cards.

 

…

 

Conceived of as a narrow special-interest giveaway to large retailers, the Durbin amendment will have long-term consequences for the consumer banking system. Wealthier consumers will be able to avoid the pinch of higher banking fees by increasing their use of credit cards. Many low-income consumers will not.

It seems whenever government attempts to help, they usually end up hurting some other group, and makes the situation invariably worse.

Justice John Paul Stevens on the value of having a copy of the Presidential Oath (which is in any pocket Constitution) handy.

“I should say, it is unwise to feel required to memorize it when you can get a copy of it in your pocket,” he told Toobin, smiling. “And when I went through the vice presidential swear-in, I had the oath in my pocket and I read it. So I didn’t rely on my memory.”

He also called the Court “radical.” Blah. He should talk more about pocket constitutions and less about criticizing the Court on which he served so long.