Dispatches from District 48
Archive for December 2007
"This prehistoric pet interacts and behaves like a one-week-old dinosaur."
Uh, right. Based on substantial observational data, I am sure. More correct statement: "This toy behaves just like the baby dinosaurs you saw that were so cute in that Spielberg movie."
Many free websites (like newspapers and forums) require an email address to sign up. To make sure you give them a real one, they send you a password or activation code, usually within 60 seconds, by email.
Guerrilla Mail will issue you an email address that is good for 15 minutes. You don't even have to leave the web site, just hit refresh and any emails you receive show up there on the screen and can even be replied to. The only problem is that this will leave you with an impossible list of user ID's, but it is great for, say, forums where I only need to post one time (say with a customer support question).
Via this list, via Tom Kirkendall
Sports columnist Stephen A. Smith fires off an over-the-top rant at bloggers:
"And when you look at the internet business, what's dangerous about it
is that people who are clearly unqualified get to disseminate their
piece to the masses. I respect the journalism industry, and the fact of
the matter is ...someone with no training should not be allowed to have
any kind of format whatsoever to disseminate to the masses to the level
which they can. They are not trained. Not experts."
Despite its wackiness, we can still draw some useful observations:
"Therefore, there's a total disregard, a level of wrecklessness that
ends up being a domino effect. And the people who suffer are the common
viewers out there and, more importantly, those in the industry who
haven't been fortunate to get a radio or television deal and only rely
on the written word. And now they've been sabotaged. Not because of me.
Or like me. But because of the industry or the world has allowed the
average joe to resemble a professional without any credentials
whatsoever."He can't even complete the sentence with the window dressing justification that this is for the consumers before he gets to the real people he is trying to protect, ie traditional media personalities like himself. You know, trained professionals. You could subsititute attorneys, doctors, nurses, real estate agents, funeral directors, massage therapists, hair braiders, fishing guides and any other licensed or unionized professional and find the same speech given somewhere at some time.
I end such a discussion, as always, with Milton Friedman:
The justification offered [for licensing] is always the same: to protect the consumer. However, the reason
is demonstrated by observing who lobbies at the state legislature for
the imposition or strengthening of licensure. The lobbyists are
invariably representatives of the occupation in question rather than of
the customers. True enough, plumbers presumably know better than anyone
else what their customers need to be protected against. However, it is
hard to regard altruistic concern for their customers as the primary
motive behind their determined efforts to get legal power to decide who
may be a plumber.
I wasted a lot of time yesterday with this geometry problem. I have about 12 pieces of paper here that look like a Mondrian retrospective, cutting new triangles and parallel lines. Still don't have the proof yet, so I thought I would see if I could pull some of your productivity down with mine. If you are like me, you will decide that the answer is trivial about twice in the first five minutes, both times discovering you have not actually gotten to the answer.
The Question, as asked (surprisingly) by a global warming believer:
One curious aspect of this result is that it
is also well known [Houghton et al., 2001] that the same models that
agree in simulating the anomaly in surface air temperature differ
significantly in their predicted climate sensitivity. The cited range
in climate sensitivity from a wide collection of models is usually 1.5
to 4.5 deg C for a doubling of CO2, where most global climate models
used for climate change studies vary by at least a factor of two in
equilibrium sensitivity.The question is: if climate models differ by a factor of 2
to 3 in their climate sensitivity, how can they all simulate the global
temperature record with a reasonable degree of accuracy. Kerr
[2007] and S. E. Schwartz et al. (Quantifying climate change"“too rosy a
picture?, available at www.nature.com/reports/climatechange, 2007)
recently pointed out the importance of understanding the answer to this
question. Indeed, Kerr [2007] referred to the present work and the
current paper provides the "˜"˜widely circulated analysis'' referred to
by Kerr [2007]. This report investigates the most probable explanation
for such an agreement. It uses published results from a wide variety of
model simulations to understand this apparent paradox between model
climate responses for the 20th century, but diverse climate model
sensitivity.
Yesterday, I noted Al Gore bragging that he played a critical role in passing current biofuel mandates, making him the father of ethanol, not just the Internet. The great goddess of irony is having a field day:
Environmentalists are warning against expanding the production of
biofuels, noting the proposed solution to global warming is actually
causing more harm than it is designed to alleviate. Experts report
biodiesel production, in particular, is causing the destruction of
virgin rainforests and their rich biodiversity, as well as a sharp rise
in greenhouse gas emissions.Opponents of biofuels read like a Who's Who of environmental
activist groups. The Worldwatch Institute, World Conservation Union,
and the global charity Oxfam warn that by directing food staples to the
production of transport fuels, biofuels policy is leading to the
starvation and further impoverishment of the world's poor.On November 15, Greenpeace's Rainbow Warrior unfurled a large banner
reading "Palm Oil Kills Forests and Climate" and blockaded a tanker
attempting to leave Indonesia with a cargo full of palm oil.
Greenpeace, which warns of an imminent "climate bomb" due to the
destruction of rich forests and peat bogs that currently serve as a
massive carbon sink, reports groups such as the World Wildlife Fund,
Conservation International, and Flora and Fauna International have
joined them in calling for an end to the conversion of forests to
croplands for the production of biofuels"The rush to address speculative global warming concerns is once
again proving the law of unintended consequences," said James M.
Taylor, senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland
Institute. "Biofuels mandates and subsidies are causing the destruction
of forests and the development of previously pristine lands in a
counterproductive attempt to improve the environment."Some of the world's most effective carbon sinks are being destroyed
and long-stored carbon is now being released into the atmosphere in
massive quantities, merely to make wealthy Westerners feel like they
are 'doing something' to address global warming. The reality is, they
are making things worse," Taylor noted.
Many government programs have both a stated justification as well as a second, unstated justification which is the real reason that politicians support the program. For example, many regulations are portrayed as pro-consumer when in fact their real utility is in protecting a favored company or political donor from new competition.
The same is true for progressive taxation. The public logic is usually about the rich paying a "fair share" or reducing income inequality (by cutting down the oaks to give the maples more sunshine). However, progressive taxation pays rich dividends to politicians looking to increase the size of government and their own personal power. Some time in the last 10 years, we crossed an invisible line where less than half of American families pay for effectively all government programs (leaving aside Social Security).
This means that when any politician stands up and proposes a new program, a majority of Americans know that they are not going to pay for it. In fact, the situation is even more obvious when you consider new programs at the margin. If you listen to the Democratic debates, nearly every candidate is proposing to pay for his or her expensive programs via new taxes aimed solely at the top 10 or 20% of earners. Every time they propose a program, there is an unstated but increasing clear clause "and 80% of you won't have to pay anything for this." Already, we see many states funding new programs with surcharges on the rich. Here is but one example:
California voters agreed to tax the rich to support public mental health
services.More than half of them (53.3 percent) voted last month in favor of
Proposition 63, which will impose a tax surcharge of 1 percent on the taxable
personal income above $1 million to pay for services offered through the
state's existing mental health system. The initiative will generate an
estimated $700 million a year....Richard A. Shadoan, M.D., a past president of the CPA, wrote in Viewpoints
in the September 3 issue of Psychiatric News, "The scope of the
program and its tax-the-rich source will provoke a debate. But it's an
argument worth having to make California face the neglect of not providing
treatment to more than 1 million people with mental illness."
So what happened? I don't know how many people make a million dollars in California, but it is certainly less than 5% of the population. So the headline should read "53.3% of people voted to have less than 5% of the people pay for an expensive new program." If the 53.3% thought it was so valuable, why didn't they pay for it? Well, it is clear from the article that the populace in general has been asked to do so in the past and refused. So only when offered the chance to approve the program if a small minority paid for it did they finally agree. This is the real reason for progressive taxation. (by the way, these 53.3% will now feel really good about themselves, despite the fact they will contribute nothing, and will likely piss on millionaires next chance they get, despite the fact that they are the ones who will pay for the program).
Ultimate Example of Progressive Taxation
My story today comes from the Roman Empire just after the death of Julius Caesar. At the time, three groups vied for power: Octavian (Augustus) Caesar, Mark Antony, and republican senators under Brutus and Cassius. Long story short, Octavian and Antony join forces, and try to raise an army to fight the republicans, who have fled Italy. They needed money, but worried that a general tax would turn shaky public opinion in Rome against them. So they settled on the ultimate progressive tax: They named about 2500 rich men and ordered them killed, with their estates confiscated by the state.
This approach of "proscriptions" had been used before (e.g. Sulla) but never quite as obviously just for the money. In the case of Octavian and Antony, though nominally sold to the public as a way to eliminate enemies of Rome, the purpose was very clearly to raise money. All of their really dangerous foes had left Rome with the Republicans. The proscriptions targeted men of wealth, some of whom had been irritants to Octavian or Antony in the past (e.g. Cicero) but many of whom had nothing to do with anything. Proscribed men were quoted as saying "I have been killed by my estates."
I wonder how many of today's progressives would be secretly pleased by this approach?
Many government programs have both a stated justification as well as a second, unstated justification which is the real reason that politicians support the program. For example, many regulations are portrayed as pro-consumer when in fact their real utility is in protecting a favored company or political donor from new competition.
The same is true for progressive taxation. The public logic is usually about the rich paying a "fair share" or reducing income inequality (by cutting down the oaks to give the maples more sunshine). However, progressive taxation pays rich dividends to politicians looking to increase the size of government and their own personal power. Some time in the last 10 years, we crossed an invisible line where less than half of American families pay for effectively all government programs (leaving aside Social Security).
This means that when any politician stands up and proposes a new program, a majority of Americans know that they are not going to pay for it. In fact, the situation is even more obvious when you consider new programs at the margin. If you listen to the Democratic debates, nearly every candidate is proposing to pay for his or her expensive programs via new taxes aimed solely at the top 10 or 20% of earners. Every time they propose a program, there is an unstated but increasing clear clause "and 80% of you won't have to pay anything for this." Already, we see many states funding new programs with surcharges on the rich. Here is but one example:
California voters agreed to tax the rich to support public mental health
services.More than half of them (53.3 percent) voted last month in favor of
Proposition 63, which will impose a tax surcharge of 1 percent on the taxable
personal income above $1 million to pay for services offered through the
state's existing mental health system. The initiative will generate an
estimated $700 million a year....Richard A. Shadoan, M.D., a past president of the CPA, wrote in Viewpoints
in the September 3 issue of Psychiatric News, "The scope of the
program and its tax-the-rich source will provoke a debate. But it's an
argument worth having to make California face the neglect of not providing
treatment to more than 1 million people with mental illness."
So what happened? I don't know how many people make a million dollars in California, but it is certainly less than 5% of the population. So the headline should read "53.3% of people voted to have less than 5% of the people pay for an expensive new program." If the 53.3% thought it was so valuable, why didn't they pay for it? Well, it is clear from the article that the populace in general has been asked to do so in the past and refused. So only when offered the chance to approve the program if a small minority paid for it did they finally agree. This is the real reason for progressive taxation. (by the way, these 53.3% will now feel really good about themselves, despite the fact they will contribute nothing, and will likely piss on millionaires next chance they get, despite the fact that they are the ones who will pay for the program).
Ultimate Example of Progressive Taxation
My story today comes from the Roman Empire just after the death of Julius Caesar. At the time, three groups vied for power: Octavian (Augustus) Caesar, Mark Antony, and republican senators under Brutus and Cassius. Long story short, Octavian and Antony join forces, and try to raise an army to fight the republicans, who have fled Italy. They needed money, but worried that a general tax would turn shaky public opinion in Rome against them. So they settled on the ultimate progressive tax: They named about 2500 rich men and ordered them killed, with their estates confiscated by the state.
This approach of "proscriptions" had been used before (e.g. Sulla) but never quite as obviously just for the money. In the case of Octavian and Antony, though nominally sold to the public as a way to eliminate enemies of Rome, the purpose was very clearly to raise money. All of their really dangerous foes had left Rome with the Republicans. The proscriptions targeted men of wealth, some of whom had been irritants to Octavian or Antony in the past (e.g. Cicero) but many of whom had nothing to do with anything. Proscribed men were quoted as saying "I have been killed by my estates."
I wonder how many of today's progressives would be secretly pleased by this approach?
I really wanted to make a serious point about TJIC's post on Medicare overpaying for medical devices. However, that may be nearly impossible because the post selects "penis pumps" as the example medical device, and it is difficult to have a meaningful political dialog over penis pumps:
amount Medicare spent last year on penis pumps so that old can could stand at attention: $21 million
average price/ pump Medicare paid: $450
cost of the identical pump online: $108
Well, I will try anyway. I am sure if someone pointed this out in the Democratic debate as a potential issue with letting the government, famed for buying $800 hammers, run our health care system, they would all have stated piously that such things would not happen under their plan. But how? I mean, this kind of government waste has been going on for time immemorial. It is so closely tied to the unchangeable incentives of government managers that it could rightly be called a feature of rather than a bug in the system.
But I think I have figured it out. This is why most socialized health care systems do not allow one to go out of system to get private care. By banning all private care, the government eliminates all those irritating private analogs that might demonstrate they are inefficient. So, in the example above, the government typically tackles the problem not by reducing the $450 paid by Medicare, but banning the private sales of such devices so no annoying snoop can uncover the fact that a private system could have delivered it for 1/4 the price. Genius!
It is good to know that Al Gore is proud of supporting, even "saving," corn-based ethanol (from a pro-ethanol site):
Vice-President Al Gore
Third Annual Farm Journal Conference, December 1, 1998
http://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/EOP/OVP/speeches/farmj.html"I
was also proud to stand up for the ethanol tax exemption when it was
under attack in the Congress -- at one point, supplying a tie-breaking
vote in the Senate to save it. The more we can make this home-grown
fuel a successful, widely-used product, the better-off our farmers and
our environment will be."
It is good to know that when the economic and environmental toll from our disastrous subsidization of corn ethanol is finally tallied, we will know where to send the bill.
Update: More Here on Ethanol Craziness
