Michael Crichton passed away at the age of 66. Here's a very insightful essay he wrote on the state of modern science.

Interesting post, reprinted below, from one of my favorite economics blogs. I hope there are voucher programs by the time I have kids so I can afford to send them to a private school if I want.

I'm a parent of three in NYC. Where do I get to vote on education policy here? Tell me.

BTW, the NYC Council last year passed a campaign finance reform bill, "the toughest in the nation", that strictly cracks down on campaign contributions and lobbying by private citizens -- like, oh, parents -- but exempts ... guess who?... from the rules.

Yes, you guessed right, the government workers' unions!

"The City Council speaker, Christine C. Quinn ... has repeatedly drawn a distinction between unions negotiating with the city for better pay and benefits, and [others] vying for lucrative land deals or government contracts." NYT, 6/28/07

(So we see that a goverment contract with a union isn't a government contract!)

And guess who is the #1 campaign contributor and biggest spending lobbyist in NYS. Why ... the teachers union!

Thus, as a parent not only do I have no vote on education matters, but I am even prohibited from trying to bribe politicians on equal terms with the schools unions -- only unions now can legally buy politicians!

Megan McArdle's Blog

If these computers are even in a position to be exposed hypothetically to viruses, the system is already completely trashed and needs to be thrown out.

My girlfiriend has fibromyalgia, so I've been researching it intensively for the past few weeks.

There's been a lot of good research since 2000 or so, and it seems many doctors just haven't kept up to date.

There have been attempts to describe FM as a psychological disease, and sections of the brain do seem to perform differently in people with FM. However a huge part of the problem seems to be this; people with FM just can't get deep sleep. And without deep sleep, your body doesn't produce much Human Growth Hormone. Insufficient levels of HGH account for a huge number characteristics of FM's symptoms including elevated neuropeptide Y, low levels of cortisol and abnormal leptin levels.

Restoration of human growth hormone to normal levels drastically reduces symptoms (but doesn't eliminate them completely) after 6 months.

Other effects of FM include inability to produce sufficient dopamine in response to pain and an abnormal 'gatekeeping' function that causes people to be hypersensitive to external stimuli.

FM seems to be caused by extreme stress, and half of all cases of post traumatic stress disorder are equivalent to FM.

I have a moral diellema. I have a job possibility as an instructional designer with Anheiser Busch for more than double my salary.  My girlfriend is, to put it bluntly, opposed to this. I don't blame her. Her father seems to have had some trouble with alcohol, so the bad association is understandable. The question remains, though, what should I do. Personally, I have no ethical qualms with the company, even though I avoid alcohol myself. But I don't want to upset her.

Questions, comments, deep thoughts?  

Who decided that "the  hands on childrens museum" was an appropriate name?

A recent discussion on another blog about the dangers of the Supreme Court's Kelo decision generated over 100 comments. Kelo, to give a breif explanation, was the last of a series of decisions expanding the government's powers of eminent domain. It allowed  the government to take land from a private individual and give it to a corporation, based on the justification that the move would increase tax revenue. The backlash has been tremendous.
This was probably due to the fact that the expanded government powers weren't limited to poor 'blighted' neighiborhoods but also threatened wealither ones. Many states have enacted laws which forbid the government from stealing private property for some one else's private use, even if the reallocation would increase tax revenue.

More than 93% of the American population is opposed to the results of the decision. My previous posting was in regards to progressive vs. conservative opposition. I think that I may have overstated conservative opposition and understated progressive opposition in that post. Nader and Dean have both condemned Kelo. Volokh gives an interesting explanation of how Bush's "executive order" banning Kelo-style takings actually supports them. And while the justices who opposed Kelo were described as having a 'conservative judicial philosophy' they were appointed by Democrats, while the supposedly 'liberal' judges were the reverse.

Though in their defense, one blogger writes;

"In fact, the "liberal" justices in Kelo did exactly the opposite of what conservatives always complain they do; they refused to read into the Constitution a textually-dubious right, and instead left the issue to be decided by state and local governments, who are better able to address these issues anyway. If the dissenters had prevailed and the Court had drawn an arbitrary line been "good" economic redevelopment takings and "bad" economic redevelopment takings, it would only have invited endless litigation and discouraged any action by the political branches of government.

Granted, I've still seen a good deal more conservative or libertarian blogs on Kelo than social-liberal blogs. In part, this may be a matter of priorities; regard for property rights vs. (other more important) human rights in terms of the respective political bases. However given the above, part of the conservative base's rush to blame Kelo on "the opposition" may have been, in fact, defensive.

Because the theft of private property for the sake of corporate development in Kelo was justified as supporting "the public good," eventually, the debate spilled over into a broader discussion of economics and the "public good."

Generally speaking, why are some nations blighted with malaria, while we've managed to eradicate the disease within our own borders decades ago? Use of pesticides helps, certainly, but I don't think that's the end of the story.

Is innovation good? And if so, what types of governments or economies would slow the rate of innovation?

In a recent discussion with my girlfriend, she referred to her time in Uganda and how the most effective method to solve these problems was not to create reliance on foreign aid, but instead to be a "change agent" and alter culture from within. This seems like a good method to me.

In some cultures people tend to view all their income as disposable income and don't save or invest. Thus, there is no economic growth outside the accumulation of anecdotal wisdom through the generations. People need to invest, and need to feel that their investments will not be stolen. (Kelo impedes this, by threatening private property) Similarly, strong family structures promote investment in the next generation. And the American system of venture capitalism, angel investing, and IPOs has been helpful in seeing that the best businesses get the money that they need to grow. And that money is provided by people who are very interested in making good choices about who they give their funds to.

Government corruption of any form is a tremendous impediment to growth. When I lived in the Philippines, the country could barely fund its schools due to corruption. Policemen took bribes rather than writing tickets (I was in a cab and got to actually see this happen), those involved in school funds frequently stole or misdirected money to their own ends, Arroyo was caught on tape having rigged the election, and the Philippine stock market is so rife with insider trading that it largely fails in its purpose. (To help businesses generate capital for growth and insure liquidity.) To put it simply, for a country to be successful economically, people have to be able to trust one another.

Statist governments like the Soviet Union, and even the (relatively less corrupt) modern socialist democracies like Sweden are evidence that too much government control of the economy slows growth.

Sweeden's current economy manages to rack up debt even without the US's dramatic millitary expenditures and grow far more slowly than it's younger self.

Sweeden previously had a lower tax rate, no taxes on investment, was the most conservative, economically, and was the first to rebound from the Great Depression.

Equality of opportunity is important. Pre-colonial India involved a caste system which effectively prevented large portions of its population from capitalizing on their natural abilities. Many societies had similar divisions. The Roman system at least allowed some flexibility from generation to generation. Judiasm and Christianity are both include some ideological opposition to slavery, even though the faiths account for its existance within their tenants. Likewise, publicly funded education is important in this regard, since time lost in childhood is difficult to make up as an adult.

Price controls, subsidies, and tax breaks to specific businesses to induce them to relocate are all impediments on the free market and inefficient. Inefficiency means that there's less 'stuff' like medical care, good education, or other crucial goods and services to go around.

Finally, P.J. O'Rourke noted that lack of government control is not enough. Relatively anarchical societies like Romania are often violent and poor. The only possible exception I can think of to this is the breif-lived African nation of Biafra, which was an anarchy based on an extended family structure, and was relatively effective during its breif existance.

Industrialized nations, due to improved clenliness, an understanding of disease theory, and antibiotics, are enjoying a temporary break from pathogenic diseases which were the #1 cause of death for most of human history. Increased sexual promiscuity may threaten this. Paul Ewald makes a powerful argument that sexual promiscuity doesn't just spread disease, but actually helps it evolve into more deadly forms. HIV is one example of this, and the NIH, operating under an old model of infectious disease, seems slow to recognize this fact. Also, antibiotic resistance is developing rapidly because of overuse on humans and on livestock.

However control of disease is pretty easy for any modern country with a good economy and strong family structure. Epidemics take their biggest hit when disesases are simply not allowed to spread. Disease in general is not prevented only by the availability of drugs and vaccines to fight infections, but by changing the environment so that disease cannot cycle from host to host. Furthermore, STDs like AIDS are of such a nature (rapidly changing viral capsid) that traditional vaccines are certain to fail.

The crucial thing to a society's well-being seems to be, not redistribution of wealth, but finding ways to actually increase the total wealth that exists in a society. That's where any prosperity we enjoy comes from. My life is generally improved if my income has 20% more value each year, even if my neighibor's income has 100% more value. The only time that this becomes a problem is if we're competing for fixed quantity resources like land, or if we want to purchase legal services or possibly in politics. Though even in politics, if 90% of the population makes an additional 20% they can still balance out a 100% increase in the upper 10%. And if we're actually creating value by making new cars, new phones, new clothes, then it doesn't matter very much what my neighbor makes, because we can both share slices of a larger pie.

These problems of political and economic organization are basic.
Failure to solve them leaves a society open to a host of other problems, including disease, institutionalized theft, and a state of poverty that, from an historical vantage point, seems the natural state of human existance.

Last night I planted a watermelon in a big pot on my shelf. By this morning, it had already wrapped its tendrils around the metal of the grid of the shelf above it. Amazing.

A conservative (though intelligent and scrupulously honest) friend of mine points out a number of serious flaws in some of the coverage of various "abstinence-only" studies.

• Some of the studies called "abstinence only" aren't really abstenince only

• Some note that 'rates of sexual activity doubled under abstinece only programs' when the 'doubling' is caused by the kids being studied aging from 13 to 15. So 15 year olds have sex more often than 13 year olds. Wow! Thanks for the helpful interpretation of the research, guys (and kids in surrounding areas not in the program still had higher rates of teen pregnancy)

• and some programs are very effective, but only on particular types of kids (high acheiving, two parent homes, for instance) whereas low acheiving kids seem to be less affected by any type of education. The high acheivers are lumped in with the low acheivers, and no significant result is found.

• The often repeated fear that abstinence only education will decrease condom use compared to no education at all seems totally unfounded.

The only question is, 'is abstinence only education better than abstinence plus condoms'? And if so, under what circumstances? I don't claim to know the answer. My mind is open. But I'd suspect that areas with much higher rates of teen pregnancy would benefit more from abstinence plus condoms. Of course, the question there is; do some of the girls in high-teen-pregnancy areas actually want to get pregnant. I had one good friend who was trying to get pregant ever since she hit 18. If these girls want to get pregnant, talking about condoms will do no good at all.

link1

link2


STDs seem to be increasing, and viruses like CMV (transmitted via saliva) which were previously viewed as harmless have been shown to have lifelong effects in some cases. Teen pregnancy is rising. The prospects for a girl pregant in her teens can have intra-generational consequences. So these things are important.

If anyone has a reaction to either of these linked posts, I'd like to hear it.