Open Thread: Baby Tigers

This entry was posted on Sunday, September 13th, 2009 at 1:34 pm and is filed under Random Stuff. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

59 Responses to “Open Thread: Baby Tigers”

Salvador T. Cordova Says:
September 13th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
The real issue with cumulative selection and Dawkins Weasel is not whether natural selection works to select selectively advantantaged targets, but whether the targets Natural Selection (NS) selects result in increased complexity.

Notwithstanding Weasel was a pedagogical example, it taught the wrong idea, namely that NS selects complex coherent structures in the wild. As a general principle this is absolutely false.

Selection selects malfunctioning systems as long as they result in reproductive success. For example, NS is generally viewed to select blind cavefish or other blind creatures in dark environments since eyes are considered metabolically expensive…..this doesn't bode well for what selection selects in the wild. Same for cystic fibrosis and sickle cell anemia.

An argument could be made then that selection helps accumulate dysfunction (as in function according to the engineering sense, not in terms of "reproductive fitness"). As Lewontin pointed out, the Darwinian sense articulated by Darwin was some sort of inherent tie between function and reporductive success. Lewontin and Orr showed this is false, reproductive success could imply just as much dysfunction (in the engineering sense) as function (in the engineering sense).

Weasel does not demonstrate that complexity is the long term achievement, unless of course that is the target. Further, there is no guarantee a selective environment will really exist. Random events often make meaningless the effects of natural selection: witness, random, unlucky extinction. Raup argues the majority of extinciton is by bad luck, not unfitness. See his book: "Bad Genes or Bad Luck". Gould said Raup is the best paleontologist.

The issue with Avida and Weasel is they assume as fact the very thing that Behe is questioning, namely that the parts of complex integrated systems are independently visible to natural selection. This has been disproven as a general principle both theoretically and in the lab.

I mentioned before that evolutionary algorithms fail to resolve password/login pairs and any other number of irreducibly complex or specified complex forms. For all the examples where a selection based algorithms works, there are many more where they are completely useless.

Darwinism implicitly assumes selection toward complexity is easily attainable. This is yet to be theoretically or empirically demonstrated. All that is shown is that selection favors reproductive success, but this favoring of reproductive success has yet to be seen to create novel, deeply integrated structures. What has been seen in the wild is selection favors dysfunction (unless it is reproductively disadvantageous), and this does not bode well for Darwinism.

That is exactly why Natural Selection is not invoked in OOL scenarios. The first life is too deeply integrated to be resolved be visible to selection.

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — September 13, 2009 @ 7:34 pm

MikeGene Says:
September 13th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
Nudging evolution

Comment by MikeGene — September 13, 2009 @ 8:23 pm

dantedanti Says:
September 13th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
I don't know the rules for open thread but im interested so…

can we get a vote from TT'ers on for or against a public option?

no, im against because, or im for because…we get all that everywhere else
just a civil, for or against will do.

im for it

Comment by dantedanti — September 13, 2009 @ 9:08 pm

Bradford Says:
September 13th, 2009 at 10:15 pm
I'm against the so called public option dantedanti. It's a misnomer. An option should infer choice and that's not what PO advocates want. It's about a takeover of 18% of the economy. That's how large the health sector is. If this is truly about those who cannot afford health insurance then remedies should be directed at that part of the population. Leave the rest of us alone.

The biggest issue for health care problems in America is portability. Yet that problem is not addressed by the current proposals. Health care policies should be owned by employees, not the employer. That is unfortunately contrary to most state statutes. Most Americans experience coverage difficulties while in between jobs particularly if unemployment extends longer than expected. If coverage were portable it could be carried by individuals to other jobs and maintained during transitions.

There is also a problem with pre-existing conditions which makes some uninsurable. The government could play a role with this part of the population- relatively small but significant to those affected.

Then there is the cost problem. It's very complex and needs more than a comment to do it justice. There is a need for much greater sophistication in dialogs. There is much more to this than the public option which is not a panacea.

Comment by Bradford — September 13, 2009 @ 10:15 pm

Bradford Says:
September 13th, 2009 at 11:38 pm
From Mike Gene's Nudge link:

Amazon.com: What do you mean by “nudge” and why do people sometimes need to be nudged?

Thaler and Sunstein: By a nudge we mean anything that influences our choices. A school cafeteria might try to nudge kids toward good diets by putting the healthiest foods at front. We think that it’s time for institutions, including government, to become much more user-friendly by enlisting the science of choice to make life easier for people and by gentling nudging them in directions that will make their lives better.

A good example of elitist thinking. Elitists know what is best for the plebians and need to nudge common folk into courses of action deemed better for them by their betters. This type of thinking predominates in Washington today.

Comment by Bradford — September 13, 2009 @ 11:38 pm

Rob R. Says:
September 14th, 2009 at 1:01 am
I am for it.

Comment by Rob R. — September 14, 2009 @ 1:01 am

don provan Says:
September 14th, 2009 at 5:08 am
Bradford: A good example of elitist thinking.

I know what you're saying, but I'm not sure "elitist" is the right term. I mean, sure, to some degree they think they know better, and that's bad enough, but I fear that, over all, the thinking is even more frightening: that government knows better.

Comment by don provan — September 14, 2009 @ 5:08 am

don provan Says:
September 14th, 2009 at 5:20 am
Salvador T. Cordova: The real issue with cumulative selection and Dawkins Weasel is not whether natural selection works to select selectively advantantaged targets, but whether the targets Natural Selection (NS) selects result in increased complexity.

There's only one target: the ability to survive. How can you not know that?

Notwithstanding Weasel was a pedagogical example, it taught the wrong idea, namely that NS selects complex coherent structures in the wild. As a general principle this is absolutely false.

That's not what it teaches at all. It teaches the power of random variation with mechanical selection.

Selection selects malfunctioning systems as long as they result in reproductive success.

You might feel these systems are malfunctioning, but by the measure of reproductive success, that are not.

For example, NS is generally viewed to select blind cavefish or other blind creatures in dark environments since eyes are considered metabolically expensive…..this doesn't bode well for what selection selects in the wild.

Why would selecting wasteful approaches bode well?

Same for cystic fibrosis and sickle cell anemia.

Sickle cell anemia is, of course, a perfect example of evolution in action. Evolution selected an advantageous variation in its native environment, but it became a negative when the genes moved to a different environment.

What's the ID explanation? That the intelligent designer makes hideous mistakes? You think that makes more sense?

An argument could be made then that selection helps accumulate dysfunction (as in function according to the engineering sense, not in terms of "reproductive fitness"). As Lewontin pointed out, the Darwinian sense articulated by Darwin was some sort of inherent tie between function and reporductive success. Lewontin and Orr showed this is false, reproductive success could imply just as much dysfunction (in the engineering sense) as function (in the engineering sense).

Doesn't that suggest that engineering almost certainly isn't behind it?

Comment by don provan — September 14, 2009 @ 5:20 am

Bradford Says:
September 14th, 2009 at 11:32 am
I have a twist on dantedandi's question. It is prompted by the knowledge that in order to make informed choices we should be able to:

1. Define Options
2. Assess their effects.

Accordingly my question is:

What is your perception of how a public option functions and how would it remedy current problems?

Comment by Bradford — September 14, 2009 @ 11:32 am

Bradford Says:
September 14th, 2009 at 11:38 am
Salvador T. Cordova: The real issue with cumulative selection and Dawkins Weasel is not whether natural selection works to select selectively advantantaged targets, but whether the targets Natural Selection (NS) selects result in increased complexity.

dp: There's only one target: the ability to survive. How can you not know that?

"Selectively advantaged" indicates that he is aware of the survival target. He is asking a different question based on an outcome observation. We observe two outcomes. The tendency to survive and increasing complexity. If the first does not inevitably lead to the second then how is complexity accounted for?

Comment by Bradford — September 14, 2009 @ 11:38 am

Bradford Says:
September 14th, 2009 at 11:43 am
I should amend the previous comment to recognize that the tendency to survive is qualified by a history of mass extinctions. A differential survival concept is more relevant but still leaves the complexity issue hanging.

Comment by Bradford — September 14, 2009 @ 11:43 am

don provan Says:
September 14th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Bradford: "Selectively advantaged" indicates that he is aware of the survival target. He is asking a different question based on an outcome observation.

If your analysis is correct, then Sal shouldn't be using the term "targets". I guess I'll have to wait to see how he rephrases his question in light of this.

We observe two outcomes. The tendency to survive and increasing complexity. If the first does not inevitably lead to the second then how is complexity accounted for?

Complexity is accounted for by observing that more sophisticated mechanisms have a tendency to be more effective than earlier, simpler mechanisms. Of course, as we know, development isn't always in the direction of increased complexity. The blind fish are an example of functional simplification.

Comment by don provan — September 14, 2009 @ 12:03 pm

JOHN_A_DESIGNER Says:
September 14th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Here is an issue that I brought up on “The Subject of Navel Gazing” thread:

There is something called the “lemon test,” (Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 ,1971) that has been used by the courts to decide constitutionality in church-state issues in the public schools. There are three criteria to the test:

1. The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
3.The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

The point I am trying to make is that in using his classroom to advocate atheism Provine is in effect trying to inhibit the religious beliefs of his students which is a violation of #2.

I have no wish to have Provine restricted in way he teaches his class. I want professors who want to talk about ID to be given the same liberty.

A couple of other points to keep in mind:

-The “Lemon test” was used, at least in part, by Judge Jones in deciding Kitzmiller vs. Dover.

-Provine has been publicly outspoken in connecting Darwin’s scientific theory with an atheistic world view. For example, in his 1994 debate with Philip Johnson at Stanford University Provine stated: “No ultimate foundations for ethics exist, no ultimate meaning in life exists, and free will is merely a human myth. These are all conclusions to which Darwin came quite clearly.”

I am assuming that he is just as candid in his lectures to his students at Cornell. But, wouldn’t that be inhibiting religion (by trying to persuade them to believe a certain way) and, therefore violating the Lemon test?

- On the other hand, Provine at least in 1994 was an advocate of opening up the debate, at least in University classroom, as the following exchange with Johnson illustrates:

Main Point How can anyone favor teaching creationism in schools? Creationism has no methodology for correcting itself in the face of evidence.

Johnson's Reply "I don't argue that creationism should be taught. We should teach science honestly presenting not only the confirming evidence but also the disconfirming evidence. Students should understand the counter-arguments to the claim that artificial selection demonstrates the ability of undirected and purposeless process to create entirely new kinds of organisms."

Provine's Reply "Let me say one word, too. I really genuinely agree with Phil on this issue. We need to have more discussion in the university communities. I start my course on evolution with the students reading Phil's book. Then he comes and visits. He does more to turn my students into evolutionists than anything else. So I like open debate!"

One final question isn’t there a double standard in the way the Lemon test has been applied?

Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — September 14, 2009 @ 1:15 pm

Salvador T. Cordova Says:
September 15th, 2009 at 9:24 am
We observe two outcomes. The tendency to survive and increasing complexity. If the first does not inevitably lead to the second then how is complexity accounted for?

EXACTLY!!!!!

Loss of complexity (like say the production of insulin) can lead to loss of survival advantage. However, this does not impliy that the increase of survival advantage necessarily led to an increase of complexity (the emergence of insulin) in the first place. There is a subtle but very important distinction.

To give a hypothetical example. Let's say we genetically engineer a bacteria to outcompete with others and it has trait X that gives it survival advantage.

If some time down the road a bacterium loses trait X via mutation, or whatever, and it loses its survival advantage, does that imply trait X was created via natural selection's action on random mutation. ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!! It implies didly squat about the origin of trait X.

Or let say an extremely rare set of mutations happened all at once to create an extremely complex trait, call it trait Y. Say this set of mutations would be so rare that we would call it miraculous. Furthermore, trait Y gives a bacterium superior reproductive ability and then this strain overtakes the species. If this trait is knocked out and causes it to lose survival advantage, does this imply NS created the trait? ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!! It implies didly squat about the origin of trait X. Darwinists only presume NS created it since it is so complex, but this is circular reasoning, not science. In fact there is still the "mutationist" camp of evolutionists who correctly reason, natural selection probably had little to do with the most important features of evolution, witness, NAS member Masotoshi Nei.

Finally, in the wild we see:

1. Random Selection often overtakes Natural Selection: (See Bad Genes or Bad Luck by David Raup). Very complex creatures are simply wiped out by bad luck. Unless of course argues "luck" is a selectively advantaged trait!

2. Natural Selection demonstratably selects for functionaly bad traits. Consider Ghengis Khan who murdered men and raped their widows. He had supposedly many kids. Selectively advantaged, yes, functionally useful? A dubios claim, but exactly what Thronhill, Palmer, and David Buss argue: "A tendency to Rape and Murder are favored by selection." I could cite other examples like blind cave fish, wingless beetles, Sol Spiegelman's experiment, sickle cell anemia, cystic fibrosis (which selects for the heterozygous advantage, which is really bad).

Lee Spetner gave a compelling problem. Let's say a deer becomes functionally advantaged by having either a shorter or longer leg. Length of legs are often controlled by a set of INHIBITORS or PROMOTERS. Assume for the sake of argument an inhibitor shortens the leg, and a promoter lengthens the leg.

Since mutations most likely destroy function consider how the following would happen:

1. Selection favors Lengthening of Leg

Answer: inhibitor damaged and thus selection would favor a disfunctioning inhibitor. Selection would not likely find the emergence of a new and "improved" promoter since the overwhelming majority of mutations lead to breakdown.

2. Selection favors Shortening of Leg

Answer: promoter damaged and thus selection would favor a disfunctioning promoter. Selection would not likely find the emergence of a new and "improved" inhibitor since the overwhelming majority of mutations lead to breakdown.

Thus selection will naturally favor destroyed genotypic features by selecting traits of a favored phenotype. Selection doesn't favor functional improvement in the genome, it actual helps infuse dysfunction in many cases!!!!! If this is the case, how can the Blindwatchmaker possibly have foresight to create watches. Dawkins Weasel doesn't work in nature.

The way Dawkins should have modeled Weasel would be something more akin to Ghegis Khan, where selection favors degenerate forms, not more virtuous ones.

Degenerate forms (not more complex) are more likely the targest natural selection will have available for it in the wild.

HT: Walter ReMine for the Spetner example.
HT: Mike Gene for references to David Buss

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — September 15, 2009 @ 9:24 am

don provan Says:
September 15th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Sal: Darwinists only presume NS created it since it is so complex, but this is circular reasoning, not science.

You're tilting at strawmen. Darwinists don't argue that complexity must be created by natural selection. We can see natural selection at work with our own eyes, so we know for a fact it plays a role, complexity or no complexity.

Maybe you have some specific passage you could quote that uses complexity to support an argument for Darwinism. I've only heard complexity brought up in the context of ID complaints about it.

Comment by don provan — September 15, 2009 @ 3:03 pm

Salvador T. Cordova Says:
September 16th, 2009 at 11:21 am
You're tilting at strawmen. Darwinists don't argue that complexity must be created by natural selection.

Let me qualify this, they argue it when the systems is sufficiently complex, and they do so without any direct observation or any direct empirical evidence. They argue out of pure speculation based on the fact we see selection working on reductions in complexity.

The problems is that irreducible complexity is not visible to selection in gradual parts. Nick Matzke and company and various PNAS papers use circular reasoning to say IC is visible to selection. This is not true. There are far more examples where evolutionary algorithms fail to solve a complex system, and it's a bit disingenous for the evolutionary community to tout the few examples where evolutionary algorithms could in theory (not even in biological reality) create complexity.

The space of problems where a genetic algorithm is no better than random search is far larger than the space where genetic algorithms will find a solution. And there are plenty of complex forms in theory which will prevent a genetic algorithm from succeeding (see Lynch's opening comment in Origin and Architecture of the Genome where he argues selection must actully be disengaged for evolution to mover forward).

Ergo, in general, natural selection will be expected to do nothing to improve toward complexity, especially irreducible complexity. The question is whether IC really does exist in biology. I think there is good evidence it does…..and the IC question is a legitimate scientific question and the IC question is formally separate from whether ID is true or not. (the IC question however is circumstantially important).

We can see natural selection at work with our own eyes, so we know for a fact it plays a role, complexity or no complexity.

But if the majority of novel mutations selected for are bad, then on average selection will tend toward long term dysfunction. Severely bad novel traits (like say lack of a heart in humans) will be selected against, and in that sense selection will preserve against really bad traits. But the long term trend toward dysfunction casts doubt on any sort of ability on average to create complexity. Spetner made a very good illustration of how selection will over the long term on average also infuse damage into the genome.

The Darwinian vision of inevitable progress toward more and more complexity is suspect. Climbing Mount Improbable (a claim by Dawkins) works only in his imagination, not in reality.

For Avida and Weasel to model reality, they need to incorporate Spetner's insights, namely the tendency to select degenerate forms. The NY Times Best Seller was spot on. See: Survival of the Sickest by Dr. Moalem.

The bottom line, arguments about how reproductive success will naturally lead to long term, on average rise in complexity are suspect at best. I argue the claims of NS are theoretically and empirically refuted.

There may be good reasons for being an atheist, but the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution isn't one of them

Lee Spetner

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — September 16, 2009 @ 11:21 am

Bradford Says:
September 17th, 2009 at 9:18 am
One of the abhorent features of this era is the thinking by some that they have a right to allot money derived from taxpayers to whatever project they deem desireable. ACORN is a case in point. It receives millions in federal funding and is looking more and more like a criminal enterprise.

Here

Comment by Bradford — September 17, 2009 @ 9:18 am

Rob R. Says:
September 21st, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Heddle

Comment by Rob R. — September 21, 2009 @ 1:05 pm

David Heddle Says:
September 21st, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Rob R,

Heddle

Thanks for the link.

Comment by David Heddle — September 21, 2009 @ 6:03 pm

Rob R. Says:
September 21st, 2009 at 8:14 pm
You're welcome. I've been following and enjoying your blog for a couple of years now. … Speaking of links, here's one you might like (olegt and nullasalus too):

(Cosmic Variance:) Philosophy and Cosmology: Slow Live-Blogging

Greetings from Oxford, a charming little town across the Atlantic with its very own university. It’s in the United Kingdom, a small island nation recognized for its steak and kidney pie and other contributions to world cuisine. What you may not know is that the UK has also produced quite a few influential philosophers and cosmologists, making it an ideal venue for a small conference that aims to bring these two groups together.
FPRIVATE "TYPE=PICT;ALT=george_ellis" The proximate reason for this particular conference is George Ellis’s 70th birthday party. Ellis is of course a well-known general relativist, cosmologist, and author. Although the idea of a birthday conference for respected scientists is quite an established one, Ellis had the idea of a focused and interdisciplinary meeting that might actually be useful, rather than just bringing together all of his friends and collaborators for a big party. It’s to his credit that they invited as many multiverse-boosters as multiverse-skeptics. (I would go for the party, myself.)
George is currently very interested and concerned by the popularity of the multiverse idea in modern cosmology. He’s worried, as many others are (not me, especially), that the idea of a multiverse is intrinsically untestable, and represents a break with the standard idea of what constitutes “science.” So he and the organizing committee have asked a collection of scientists and philosophers with very different perspectives on the idea to come together and hash things out.
It appears as if there is working wireless here in the conference room, so I’ll make some attempt to blog very briefly about what the different speakers are saying. If all goes well, I’ll be updating this post over the next three days. I won’t always agree with everyone, of course, but I’ll try to fairly represent what they are saying.

Day Two

Pretty cool stuff; makes we wish I were smarter. Right up your alley, though.

Comment by Rob R. — September 21, 2009 @ 8:14 pm

ID guy Says:
September 21st, 2009 at 8:35 pm
don provan:

We can see natural selection at work with our own eyes, so we know for a fact it plays a role, complexity or no complexity.

What we observe with natural selection and what evolutionists are using natural selection for are two very different things.

If we left it to observation then natural selection doesn't help the premise of universal common descent- it appears to prevent it.

Comment by ID guy — September 21, 2009 @ 8:35 pm

nullasalus Says:
September 21st, 2009 at 9:13 pm
Rob R,

Thanks for the link. I too would love to hear David Heddle's take on things there (perhaps a guest post sometime, David, if you're so inclined). For now I have no comment other than to say I'm glad to see the Templeton Foundation continuing to host such interesting events.

Comment by nullasalus — September 21, 2009 @ 9:13 pm

Rob R. Says:
September 21st, 2009 at 11:10 pm
nullasalus:

I too would love to hear David Heddle's take on things there

Me too. For example…

Carroll on Bousso's talk:

about the multiverse in string theory. Note that “multiverse” isn’t really an accurate description; we’re talking about connected regions of space with different low-energy excitations, not some metaphysical collection of completely distinct universes.

This is not what I envision when I hear multiverse. I understand there are different ideas with respect to many worlds, dimensions and so forth but if this definition is true [i.e., "connected regions of space with different low-energy excitations"], isn't it really just a universe still? Either I'm confused or this defintion or idea of a multiverse isn't an accepted or largely agreed upon one. No?

On Rees' (from Day Two link):

If the amplitude of density perturbations were much smaller, the universe would be anemic: you would have fewer first-generation stars, and perhaps no second-generation stars. If the amplitude were much larger, we would form huge black holes very early, and again we might not get stars. But ten times the observed amplitude would actually be kind of interesting. Given an amplitude of density perturbations, there’s an upper limit on the cosmological constant, so that structure can form. Again, larger perturbations would allow for a significantly larger cosmological constant — why don’t we live in such a universe? Similar arguments can be made about the ratio of dark matter to ordinary matter.

Having said all that, we need a fundamental theory to get anywhere. It should either determine all constants of nature uniquely, in which case anthropic reasoning has no role, or it allows ranges of parameters within the physical universe, in which case anthropics are unavoidable.

(bolding mine)Interesting. Never heard that the physical constants could be changed at all much less that it works at the large scale instead of small. I've always understood that they only 'worked' in a very small range. I took a look at the abstract linked in the above quote. Unfortunately, it's not in english (I believe it's french or something):

note that the recent anthropic upper bounds on the cosmological constant Lambda would be invalid if both Q and Lambda could vary and there were no anthropic constraints on Q. The same applies to anthropic bounds on the curvature parameter Omega

I could bug Heddle or olegt all day about all kinds of things in those two blogs but I'd be happy to read whatever they'd like to share. Although it's probably not the type of subject matter that lends itself to lay explanation.

Worth a shot.

Comment by Rob R. — September 21, 2009 @ 11:10 pm

nullasalus Says:
September 22nd, 2009 at 12:50 am
Looking over some of the posts now. Carroll seems to be giving some very brief summaries, and it's understandable he'd focus on what stands out to him in particular. This caught my eye.

Still, there are issues, especially the measure problem: how do you compare different quantities when they’re all infinitely big? (E.g. number of different kinds of observers in the multiverse.) Linde doesn’t think any of the currently proposed measures are completely satisfactory, including the ones he’s invented. A big problem with Boltzmann brains.

Boltzmann Brains? If Linde – who has some pretty interesting ideas on consciousness – is bringing that up, I want more detail. Especially if it's a "big problem". I wonder if this is the line about how BBs will outnumber "real" brains by far, therefore any given person should assume they're a BB.

Of course, there's also this quote.

Another problem is what we mean by “us,” when we’re trying to predict “what observers like us are likely to see.” Are we talking about carbon-based life, or information-processing computers? Help, philosophers!

Sarcasm, I'm sure. Well, I trust. … I hope.

Most strongly, without extreme fine-tuning, the multiverse would not be able to simultaneously explain large tensor modes in the CMB and low-energy supersymmetry.

Anyway, Rob R., if you want to know more about the varieties of multiverse, the wikipedia has a rundown.

It will be interesting to hear Davies' talk on this, since he comes at it from the opposite end: Assume an infinite multiverse is true, then play back just what that means for science. If he's correct, it's a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't kind of situation.

Comment by nullasalus — September 22, 2009 @ 12:50 am

David Heddle Says:
September 22nd, 2009 at 7:31 am
Rob R.,

Never heard that the physical constants could be changed at all much less that it works at the large scale instead of small. I've always understood that they only 'worked' in a very small range.

Just a brief comment. I don’t have time, at the moment, to dig into the papers.

If you are worried that this result would undermine fine-tuning—it does not. A factor of 10 increase on a tight fractional constraint needn’t be all that important for the fine tuning argument. Now if you start stringing together such increases, the story might change.

For example, depending on how the estimate is performed, you will see claims that the cancellations required for the cosmological constant are anywhere from one part in 10^80 to one part in 10^120. The more conservative estimate is forty orders of magnitude less fine tuned than the other—but it makes no practical difference whatsoever for anthropic or fine-tuning arguments—one part in 10^80 is more than enough to get one’s attention.

Likewise with the nonuniformity of the density—usually specified as being between one part in a hundred thousand or one part in a million. If it is ten times less constrained—it is not all that significant. And all the blurb stated was it would be “interesting.” Whether or not in the paper he argues that such a universe can produce rocks, which is the important question—I just don’t know (yet).

I believe what he means on the Q-Lambda question is that you could vary the cosmological constant and still produce a habitable universe if you could also vary Q (the nonuniformity). As he points out, however, this is only true if varying Q doesn’t leave you with a sterile universe.

Comment by David Heddle — September 22, 2009 @ 7:31 am

GringoRoyale Says:
September 22nd, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Anyone know how to rid roots from the sanitary drain lines?
I heard about using Copper Sulfate.
But I'm curious if anyone has any hints of what they might have done (aside from replacing the clay tiles with PVC).

Comment by GringoRoyale — September 22, 2009 @ 8:52 pm

Salvador T. Cordova Says:
September 22nd, 2009 at 11:57 pm
I did not realize the state of Michigan has some very fine wineries. One of the finest wines I ever tasted was the "Ice Wine" from the Blackstar Farms in near Traverse City. Wow. I went there this summer.

They use 80 lbs of grapes to make a single 16 ounce bottle. They harvest the grapes after the frost hits in november to boost the glucose content.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_wine

Ice wine (or icewine, as one word, or in German, Eiswein) is a type of dessert wine produced from grapes that have been frozen while still on the vine. The sugars and other dissolved solids do not freeze, but the water does, allowing a more concentrated grape must to be pressed from the frozen grapes, resulting in a smaller amount of more concentrated, very sweet wine. With ice wines, the freezing happens before the fermentation, not afterwards. Unlike the grapes from which other dessert wines, such as Sauternes, Tokaji, or Trockenbeerenauslese, are made, ice wine grapes should not be affected by Botrytis cinerea or noble rot, at least not to any great degree. Only healthy grapes keep in good shape until the opportunity arises for an ice wine harvest, which in extreme cases can occur after the New Year, on a northern hemisphere calendar. This gives ice wine its characteristic refreshing sweetness balanced by high acidity. When the grapes are free of Botrytis, they are said to come in "clean".

This was truly a divine treat. One can get a tasting for $5.00 at the Blackstar Farm winery there.

Of interest also is there is former monastary run by an ex-nun and ex-priest who got married (perfectly OK in the Roman Catholic church, but they can no longer remain a nun and priest if they marry). They run a very good winery, the Chateu Chantal.

Chateu Chantal's Story

Monastaries have a fine tradition of being good grape growing. Father Francisco Ayala followed the monastic tradition (perhaps not deliberately) and grew some good wine grapes and became filthy rich.

Wine Talk with Francisco Ayala

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — September 22, 2009 @ 11:57 pm

GringoRoyale Says:
September 23rd, 2009 at 12:05 am
I know what I can do about those annoying roots….
I'll have olegt come over and call them "tards" and shame them by derision…. that should halt them in their tracks.

Comment by GringoRoyale — September 23, 2009 @ 12:05 am

Salvador T. Cordova Says:
September 23rd, 2009 at 12:57 am
Wiker argues that Robert Darwin (father of Charles) favored the acceptance of the "God Delusion":

Charles Darwin's father Robert needed no featherbed, as he seems to have been an atheist, but an atheist who was both circumspect in expressing his views and who supported the Anglican Church as a butress against the barbarism of the lower orders who, unless tamed and restrained by religion, would recreate in England the horrors of the French Revolution. Radical thought, while fine enough if it circulated quietly among the upper, closed circles of society, was too heady a wine for the masses–or for women, who, as weaker vessels, also needed the crutch of religion, he believed.

Benjamin Wiker
Life and Lies of Charles Darwin

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — September 23, 2009 @ 12:57 am

nullasalus Says:
September 23rd, 2009 at 1:29 am
Sal,

Isn't it always about those damned lower classes? Well, 'we' of the lower classes, anyway. I'm more than happy to be among their number.

Comment by nullasalus — September 23, 2009 @ 1:29 am

olegt Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Will the admins please fish my comment from the spam queue?

And could someone explain why linking to AtBC is equated with spamming?

Thanks.

Comment by olegt — September 24, 2009 @ 4:31 pm

Guts Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Tell Raevmo/Jure/JarrodF/Hammerstein and the rest of his multiple personalities I said hello as well.

Comment by Guts — September 24, 2009 @ 4:54 pm

JJS P.Eng. Says:
September 25th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Oh no! Not another healthcare article from JJS!!!

Yep, but this is a well-thought article that may just have hit the head on the healthcare problems in both the U.S. and Canada.

Comment by JJS P.Eng. — September 25, 2009 @ 1:32 pm

Rob R. Says:
September 25th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Heddle:

Just a brief comment. I don’t have time, at the moment, to dig into the papers.

You've go some nerve! The next time some random psuedo-anonymous jackoff asks you to explain in simple terms something that's fills thousands of pages of many technical journals that, no doubt, even some experts struggle to understand themselves, you better drop everything (family, friends, research, job, hobbies, what-have-yous) and get to work! I DEMAND satisfaction!

(j/k)

No problem and thanks.

A factor of 10 increase on a tight fractional constraint needn’t be all that important for the fine tuning argument. Now if you start stringing together such increases, the story might change.

I guess my ignorance of math/physics led me to think this was a big deal (that's why I asked). I assume, based on how you worded that, that such "stringing together [of] such increases" has not been done (or has been tried, but failed)?

The thing that most caught my eye was Carroll's reporting that: "Note that “multiverse” isn’t really an accurate description; we’re talking about connected regions of space with different low-energy excitations, not some metaphysical collection of completely distinct universes." This was said, of course, in a room full of expert cosmologists, which made me think I had misunderstood the 'controversy' this whole time.

I've managed to do some reading in the interim and I'm still lost. Is it your understanding that this definition of "multiverse" is the preferred one and/or the one most experts are talking about? Seems to me (still) that the answer is no, but what do I know. Anyway, thanks again for the clarification re: fine-tuning and thanks in advance for any further time you take on this (here or at your place). Enjoy your weekend.

Rob.

Comment by Rob R. — September 25, 2009 @ 2:29 pm

Bradford Says:
September 26th, 2009 at 7:37 am
Questionable numbers and facts linked to health care reform proposals.

OBAMA: "Don't pay attention to those scary stories about how your benefits will be cut. … That will never happen on my watch. I will protect Medicare."

THE FACTS: Obama and congressional Democrats want to pay for their health care plans in part by reducing Medicare payments to providers by more than $500 billion over 10 years. The cuts would largely hit hospitals and Medicare Advantage, the part of the Medicare program operated through private insurance companies.

Although wasteful spending in Medicare is widely acknowledged, many experts believe some seniors almost certainly would see reduced benefits from the cuts. That's particularly true for the 25 percent of Medicare users covered through Medicare Advantage.

Supporters contend that providers could absorb the cuts by improving how they operate and wouldn't have to reduce benefits or pass along costs. But there's certainly no guarantee they wouldn't.

Comment by Bradford — September 26, 2009 @ 7:37 am

Bradford Says:
September 29th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Regulators close Ga. bank; 95th US failure in '09 shows that the lessons of the bailout debacle have not been learned.

In coming months, more banks are expected to buckle under the weight of commercial real estate and other loans that go sour. Those failures could imperil the insurance fund for deposits, already at the lowest point in nearly 20 years.

Many if not most of these loans should not have been made in the first place and would not have been if banks retained their age old lending standards which had proven reliable over the course of time. The loosening of those standards to make homes more affordable is a consequence of governmental policies. Those policies are still in effect and threaten to bring on another economic calamity. But even if that does not come to pass what we are witnessing is a steady decline in the number of banks competing for your business. More superbanks and fewer small lending institutions. Not a harbinger of anything good.

Comment by Bradford — September 29, 2009 @ 1:21 pm

Bradford Says:
September 29th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
What's up with schoolchildren being instructed to sing praises to our leader? First Burlington, NJ and now North Carolina. Sounds like the type of thing you encounter in a third world dictatorship. Extreme leftists are becoming like the religious extremists they parody.

Comment by Bradford — September 29, 2009 @ 8:05 pm

olegt Says:
September 29th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
Bradford,

I am sure you will condemn this earlier stab at the third-worldidness in equally strong terms:

Alas, such "propaganda" has not been limited to despots, dictators and the Obama White House. As a savvy source points out, back in 2006 children from Gulf Coast states serenaded First Lady Laura Bush with a song praising the President, Congress, and Federal Emergency Management Agency for their response to — of all things — Hurricane Katrina. The lyrics were as follow:

Our country's stood beside us
People have sent us aid.
Katrina could not stop us,
our hopes will never fade.
Congress, Bush and FEMA
People across our land
Together have come to rebuild us
and we join them hand-in-hand!

The event took place at that year's White House Easter Egg Roll and included roughly 100 children from Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. President Bush, it seems, wasn't in attendance during the song itself. But he was there earlier, when the First Lady read the book, Will You Be My Friend: A Bunny and Bird Story by Nancy Tafuri, to the children.

Comment by olegt — September 29, 2009 @ 9:35 pm

Bradford Says:
September 29th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
Olegt: I am sure you will condemn this earlier stab at the third-worldidness in equally strong terms

Indeed I do. This has a creepy feel to it. Very manipulative of the most innocent and least sophisticated- our children. They should have their minds on other things. I believe the office of the president should be respected but substituting individuals for that abstraction and having kids sing praises to whoever that is smacks of an authoritarian instinct. I find that opposed to what America should stand for.

Comment by Bradford — September 29, 2009 @ 10:22 pm

Tom MH Says:
September 30th, 2009 at 11:11 am
Bradford: Many if not most of these loans should not have been made in the first place and would not have been if banks retained their age old lending standards which had proven reliable over the course of time.

I agree. The three C's of prudent lending — credit, capacity, and collateral — were thrown out the window by the new non-bank lending institutions such as Countrywide Financial and American Century. The banks smelled the money being made in the ponzi credit bubble and followed suit.

Bradford: The loosening of those standards to make homes more affordable is a consequence of governmental policies. Those policies are still in effect and threaten to bring on another economic calamity.

Which policies are those? Mortgage interest deduction? The ZIRP (0.25% Fed interest rate)?

The current approach seems to be to prop up home prices via policies such as the 8k tax credit, due to expire this November but likely to be extended by Congress. This makes homes less affordable for first time buyers.

The ZIRP and the bond market have helped to lower long term interest rates to below 5% for 30-year fixed, so that seems to make financing more affordable. But at the moment we are in a deflationary period. In debt-deflation even 5% can be onerous, and no interest rate makes an underwater mortgage attractive.

In any case, the quote you provided referred to commercial real estate loans, which is the key problem for the small local banks. Home affordability has nothing to do with that.

Bradford: But even if that does not come to pass what we are witnessing is a steady decline in the number of banks competing for your business. More superbanks and fewer small lending institutions. Not a harbinger of anything good.

I completely agree. The "too big to fail" superbanks should have been seized and liquidated earlier this year. Obama has not been nearly radical enough in this area of the economy.

Comment by Tom MH — September 30, 2009 @ 11:11 am

Bradford Says:
September 30th, 2009 at 11:46 am
Tom: The banks smelled the money being made in the ponzi credit bubble and followed suit.

There's much more to it than this Tom. The banks offered mortgages on terms that would have been verboten in a prior era as a consequence of government laws and regulations instituted with the intent of social engineering. They were then able to sell the mortgages to larger institutions some of whom are the offspring of federal government initiatives. The too big to fail concept existed long before politicians uttered the phrase in the wake of bailout efforts. Those in the industry had every reason to believe that for institutions like Fannie Mae profits were privatized while risks were shared by the larger society- hardly a free enterprise notion. This entry and this one too are helpful in citing frequently ignored data.

Comment by Bradford — September 30, 2009 @ 11:46 am

Salvador T. Cordova Says:
September 30th, 2009 at 11:56 am
The ID community is often at odds with various skeptic organizations.

However, I'm glad the skeptic community is helping blow the whistle on alternative energy companies:

http://phact.org/e/z/freewire.htm

Prepared by Tom Napier. Copyright � 1999, All rights reserved.

You would expect that anyone promoting a machine to generate free
energy would be an expert on the subject of energy and its measurement.
After all, if you can't measure energy input and output accurately how can
you tell that the output exceeds the input? Of course there is a simple
answer to that. Connect the output of the machine to its input and
demonstrate that it runs continuously while generating significant excess
power. Failing this test, which no free energy machine has yet been seen
to pass, you must rely on measurements of input and output power. You
must also know how to compare them.

Well, if there is one thing which free energy promoters seem to have in
common it is a massive ignorance, real or feigned, about what energy is
and how to measure it. Luckily for them, their audiences seem to share
this failing and thus cannot readily distinguish between the plausible and
the possible.

http://www.phact.org/e/freetest.html

I'M ONLY WILLING TO HELP PEOPLE WHO HAVE A WORKING DEVICE THAT THEY ARE WILLING TO DEMONSTRATE

Note: from 11/96 through at least 1/2003, no takers – but that doesn't disprove free energy

For years I've heard the claim that many people have come up with machines that pull energy seemingly out of thin air (using heat, magnetic fields, ether, gravity or what ever). Books on urban legends are full of rumors of this. Believers in free energy machines feel that the obvious hoaxes must be separated from the real thing. I offer to pay travel expenses and $10000 (plus additional pledge money) to anyone who can pass the following test: I also offer a $2000 commission to anyone who talks an inventor into submitting a winning design to me.
To any winners, I promise to openly promote your device to the scientific and engineering community – I’d also promise to be a lot more humble in my reporting on paranormal claims. . Mark in Kansas is willing to help investigate artix@pacbell.net is willing to pledge money as well.

The only "free" energy that I think is valid is solar, wind, water falls, nuclear — but these aren't really "free".

Nuclear is interesting in that one converts matter into energy. If there were a way to tap nuclear energy without all the radiation hazards, that would be ideal.

There are attempts to tap into Zero Point Energy, but I'm skeptical of the ability to do this.

I recall one physics professor pointing out something about:

Atmospheric Electricity

Atmospheric electricity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Cloud to ground Lightning in the global atmospheric electrical circuit. This is an example of plasma present at Earth's surface. Typically, lightning discharges 30,000 amperes, at up to 100 million volts, and emits light, radio waves, x-rays and even gamma rays [1]. Plasma temperatures in lightning can approach 28,000 kelvins and electron densities may exceed 1024/m3.

….
There is always free electricity in the air and in the clouds, which acts by induction upon the earth and the electromagnetic devices. Experiments have shown that there is always free electricity in the atmosphere, which is sometimes negative and sometimes positive, but most generally positive, and the intensity of this free electricity is greater in the middle of the day than at morning or night and is greater in winter than in

One attempt was made to tap into atmospheric electricity. Air is a good insulator, so I think, barring lightning strikes, it's hard to get large amounts of atmospheric energy. Still this was a cool demonstration, eventhough there wasn't a lot of power involved:

Electrostatic Moters Powered by Electric Field of Earth

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — September 30, 2009 @ 11:56 am

Salvador T. Cordova Says:
September 30th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Clearly "hot fusion" works in hydrogen bombs. There is loads of power in "hot fusion", no question.

Can it be done at lower temperatures or small scale? At small scale, yes, at low temperatues? Hmm…..

Here is the story of a high school kid who succeeded in creating small scale "hot fusion":
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/mar/radioactive-boy-scout

In 2006 Thiago Olson joined the extremely sparse ranks of amateurs worldwide who have achieved nuclear fusion with a home apparatus. In other words, he built the business end of a hydrogen bomb in his basement. The plasma "star in a jar"—shown at the left—demonstrated his success.

For two years, Olson researched what he would need and scrounged for parts from eBay and the hardware store. Flanges and piping? Check. High-voltage X-ray transformer? Check. Pumps, deuterium source, neutron bubble dosimeter? Check, check, check. “I have cross-country and track, so during those seasons I don’t have much time to work on it,” says Olson, a high school senior in Michigan. “It’s more of a weekend project.” Last November the machine finally delivered the hallmark of success: bubbles in the dosimeter. The bubbles indicate the presence of neutrons, a by-product of fusion—an energy-releasing process in which two hydrogen nuclei crash together and form a helium nucleus. Fusion is commonplace in stars, where hydrogen nuclei fuse in superhot plasma, but temperatures that high are hard to achieve on Earth. Still, the prospect of creating all this energy while forming only nonradioactive helium and easily controlled neutrons has made harnessing fusion one of the most sought-after and heavily funded goals in sustainable energy.

Here is one device I found that creates laboratory fusion through electricity. The fusion was used to create neutron beams, but it is still intersting that the fusion was accomplished in the first place!

Compact Neutron Source, Lawrence Berkely Laboratoreis

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — September 30, 2009 @ 12:11 pm

Tom MH Says:
September 30th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Bradford: The banks offered mortgages on terms that would have been verboten in a prior era as a consequence of government laws and regulations instituted with the intent of social engineering.

You'll need to explain to me what those government laws and regulations were and how they applied to non-depository institutions such as Countrywide Financial and New Century Mortgage (I misnamed it American Century above).

Comment by Tom MH — September 30, 2009 @ 1:05 pm

Bradford Says:
September 30th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Tom: You'll need to explain to me what those government laws and regulations were and how they applied to non-depository institutions such as Countrywide Financial and New Century Mortgage (I misnamed it American Century above).

Start with the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977; a landmark piece of legislation authorizing the oversight of financial institutions at a federal level so as to, in the words of the statute, "encourage such institutions to help meet the credit needs of local communities in which they are chartered consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions." There is a profound assumption laden in the Act, namely that government officials are qualified to instruct lenders as to how to make money available and under what conditions. The impact of that law was not immediate but it did set the table for subsequent events.

In the 90s the media deluged us with stories about unfair lending practices. The theme being that approval rates for minorities lagged behind those of whites. Congress and the executive branch responded by threatening legal sanctions against lending institutions deemed to be discrimanatory. I've cited speeches in open threads in the past by Andrew Cuomo and others in which the governmental threats were made quite explicit.

Let me note at this point that it is true that approval rates differed and that they were disfavorable from a minority perspective. It also needs to be added though that objective lending standards can lead to discrepencies in lending approval rates due to financial rather than racial concerns. Indeed Thomas Sowell, an African American, made that clear in the book cited at the links I provided. Lending quotas were practical effects of the unfair lending practices meme.

HUD pressured Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase their purchases of mortgages granted to low income home buyers. Sowell cites a figure of 42% as the target for Fannie and Freddie for less than median income levels in 1996 (page 40 of The Housing Boom and Bust).

Both primary and secondary lending markets were distorted, not by market forces, but by government regulatory effects. There are a plethora of details which nail down the account as documented by Sowell et. al.

As to the specific institutions you mentioned, why not fill me in on details and your view of their role in what went down.

Comment by Bradford — September 30, 2009 @ 1:47 pm

JJS P.Eng. Says:
September 30th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Bradford, I see you're quoting Sowell's "The Housing Boom and Bust". Have you read Thomas E. Woods Jr.'s "Meltdown"? Woods makes a very good (if not entirely convincing) case of ending the Fed.

Comment by JJS P.Eng. — September 30, 2009 @ 2:37 pm

Bradford Says:
September 30th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Hi JJS. I have not read Meltdown but now will make a point of getting the book.

Comment by Bradford — September 30, 2009 @ 3:35 pm

Tom MH Says:
September 30th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Bradford, I specifically mentioned Countrywide Financial and New Century Mortgage because as non-depository institutions they are not covered by the CRA mandate. So why would they abandon prudent lending practices? Because they were set up to do so from the git-go. They discovered they could make fabulous tons of money writing mortgages and selling them into the secondary MBS and CDO markets. They took their profits up front and passed the credit risks down the line to Wall Street playas who thought that their securitization system scrubbed the risk right off the toxic junk. That's what their models said. And they were right…as long as housing prices went up.

So the MBS and CDO products flowed out into a world hungry for low risk investments with coupon yield well above what they could get from the US Treasury. High Yield, AAA rated, woo-HOO!! The credit rating agencies granted whatever rating Wall Street asked for (talk about conflict of interest – guess who pays the CRAs?) without looking into the product structures becuase, well, nobody understood them!

(When will the subpoenas be issued? Where are the perp walks?)

And they banks could take out insurance on whatever residual risk they perceived by buying CDS contracts from companies like AIG, who were free to issue CDS guarantees because the Commodities and Futures Modernization Act of 2000 had specifically prohibited the government from regulating over-the-counter derivatives (a fancy name for gambling). Thank you, Phil Gramm, for getting government off our back.

(Heh – "gambling". Calling the CDS market a casino is unfair to casinos. And we dasn't call it "insurance" because the insurance world actually has things like underwriting standards, and reserve requirements, and restrictions on counter-party relationships. AIG hung all that paper out on pure speculation, with no such limitations. I guess they knew ol' Uncle Sam would bail them out, and they were right. You have the "socialized risk, privatized reward" part nailed perfectly.)

(Where are the perp walks?)

The GSEs — Fannie and Freddie — were latecomers to the subprime game, and lost a ton of market share in the early part of the decade. This was not a market they could easily play in — their charter standards prohibited them from even touching some of the more toxic products that were being written: liar loans, option ARMs, pick-a-pays, all that crap. Good thing, too, since they were big enough to do an inordinate amount of damage. But it looks like that damage was done anyhow.

And by now, the subprime crisis is past. The current meltdown is in prime mortgages, of which there are far more, and with far larger balances. And of course commercial real estate, where borrowers are far less likely to hang on to underwater mortgages. It is the cratering CRE market that is unpinning the local and regional banks.

Thomas Sowell is a fine fellow but he is not an economist. Try reading what the Fed has to say about how the subprime market rose up and broke down. (Yes, I know, it's the Fed, but even so…) Or might I suggest seeing what Tanta had to say over at the blog Calculated Risk?

Comment by Tom MH — September 30, 2009 @ 3:59 pm

Bradford Says:
September 30th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Tom: Thomas Sowell is a fine fellow but he is not an economist.

I don't understand this. From his CURRICULUM VITA

EDUCATION:
Ph.D. in Economics, University of Chicago, 1968
A.M. in Economics, Columbia University, 1959
A.B. in Economics, magna cum laude, Harvard College, 1958

The thrust of Sowell's idea is that the government played an integral part in generating the economic crisis it now claims to be fixing. Land policies set conditions for rising property values and regulatory efforts were aimed at altering lending practices. Are you denying this as well as Sowell's economics background?

Comment by Bradford — September 30, 2009 @ 4:19 pm

Tom MH Says:
September 30th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Bradford, good catch. I retract my comment about Thomas Sowell's credentials in economics.

I think government's role in the current economic crisis is one of (a) regulatory neglect, and (b) moral hazard via an implicit agreement to bail out speculators when their schemes collapse. This is why I want to see banks seized and subpeonas issued.

Lending practices were altered by individuals who found a way to create a ponzi scheme and keep it going long enough to extract huge personal fortunes before the house of cards collapsed. There is no faster way to wealth.

Another quick way to (apparent) wealth is to borrow a lot of money and then spend it lavishly. The American middle class was a willing accomplice to its own demise. The borrowers who were caught in the mortgage crisis were not poor minority city dwellers. They were you and me. Or, well, folks just like you and me. Folks who bought a house in a subdivision, who traded up whenever they could, who extracted the equity to install a pool / buy a new SUV / upgrade the kitchen / send the kid(s) to college / go on vacation / pay off the credit cards and then charge em right back up again. The folks who tried to live the American Dream (TM) as portayed on TV.

Comment by Tom MH — September 30, 2009 @ 5:10 pm

Bradford Says:
September 30th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Tom: I think government's role in the current economic crisis is one of (a) regulatory neglect, and (b) moral hazard via an implicit agreement to bail out speculators when their schemes collapse. This is why I want to see banks seized and subpeonas issued.

I don't disagree with this but must add what I think clarifies my own view. Some of the complaints i.e. lack of action against some banks, reflect a failure to act on already existing statutes. But where statutory remedies for unethical behavior are lacking they should be put in place. I also agree with one of Sowell's central themes namely, that regulatory neglect includes a) a failure to regulate wisely and b) overregulation. Generally speaking it is unethical behavior that should be the target of regulation rather than efforts to effect social engineering.

Comment by Bradford — September 30, 2009 @ 5:42 pm

Tom MH Says:
September 30th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Fair enough, Bradford.

BTW, do you see the home mortgage deduction as another form of "social engineering"? Promoting home ownership for the middle class, etc.? Perhaps those who were championing raising home ownership opportunities for minorities and the working poor have a point to make on fairness.

Still, I think the whole "house as an investment" argument is a sham. The middle class bought into it, and without that the mortgage/housing ponzi scheme would have never taken flight. A house is a hole in the ground into which you pour money. It's only an investment if you can find a Greater Fool to take it off your hands for more than you paid for it. When that stopped happening, around 2006, the ponzi scheme collapsed, just like all ponzi schemes do when you run out of ~~suckers~~ investors.

Comment by Tom MH — September 30, 2009 @ 6:15 pm

Bradford Says:
September 30th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
Tom: BTW, do you see the home mortgage deduction as another form of "social engineering"? Promoting home ownership for the middle class, etc.? Perhaps those who were championing raising home ownership opportunities for minorities and the working poor have a point to make on fairness.

I'm in favor of replacing personal income tax with a graduated sales tax. I think the current system distorts economic incentives to the detriment of prosperity. That includes mortgage deductions. The working poor do have a fairness point but the remedy was not a mortgage quota.

Comment by Bradford — September 30, 2009 @ 6:58 pm

Salvador T. Cordova Says:
October 3rd, 2009 at 11:46 am
I'm in favor having corrupt incompent government morons have less say in how we live our lives — that includes limiting how hard earned money by individuals and businesses is used, that means lower taxes.

The federal, state, local, sales taxes, fees, social security etc. account for maybe 40% of your hard earned pay. Do you feel the great benefit to society for all the enormous amounts of money being stolen and social slavery that is happening?

Taxing the wealthy? Hmm, the problem is they are alway several steps ahead of the law. They find clever tax shelters. Not to mention, they already share the burden for most of the US. Is that just?

Yes, the wealthy have an obligation to help the poor, but is it the government's business to manage someones property? Say a kid misbehaves, there are limits to what non-parents should have the right to do to misbehaving kids. The same goes for those who are wealthy. They may be wrong in some of the things they do, but perhaps there are limits to what the government should feel privileged in doing.

Obama will do for the country what the unions did to GM…..

Communist china, with all their human rights issues, is now more business friendly and capitalistic than the USA under Pelosi and Obama.

TJ Rogers, a member of Silicon valley complained, that the state of california charges 10% taxes on his company to do business there. A fine business which brings jobs and wealth to California is taxed 10%!

He moved his operations elsewhere and brought wealth to other states. Putting himself at a 10% disadvantage to international competitors is a sure road to bankruptcy.

That is an example of the "tax and spend our way to prosperty" way of thinking. California is now going bankrupt. That is the Obama way. That is the future under Obama.

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — October 3, 2009 @ 11:46 am

Salvador T. Cordova Says:
October 3rd, 2009 at 12:12 pm
The Obama "tax and vilify oil companines" into green energy utopia is brainless times 10.

I've yet to see convincing numbers. There is not even a plan, just "tax and spend, and build green cars that hardly anyone wants to drive".

How much energy will be gleaned by Solar, Wind, Hydro Electric, Nuclear, etc. etc. Throw more money at the problem and it will work is not a plan.

Do you think Obama's green plan will make us non-dependent on Oil in the next 10 years. Any hard figures as to how green we'll be in 10 years? If only 20%, we better be drilling like crazy right now and drive the costs down for oil. Deliberately creating hardship is probably not the way to inspire and fuel a climate of innovation.

We have 250,000,000 cars in the USA. What percent of these will be oil free in 10 years?

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — October 3, 2009 @ 12:12 pm

Salvador T. Cordova Says:
October 3rd, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Al Gore Hypocrisy.

To become more green in the future, one has to use oil in the present. If that is not the case, then let Obama and Al Gore limit themselves to strictly non-oil means of transportation right now. Somehow these politicians feel they don't have to elevate themselves to the same standards that the try to hold the rest of the world to….

I think we need to use oil now to help give the possibility for a greener future. Think I'm wrong, then let my critics stop driving gasoline cars and using "fossil" fuel generated electricity or any goods and supplies that requires fossil fuels to make and transport them cost effectively.

As I said, Obama doesn't have a real plan, just rhetoric and probably something more damaging to a real green future.

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — October 3, 2009 @ 12:18 pm

Salvador T. Cordova Says:
October 3rd, 2009 at 3:55 pm
As president, I will end the war in Iraq, a war that I opposed from the beginning and that should never have been authorized. I will finish the fight against Al Qaeda. And I will lead the world to combat the common threats of the 21st century – nuclear weapons and terrorism; climate change and poverty; genocide and disease.

Did Obama really say that?

Combat disease with a Canadian style health care system? Ha!

Combat climate change? How? re-engineer the sun so it doesn't have climate cycles? Pass a law?

I will finish the fight against Al Qaeda.

How? Have Pelosi write a bill and sign it into law?

Fight Poverty? How? Tax and spend the Califorinia way into bankruptcy.

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — October 3, 2009 @ 3:55 pm

Bradford Says:
October 3rd, 2009 at 10:05 pm
Salvador Cordova:

I'm in favor having corrupt incompent government morons have less say in how we live our lives — that includes limiting how hard earned money by individuals and businesses is used, that means lower taxes.

The federal, state, local, sales taxes, fees, social security etc. account for maybe 40% of your hard earned pay. Do you feel the great benefit to society for all the enormous amounts of money being stolen and social slavery that is happening?

The government is akin to a religion for leftists. Blind faith. There is no better example of this than the continued advocacy of governmental expansion in spite of the historic refutation of the notion that prosperity and big governments go hand in hand. If a nation prospers it is in spite of excessive government interference and not because of it.

Why the September Jobs Report Is So Brutal

Employers in the United States continue to be more interested in cutting their payrolls than in keeping their existing employees, let alone adding new ones. Employers slashed another 263,000 jobs last month, the Labor Department reported today. That brings nonfarm employment down to the level of 2004, when there were about 7 million fewer U.S. workers.

Businesses, small and large, are scared to death to hire people. Business owners correctly perceive great uncertainty coupled with a hostility toward business and a view that social engineering can be affected with funding sourced from business. Washington is for the most part clueless.

Comment by Bradford — October 3, 2009 @ 10:05 pm

Bradford Says:
October 3rd, 2009 at 10:10 pm
Salvador Cordova:

To become more green in the future, one has to use oil in the present.

Where are the defenders of science on this issue? The issue is not bar graphs showing an increase in global temperature over recent decades. The issue is whether these meager changes will have immediate global effects and whether a nation wants to place itself in the poor house during the experiment.

Comment by Bradford — October 3, 2009 @ 10:10 pm

Open Thread: Baby Tigers

59 Responses to “Open Thread: Baby Tigers”

Featured Books