266 Responses to “Open Thread: Earth”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
-
Featured Books
The Design Matrix: A Consilience of Clues by Mike Gene 
Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body 
Catalyzing Inquiry at the Interface of Computing and Biology 
System Modeling in Cellular Biology: From Concepts to Nuts and Bolts 
The Plausibility of Life By Marc W. Kirschner and John C. Gerhart 
Agents Under Fire by Angus Menuge 
Life's Solution by Simon Conway Morris 
Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life by Hubert P. Yockey 
The Fifth Miracle by Paul Davies 
Nature, Design, and Science by Del Ratzsch 
Origination of Organismal Form by Muller & Newman 
Biased Embryos and Evolution by Wallace Arthur 
Rare Earth by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee 
The Privileged Planet by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards 
The Way of the Cell by Franklin Harold 
The Volitional Brain by Benjamin Libet 
Evolution in Four Dimensions by Eva Jablonka & Marion Lamb 
The Evolution-Creation Struggle by Michael Ruse
April 5th, 2010 at 9:23 pm
It makes me smile to contemplate why earth is so special.
Comment by kornbelt888 — April 5, 2010 @ 9:23 pm
April 5th, 2010 at 9:34 pm
Reflections on a Mote of Dust
Comment by Zachriel — April 5, 2010 @ 9:34 pm
April 5th, 2010 at 10:20 pm
Translation: We're screwed.
Comment by MikeGene — April 5, 2010 @ 10:20 pm
April 6th, 2010 at 9:40 am
Zachriel links to Carl Sagan- LoL!
Carl Sagan- long on bald assertions, short on substance…
Comment by ID guy — April 6, 2010 @ 9:40 am
April 6th, 2010 at 10:01 am
Need help!!
New movie coming out called "Splice" (MikeGene, check the trailer, I think you'll really like it).
It's kind of like "The Fly" but only in the sense of mixing genes from different animals to yield a hybrid animal (combo of the two).
Some of my friends are saying this is possible, but I could have sworn that I read some evo-devo work that pretty much declared (paraphrased): "No, this would not happen – putting the gene of a mouse's eye in place where the gene for a human's eye would be would not produce a mouse eye in a human…. it would produce a human eye in a human."
Could someone direct me to some articles that address this topic – the impossibility of hybrid animals by virtue of just swapping genes from animal A with animal B.
Thanks!!
Comment by GringoRoyale — April 6, 2010 @ 10:01 am
April 6th, 2010 at 10:33 am
That's not a problem, Joe. Ask TP to construct a puzzle with numbers that have 500 bits or more. Should be a piece of cake.
Comment by olegt — April 6, 2010 @ 10:33 am
April 6th, 2010 at 11:07 am
GringoRoyale:
If you are alluding to a gene with parallel function you would expect to see a protein that is different but nevertheless having much similarity to the one found in a human. You would also expect to find differences in the relevant regulatory functions for the two species. When genes are expressed can be more important to the determination of phenotype than the amino acid content of the proteins themselves.
If I find something helpful in my travels I'll link to it.
Comment by Bradford — April 6, 2010 @ 11:07 am
April 6th, 2010 at 1:02 pm
Still waiting for olegt and/ or Zachriel to present positive evidence for his position.
And waiting and waiting and waiting…
Comment by ID guy — April 6, 2010 @ 1:02 pm
April 6th, 2010 at 1:06 pm
GringoRoyale,
No one knows where the information for the type of body part resides.
If we listen to the evos then the type is just a sum of the genetic material required to construct it.
However no one "knows" that.
So until we find that then the only way to get a "hybrid" would be by piecing one together out of parts, not genes.
Comment by ID guy — April 6, 2010 @ 1:06 pm
April 6th, 2010 at 1:08 pm
Hey olegt,
Thanks for the link.
It looks like you really smooched the pooch in that thread though.
Did you really want people to see how stupidly you responded to that post?
Comment by ID guy — April 6, 2010 @ 1:08 pm
April 6th, 2010 at 1:35 pm
Very upsetting to read that link to see the name "Evotard" being thrown around.
No reason at all to have a conversation fall apart to the degree that "tard" needs to be associated with one's position simply because you disagree with it.
Comment by GringoRoyale — April 6, 2010 @ 1:35 pm
April 6th, 2010 at 1:42 pm
The "cake" link?
Did you read the first response?
It's a street fight Gringo.
Comment by ID guy — April 6, 2010 @ 1:42 pm
April 6th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
For GringoRoyale:
Pavel Tomancak – Patterns of gene expression in animal development
Comment by Bradford — April 6, 2010 @ 2:24 pm
April 6th, 2010 at 2:29 pm
Joe, you want to rehash the information content of a cake? Go ahead, make my day.
Tell us for starters, is the information in the cake an additive quantity or not? I asked you that question last year, you didn't have an answer then. Did you have a chance to think it through?
Comment by olegt — April 6, 2010 @ 2:29 pm
April 6th, 2010 at 2:42 pm
No, just another pissing match.
Comment by chunkdz — April 6, 2010 @ 2:42 pm
April 6th, 2010 at 2:43 pm
olegt,
If you have a dictionary and I give you an exact copy, do you now have twice as much information? Or just two of the same dictionary?
But that isn't even the problem.
You were trying to move the goalpost.
IOW you were being just a tad dishonest.
To avoid the perception of dishonesty you should have first responded to the points made in the thread's opening post.
Establish common ground and then move on.
That is how educated people without an agenda do it.
Deceptive people don't do that.
Instead of addressing the OP they talk about something else to try to muddy the waters.
All of that muddy water because they just cannot provide positive evidence for their position so they have to attack other people.
Perhaps it is time to take off your frustrated magnet cap…
Comment by ID guy — April 6, 2010 @ 2:43 pm
April 6th, 2010 at 2:53 pm
Too funny!
I will open that thread up on a hot windless day- all your hand-waving should generate a good strong breeze.
Comment by ID guy — April 6, 2010 @ 2:53 pm
April 6th, 2010 at 2:54 pm
Still can't answer that question, Joe? Too bad. I can answer it for you. The information content of a cake (per your definition) is not additive. In fact, if it were additive then we could easily prove that it is zero. So it's not additive. Do you agree with that?
Comment by olegt — April 6, 2010 @ 2:54 pm
April 6th, 2010 at 3:12 pm
One step at a time- take off that frustrated magnet cap.
Do you agree or disagree?
Next step:
Also do you think that a cake can spontaneously arise?
Comment by ID guy — April 6, 2010 @ 3:12 pm
April 6th, 2010 at 3:14 pm
And you have been told that your assumption is wrong.
IOW obviously you are incapable of learning.
Take off that frustrated magnet cap!
Comment by ID guy — April 6, 2010 @ 3:14 pm
April 6th, 2010 at 3:55 pm
This could be interesting:
What is that defintion?
Comment by ID guy — April 6, 2010 @ 3:55 pm
April 6th, 2010 at 6:26 pm
Did oleg go bake a cake?
Comment by ID guy — April 6, 2010 @ 6:26 pm
April 6th, 2010 at 6:37 pm
Joe,
I don't know about you, but I have a day job.
Your definition is right there in the opening post:
My statement,
follows your definition to a tee. The amount of information is based on the number of letters in the recipe. Just like you said.
Comment by olegt — April 6, 2010 @ 6:37 pm
April 6th, 2010 at 8:18 pm
OK oleg is back-
One step at a time- take off that frustrated magnet cap.
Do you agree or disagree?
Next step:
Do you think that a cake can spontaneously arise?
Comment by ID guy — April 6, 2010 @ 8:18 pm
April 6th, 2010 at 8:19 pm
And this:
is wrong because there are more actions required than just on the recipe.
As that OP says:
For example a cake would, at a minimum, contain all the information in the recipe.
"at a minimum"
Comment by ID guy — April 6, 2010 @ 8:19 pm
April 6th, 2010 at 8:43 pm
Except you are not performing the word "repeat"- IOW it would be actions of preparing the second cake.
Also what about the case in which two different people are preparing the cakes? "Repeat" isn't any part of that.
IOW olegt by dredging this stuff up all you are doing is exposing the fact that you are a certified crackpot.
Is that what you were shooting for?
Comment by ID guy — April 6, 2010 @ 8:43 pm
April 6th, 2010 at 9:01 pm
OK olegt- I know you are lurking- what do you have to say for yourself now?
Comment by ID guy — April 6, 2010 @ 9:01 pm
April 6th, 2010 at 9:03 pm
Joe,
I have already said everything there was to say. In fact, I did so last year at your blog. You did not understand it back then and it's unlikely that you will comprehend it now. As I said previously, that's OK: some things are above your head. Enjoy your life and don't worry about that.
Comment by olegt — April 6, 2010 @ 9:03 pm
April 6th, 2010 at 9:11 pm
olegt- "Repeat" is not the action being carried out.
IOW olegt, you blew it big time- again.
Why can't you be man enough to admit that you messed up?
Comment by ID guy — April 6, 2010 @ 9:11 pm
April 6th, 2010 at 9:15 pm
You said more than enough to prove that you are a crackpot.
Except you are not performing the word "repeat"- IOW it would be actions of preparing the second cake.
Also what about the case in which two different people are preparing the cakes? "Repeat" isn't any part of that.
Too funny oleg…
Comment by ID guy — April 6, 2010 @ 9:15 pm
April 6th, 2010 at 10:13 pm
destructing oleg:
It appears that oleg didn't understand that then nor now.
Most things appear to be over his head…
Comment by ID guy — April 6, 2010 @ 10:13 pm
April 7th, 2010 at 7:01 am
So olegt sez:
So I provide the evidence that proves olegt doesn't know what he is talking about and what does olegt do?
He sez he has already said everything there is to say.
I guess when you stick both feet in your mouth that measn you have said everything there is to say…
Comment by ID guy — April 7, 2010 @ 7:01 am
April 7th, 2010 at 1:39 pm
So now that we have this cleared up- well to rational people anyway- the information in a cake is additive, contrary to olegt's claim.
The proof is that the actions are what impart the information and the actions have to be repeated, meaning they have to be done again, ie in addition to the actions required to bring about the original cake.
Is that why you dredged this up olegt?
Comment by ID guy — April 7, 2010 @ 1:39 pm
April 8th, 2010 at 11:25 pm
The journal Nature unwittingly trashes Ken Miller and Darrel Falk and vindicates Behe, Sternberg, and Pellionisz.
See:
Nature "writes back" to Behe
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 8, 2010 @ 11:25 pm
April 8th, 2010 at 11:44 pm
Olegt posed a very good objection to Sanford's Genetic Entropy thesis. I was so impressed by Olegt's objection that I brought the matter up to Dr. Sanford when I visited him in New York last summer.
I told him I thought Olegt had a very good objection regarding the fact bacteria are ubiquitous have fast generation times, and yet they show no signs of extinction by genetic entropy.
Dr. Sanford's response was that bacteria have:
1. smaller
2. large excess reproduction
Thus it is possible that one bacteria in a large population are free from a single bad mutation. With smaller genomes, this also helps. Here is an extreme illustration.
Consider the genome consisting of only ten mutatable positions. It is very easy that with such a small genome, one individual could emerge unscathed and overtake the population. By way of extension, the relatively small genome of bacteria can escape the effects of numerous mutations given certain parameters.
Sanford said, bacteria reproduce so fast, all you need is one viable one in a colony of billions.
That said, we do have observed laboratory instances of genetic entropy. See: Mutational Meltdown in Laboratory Yeast Populations
It can happen to bacteria. We really don't know how many species may have gone extinct.
Furthermore, Dr. Sanford pointed out, bacteria can go into a domrant state and thus not reproduce and therefore mutate. He said he was visiting salt mines to see some undisturbed bacteria. One such undisturbed strain can emerge due to natural circumstances and then repopulate the world.
The major issue however is the human genome. Michael Lynch's innaugural PNAS paper seems to affrim Sanford's view: Rate, Molecular Spectrum and Consequences of Human Mutation
Unfortunately Lynch resorts to cicular reasoning to claim the "selection balances drift" that hypothesis is supported by circular reasoning. The direct observation suggest deterioration, not some sort of real equilibrium.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 8, 2010 @ 11:44 pm
April 9th, 2010 at 12:11 am
Richard Conn Henry writes here:
Review of "Not Even Wrong"
Here is Renshaw's view which Henry may have been referencing:
A Direct Test of the Lorentz Length Contraction
Renshaw is part of Galilean Electrodynamics which was founded by some with creationist affiliations like Thomas Barnes who attempted to refinterprate electrodynamics. Barnes seemed pretty mainstream other than his creationist beliefs…. I don't know about Renshaw.
If Maxwell's equations are correct, it would seem Lorentz and Einstein are correct. I can't see how it could be otherwise. I had that pounded into me by this homework assignment where I had to demonstrate the relationship between relativity and Maxwell's equations: Lorentz and Maxwell's Equations. The derivation is very much in the public domain, and it was mostly an exercise in Vector Calculus.
One alternative formulation of Electrodynamics is the suggestion of velocity dependent forces. The coulumb forces in electrodynamics are assumed to be independent of the velocity of charges. Once this axiom is rejected, it might be possible to get Galilean form of electrodynamics.
At least that's what Hubble's student Phipps argued. The view of Phipps has been bumped around in creationist circles, most notably by Charles Lucas.
I'm not in a position to say who is right. That is way beyond my pay grade so to speak. I only report this for interested readers.
Lucas articulates his velocity dependent force ideas here:
Universal Force Law
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 9, 2010 @ 12:11 am
April 9th, 2010 at 2:07 pm
I may have been a bit harsh in my critiques of the stimulus bill. Apparently it does create jobs- overseas.
http://www.conservativeblogwat...
Comment by Bradford — April 9, 2010 @ 2:07 pm
April 9th, 2010 at 2:12 pm
The Grand Theory of Railroad tracks gives an interesting issue about perspectives and scientific observations.
Renshaw observes here:
For sure the experimental results square up with relativity theory, but might it be possible to have a more elegant theory that also predicts the same experimental results (at least the ones done so far)?
As far as the anti-Einstein crowd, most that I've encounter strike me as quacks of the first order. Renshaw and Lucas are among the few that caught my attention, and Richard Conn Henry's favorable remarks of Renshaw have increased my interest in Renshaw's ideas.
Still, this stuff is over my head, but I find it interesting nonetheless.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 9, 2010 @ 2:12 pm
April 9th, 2010 at 2:34 pm
You might notice a trend on job losses.
Comment by Zachriel — April 9, 2010 @ 2:34 pm
April 9th, 2010 at 2:57 pm
Your link is mssing one big piece of critical evidence Zach. When the rate of job loss declines and people are hired again (as eventually happens) the underlying reasons for that need investigating, not hand waving. Businesses hire and get us out of recessions. So the question is what is the evidence that the businesses now hiring are doing so because of the stimulus spending? The specific question of why our money to put to creating jobs for Chinese and other foreign nationals remains outstanding.
Comment by Bradford — April 9, 2010 @ 2:57 pm
April 9th, 2010 at 3:01 pm
TJ Rodgers is a prototypical scientist and businessman. He tells it like it is in 2009:
Obama, Pelosi, Waxman want to do for the US what California politicians have done for California.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 9, 2010 @ 3:01 pm
April 9th, 2010 at 3:24 pm
In sum, CBO estimates that in the fourth quarter of calendar year 2009, ARRA’s policies:
* Raised real GDP by between 1.5 percent and 3.5 percent,
* Lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.5 percentage points and 1.1 percentage points,
* Increased the number of people employed by between 1.0 million and 2.1 million, and
* Increased the number of full-time-equivalent jobs by 1.4 million to 3.0 million compared with what those amounts would have been otherwise.
The effects of ARRA on output and employment are expected to increase further in calendar year 2010 but then diminish in 2011 and fade away by the end of 2012.
Comment by Zachriel — April 9, 2010 @ 3:24 pm
April 9th, 2010 at 3:39 pm
The USA spent about a trillion dollars on two stimulus bills. For that much money we know jobs will result. That's not even an interesting observation. The issue is when you suck money out of the private sector to create public sector jobs are you creating a net increase compared to alternative usage of the trillion. If you divide a trillion by the jobs "created through the stimulus" you find that each job costs us about a million dollars. That's not a good return on investment. The huge deficits being run up are killing our long term economic prospects and unnecessarily burdening posterity.
Comment by Bradford — April 9, 2010 @ 3:39 pm
April 9th, 2010 at 3:44 pm
Of course they are. The median income in Mississippi is around $36 thousand while it is $56 thousand in California.
The average income in India is only about $3000. Interestingly, the average income of Indians in Silicon Valley is $200 thousand and they account for 15% of the startups there.
Yes, California has problems, but most places would love to have their problems.
Comment by Zachriel — April 9, 2010 @ 3:44 pm
April 9th, 2010 at 3:45 pm
Say we have a Trillion Dollar stimulus. We pay out 1 Trillion in salaries, and collect back 300 Billion back in taxes on those "new" jobs created by Obama. That doesn't work! The real story may be worse.
The issue isn't just lowering unemployment, but how many real private sector jobs and non-Government subsidized jobs were created. That number is not too promising.
The desirable outcome is return on taxpayer money in creating more jobs than those just paid for with taxpayer money. If most of what is done is just paying for jobs with tax money, one is not really creating wealth, one is just redistributing wealth at gunpoint.
Worse if these jobs now are being paid for (effectively) by borrowed money, that would be bad, especially if real private sector jobs aren't being created to pay back the cost of today's stimulus.
So the numbers Zach quote need to be taken with some skepticism in light of the fact what counts are real private sector, unsubsidized jobs.
Some rough numbers:
1 Trillion Stimulus/ 2 million "new jobs = $500,000 for each job.
Recovered tax revenue, maybe $40,000 per "new" job. Not good.
Obama wants to transform the US into the communist paradise of Venezuala and Cuba.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 9, 2010 @ 3:45 pm
April 9th, 2010 at 3:52 pm
The stimulus is still entering the pipeline.
Geez.
The purpose of a stimulus is not to replace private sector jobs, but to "prime the pump." In other words, during a fiscal crisis, businesses retract from spending and the economy gets caught in a downward spiral. Government temporarily replaces that spending, which encourages businesses to reenter the markets. Many economists believe the stimulus was too conservative, being small compared to the capital losses measured in the tens of trillions of dollars. Nevertheless, the stimulus is having an effect, and at some point the economy should start to grow on its own.
Comment by Zachriel — April 9, 2010 @ 3:52 pm
April 9th, 2010 at 3:58 pm
Zach points out:
There is little proof this has to do with Government policies, but rather the innovative businesses there, which are slowly expatriating.
Yeah, like Cuba.
California Bankruptcy
To quote Zach:
Yeah, most places like Cuba and Afganistan.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 9, 2010 @ 3:58 pm
April 9th, 2010 at 4:08 pm
That's a leftist spin on what happens. When the government spends money it borrows it. There is no free money. Money that is borrowed is unavailable for alternative productive purposes. One of the reasons businesses cut back on spending is political uncertainty and the prospect that taxes on business will spiral upward. We are seeing the realization of these apprehensions with increased health care costs for four years with no benefits realized. We see it with cap and trade proposals which would increase costs of doing business.
Many? Leftist wackos do for sure. Why not spend ten trillion on a stimulus. Whoopee? Free money. Greece, Iceland, Spain, Portugal, here we come in your footsteps. Stagnant Euro economies are the future for a socialized America
This is predictable. Business takes America out of a recession and ideologues and politicians take credit.
Comment by Bradford — April 9, 2010 @ 4:08 pm
April 9th, 2010 at 4:11 pm
The salient point is that predictions are incorporated into analysis. There is an inherent subjectivity to the process.
here
Can Americans make windmills?
Comment by Bradford — April 9, 2010 @ 4:11 pm
April 9th, 2010 at 4:16 pm
In general, it is a bad idea to buy stuff you don't need.
It is worse, to buy stuff you don't need, with money you don't have.
The thrust of the current administration's economic policy is to spend a lot of money it doesn't have on a lot of stuff it doesn't need.
There's no way this economic policy is sustainable.
Comment by David S — April 9, 2010 @ 4:16 pm
April 9th, 2010 at 4:18 pm
Federal cost of living index in Mississippi: 78.3
Federal cost of living index in California: 194.2
Can you do the math?
Comment by chunkdz — April 9, 2010 @ 4:18 pm
April 9th, 2010 at 4:20 pm
This is overly generous. In NJ many of the public sector jobs sustained by stimulus money are now slated for elimination. All the stimulus did was postpone the day of reckoning which frankly should have come years ago. Private sector construction jobs? Short term. When the projects expire so do the jobs. Thank God for Governor Christie. He's an island of sanity in a blue region.
Comment by Bradford — April 9, 2010 @ 4:20 pm
April 9th, 2010 at 4:25 pm
California is evidence of the blind faith of liberalism. California is a financial basket case which has recklessly spent money for years. The chickens are coming home to roost. Unable to pay its bills, California is not a favorable point of comparison for big gubbermint advocates.
Comment by Bradford — April 9, 2010 @ 4:25 pm
April 9th, 2010 at 4:42 pm
Since Zach is fond of using CBO as a reference this should be of interest:
Comment by Bradford — April 9, 2010 @ 4:42 pm
April 9th, 2010 at 5:11 pm
from LA Times:
Yeah, if by most you mean Michigan and Cuba.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 9, 2010 @ 5:11 pm
April 9th, 2010 at 5:21 pm
This from the Leftwing Huffington Post
contrast with:
Yes, I suppose if by most you mean holders of shares of Madoff's hedge fund.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 9, 2010 @ 5:21 pm
April 9th, 2010 at 5:27 pm
Well, how about pension liabilities:
I repeat
Yeah, for I suppose if by most you mean those poor gamblers who owe Guido the loan shark money.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 9, 2010 @ 5:27 pm
April 9th, 2010 at 5:27 pm
That's truly odd. Please tell us, why do Cuba and Afghanistan have in common? What does California have in common with either of them?
That's correct. And if borrowing is already tight, then government deficits crowds out private borrowering. Just like stimulatory policies don't work unless there is excess economic capacity. Do you understand this?
That is not the cause of the economic crisis.
Yes, they can. However, the U.S. has been very resistant to innovation in the energy sector since the 1980's, instead relying on military power and friendly despots to maintain the supply of oil. Morning in America. Nearly half of the world's wind turbines are made by Denmark (population 5.5 million).
As the CBO Director explained, economists can't gauge exact effects of policy over short periods, so they base their projections on economic research across history, not short term trends.
Comment by Zachriel — April 9, 2010 @ 5:27 pm
April 9th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
Federal Cost of Living Index by State? You might provide a cite to an offical government site. Here are numbers from the Council for Community and Economic Research.
Cost of living index in Mississippi: 96.6
Cost of living index in California: 133.6
Comment by Zachriel — April 9, 2010 @ 5:36 pm
April 9th, 2010 at 5:39 pm
Zach:
Zach, you've just made points aimed against the stimulus. Are you aware of that? There is a credit crunch and having the government suck money out of the economy does not help. I already detailed the spending and it did nothing to target the imaginary excess capacity. I'll post the article again if I have to.
Comment by Bradford — April 9, 2010 @ 5:39 pm
April 9th, 2010 at 5:41 pm
You do understand that the Republicans undercut the tax base, and they have a Republican governor?
Absolutely agree. Once the economy stabilizes, the United States will have to confront the problem of deficit spending. The last time we discussed this, you could suggest no significant cuts on the spending side, so taxes will be required. We can be sure you will be there to provide political cover for those charged with making the hard decisions.
Comment by Zachriel — April 9, 2010 @ 5:41 pm
April 9th, 2010 at 5:48 pm
The credit crunch occurred because banks stopped lending when it was discovered that so many banks were holding toxic assets. No one knew how deep the problem was, or who was going to be left holding the bag. If you couldn't trust giant corporations such as Citi Financial and Fannie Mae, then you couldn't trust anyone. The system froze.
There was plenty of capital sitting on the sidelines.
Comment by Zachriel — April 9, 2010 @ 5:48 pm
April 9th, 2010 at 5:53 pm
Schrwazenegger is not conservative. He's a moderate. Califorinians are taxed too much, not too little.
Comment by Bradford — April 9, 2010 @ 5:53 pm
April 9th, 2010 at 5:55 pm
Capital does not sit on the sidelines. It is invested in something. If it is not private industry, it is government bonds.
Comment by Bradford — April 9, 2010 @ 5:55 pm
April 9th, 2010 at 5:56 pm
Most states (and most industrialized countries) are having problems due to the fiscal calamity inherited from the Bush Administration. Most will have to make some painful adjustments. As the unexplained comparison was with wartorn Afghanistan and communist Cuba, there is no comparison. California has a wealthy, highly educated population, strong agricultural and technology sectors, and a number of quite plausible solutions to their economic problems.
Comment by Zachriel — April 9, 2010 @ 5:56 pm
April 9th, 2010 at 5:58 pm
Try to put the two thoughts together.
Comment by Zachriel — April 9, 2010 @ 5:58 pm
April 9th, 2010 at 5:58 pm
I would overhaul the entire system which would allow for dramatic changes. I would not tax for health care four years down the pike. Massive cuts on the federal level are needed modeled along what Christie is doing in NJ.
Comment by Bradford — April 9, 2010 @ 5:58 pm
April 9th, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Less government equals more money available to the private sector which grows the economy and pays for the government pig on top of that.
Comment by Bradford — April 9, 2010 @ 6:00 pm
April 9th, 2010 at 6:01 pm
Most people would love to be half a trillion dollars in debt?
Comment by chunkdz — April 9, 2010 @ 6:01 pm
April 9th, 2010 at 6:10 pm
Then why use stimulus money to pay foreign sources to do the same?
Wrong. When energy alternatives are economically competitive they are preferred.
We rely on foreign sources because your liberal icons hinder new drilling.
Good for Denmark. That part of their economy functions. Most parts are uncompetitive or non-existent compared with other nations.
Comment by Bradford — April 9, 2010 @ 6:10 pm
April 9th, 2010 at 6:15 pm
Thanks to some very smart entrepreneurs and hard workers in California.
Good point. Zach et al would like to blame this on the private sector but that would be irrational. California, New York, Michigan and New Jersey all have out of control public sectors. Add that to about 7 or 8 European countries facing severe fiscal problems and we have evidence as to why expanded government lowers prosperity.
Comment by Bradford — April 9, 2010 @ 6:15 pm
April 9th, 2010 at 6:23 pm
Two. Two thoughts at one time.
Because Americans didn't build the infrastructure. They built bombs. Really cool bombs.
Even if business leaders can see what needs to be done, being in competition, they can't always invest over sufficiently long time frames.
Oil is a limited resources. And what the U.S. has offshore will only supply them for a couple of years.
Denmark is a highly developed, industrial economy, ranks 16th in the world for GDP per capita, and is considered one of the most competitive economies in the world.
Comment by Zachriel — April 9, 2010 @ 6:23 pm
April 9th, 2010 at 6:23 pm
This illustrates the problem with expanding public sector economies:
Dec 1999 – Dec 2009 New Jersey lost 156,100 Private Sector Jobs and Gained 69,400 Government Jobs
The Obamaization of NJ led to a declining economy along with massive and unsupportable government debt. The same trend is seen in other states and in nations which have taken the same course. Faith in the government marks a nation's decline.
Comment by Bradford — April 9, 2010 @ 6:23 pm
April 9th, 2010 at 6:26 pm
Bradford wrote:
And yet, somehow the Danes manage to eek out a GDP of $36K per capita. While that's below the US level of $46K, they are still ahead of Germany ($34K), the EU on average, and Japan (both $32.6K).
CIA World Factbook.
Comment by olegt — April 9, 2010 @ 6:26 pm
April 9th, 2010 at 6:27 pm
Leftist lunacy. Windmills are not high tech and we do have the infrastructure to support that industry. Sending our money overseas to support foreign industries and workers is immoral. Defense spending has nothing to do with this.
Comment by Bradford — April 9, 2010 @ 6:27 pm
April 9th, 2010 at 6:30 pm
You can cherry pick any industry. The Danes do well with windmills. Other nations with shipbuilding. Other with airplane manufacturing. Others with biotech industries. Others…
Comment by Bradford — April 9, 2010 @ 6:30 pm
April 9th, 2010 at 6:33 pm
It's not just offshore Zach and not just oil. America has huge reserves of natural gas. This is yet another example of the left sabotaging industry and blaming the system for problems they create. Our dependence on foreign sources can be traced to domestic policy stupidity.
Comment by Bradford — April 9, 2010 @ 6:33 pm
April 9th, 2010 at 6:52 pm
Count Zach. Downsize government. Thought # 1. Allow the transfer of resources from a downsized government to the private sector. Thought # 2.
Here's a third one for good measure. The private sector will use funds, previously used to support gubbermint workers and programs, to purchase goods and invest in the mechanisms needed to produce them. You asked for two and you get a bonus. That's the productivity of free enterprise.
Comment by Bradford — April 9, 2010 @ 6:52 pm
April 9th, 2010 at 6:58 pm
See: High Tech Manufacturing Leaving California
and
List names 100 companies leaving California
Boy, at this rate sure looks like California will have a booming fiscal base to pay of half a trillion dollars in debt to union backed organizations and other interests.
To quote Zach:
We do this for the rest of the USA, and more jobs will overseas. Bradford's stimulus report is a case in point. Not just windmills but more.
The truth is we probably got better bang for the buck hiring the Chinese to build windmills. That was the one redeeming thing in the report. Had american manufacturing interest been cheaper, they would have had a better chance to make competitive bids, but it's too expensive to make stuff here as TJ Rodgers points out.
The fix to stimulus money not going overseas:
1. shouldn't have had stimulus in the first place
2. a business climate that is friendly to business, not hostile
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 9, 2010 @ 6:58 pm
April 9th, 2010 at 7:02 pm
In light of the fact that :
How much of that level of income is attributable to high regulation and taxes and worker comp costs?
It looks like the government had little to do with the affluence of California, but a lot to do with the removal of affluence.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 9, 2010 @ 7:02 pm
April 9th, 2010 at 7:56 pm
How about California public school system.
First to Worst
See: Blackboard Bungle Why California Kids Can't Read regarding whole language:
Read the rest of the article. YIKES!
To quote Zach:
Well, it looks like most places may get California's problems whether they like it or not!
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 9, 2010 @ 7:56 pm
April 9th, 2010 at 8:01 pm
Salvador T. Cordova wrote:
I see that the EP program didn't help much.
Coulomb forces belong in electrostatics, the ancient form of the electromagnetic theory in which charged particles interacted with one another over long distance. Electrodynamics dispensed with direct interactions between particles and replaced them with local interactions between charges and the electromagnetic field. Interactions between charged particles are mediated by the field and are no longer instantaneous.
Lucas is reinventing the wheel. Tell him to borrow Classical Theory of Fields by Landau and Lifshitz at a library and read Ch. 65, The Lagrangian to terms of second order. That is precisely what Lucas wants: a description of interactions between particles in terms of their coordinates and velocities. It is only an approximation that works to the second order in the ratio v/c, but that's the best he can hope for. At the third order there are terms that no longer can be described in terms of forces between particles.
Comment by olegt — April 9, 2010 @ 8:01 pm
April 9th, 2010 at 9:14 pm
I haven't had electromagnetics yet so no slight on the EP program for my ignorance.
Agreed, you mentioned the fact of retarded potentials and you corrected my misunderstanding of that a couple years ago.
But can't the retarded potentials be velocity dependent in the field? Sorry for the elementary question. I presume that is what the following comment is about?
I'll pass that on. Thank you for looking into the matter. That's the most cogent criticsm I've heard.
When I was at a conference in 2008, Dr. Harnett was quick to criticize Lucas, but you analysis seems more potent. Thank you.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 9, 2010 @ 9:14 pm
April 9th, 2010 at 9:17 pm
Also, it is possible I mischaracterized Dr. Lucas' ideas. That is why I provided links to his work.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 9, 2010 @ 9:17 pm
April 9th, 2010 at 10:32 pm
Look at the years you quoted. Those are nearly all during the Bush Administration. How can that be Obamaization? During the Clinton years, New Jersey gained 243,200 private sector jobs and 11,000 government jobs. During the Bush years, New Jersey lost 156,100 private sector jobs, but at the same time it gained 69,400 government jobs. Obama has only been in power for a year, and most of that time has been spent dealing with the fiscal calamity left over from the Bush Administration.
There is not enough oil in the U.S. to maintain their consumption. Your dependence on oil is because your country hasn't taken basic and prudent actions to conserve resources. It's a matter of national defense and international stability that the U.S. reduce its dependency.
Comment by Zachriel — April 9, 2010 @ 10:32 pm
April 9th, 2010 at 10:43 pm
There was no lending. Banks wouldn't even lend to the largest banks. The fiscal system was in collapse. Even with the bailout, the banks still wouldn't lend. The economy was in freefall. No one buys when they might buy cheaper later; and more critically, during a crisis, everyone hordes cash to protect themselves.
This is, like, Econ 101. The only borrower that people still trusted was the U.S. government. There was plenty of excess capital. If there was a shortage of capital, government borrowing would have immediately pushed up interest rates and possibly sparked inflation, but it didn't. There was plenty of excess capacity in the labor markets. Stimulus created a couple of million jobs, and more in the pipeline. As these people start working, then the financial sector should regain its confidence in the business cycle.
There was no lending. Remember that. The economy was in collapse.
But yes, once the economy stablizes, the government will need to disengage from the markets and regulate from a distance.
Comment by Zachriel — April 9, 2010 @ 10:43 pm
April 9th, 2010 at 11:13 pm
Zachriel:
Zach it would help if you would make an attempt to be analytical instead of responding with pat answers. Obama's governing style entails massive spending and an increase in the size of the public sector. That's exactly what took place in New Jersey during that time period. It also took place in California and New York. Not surprisingly these three states have suffered economically and financially to a much greater extent than states whose governments grew little or not at all. It's not about personalities Zach. Obama does not wield magic powers. But his policies have effects as did the policies of Corzine who preceded Christie as Governor of New Jersey. Those ill effects are now being remedied by Christie who is helping the state recover as opposed to the President who will suck greater revenue from NJ and other states to finance his folly.
For those not familiar with NJ, property taxes grew enormously during the cited time period to finance local government expansion. Add high sales taxes and state income taxes to the mix. All related to state and local spending. What went on at the national level did not affect these trends. During the Clinton years property taxes were much lower. The primary influences distinguishing the NJ fiscal crisis from other states were all local. Ditto California and NY. Florio, Corzine and Obama have the same governing philosophies and the effects will be the same on a national level unless the reckless spending is ended very soon and counter measures put into place to correct the damage.
Comment by Bradford — April 9, 2010 @ 11:13 pm
April 9th, 2010 at 11:15 pm
Why did you deliberately omit my reference to natural gas of which the USA has one of the largest reserves in the world?
Comment by Bradford — April 9, 2010 @ 11:15 pm
April 9th, 2010 at 11:18 pm
You said previously that there was plenty of capital sitting on the sidelines. The trust issue is a bogus myth. The government coerced corporations into accepting loans. This has always been about power and control by the world's largest company USA, Inc.
Comment by Bradford — April 9, 2010 @ 11:18 pm
April 9th, 2010 at 11:20 pm
Document that claim.
Comment by Bradford — April 9, 2010 @ 11:20 pm
April 9th, 2010 at 11:34 pm
There is only one reason for a bank to loan money- a solid basis upon which to believe it will get a profitable return on its investment. If that belief is not there no amount of reserve capital will induce loans.
Bank Chiefs Curb Lending Despite TARP, Survey Says
Translation: Banks believed it made more business sense to keep more money in reserve to protect against adversity and to use some capital for acquisitions. Only a fifth indicated an intent to grow their loans. The problem lied in the loan market and not with available capital. There is no point to making risky loans; something liberal lawmakers like Barney Frank should have known years earlier. But they are not businessmen. The Barney Franks of congress are not professionals at anything but politicking.
Comment by Bradford — April 9, 2010 @ 11:34 pm
April 10th, 2010 at 9:45 am
In other words, read your mind and not your words.
None of that has anything to do with the fiscal calamity that has engulfed the U.S.
Because we were discussing U.S. dependence on oil, a dependency which has very ill-effects on international stability. Natural gas reserves do not address this problem. The U.S. will still need oil—unless they take coordinated actions required to address the problem.
What? You didn't really rely on FoxNews during the financial crisis?
We've been discussing this for months, and you still haven't grasped the most basic fact about the seizure that took hold of the banking system. Why do you think the President and Treasury Secretary literally begged for help from the Congress in 2008? The system was collapsing.
This was an early trigger:
"Banks started to doubt each other." Notice the use of bankruptcy made the problem worse, much worse. That led to the collapse of the global credit markets.
"Year of the freeze". This led to actions by the Bush Administration.
"Freeze in the credit markets." There was a stampede to the exits.
That's right. Even big banks couldn't be trusted to repay loans, much less Joe's Repair shop. No one knew where the bottom was, or which businesses were going to survive. Capital was sitting on the sidelines, afraid to enter the collapsing market. That causes more investors to pull out, accelerating the decline. The financial markets froze, and the entire global economy was in freefall.
Comment by Zachriel — April 10, 2010 @ 9:45 am
April 10th, 2010 at 10:30 am
No. Read about the subject matter at hand if you intend to discuss it. If you are unfamiliar with the parallels between Obama's approach to government and those of prior Democratic governors of NJ then refrain from comments or study what is going on in NJ.
Bradford: Obama's governing style entails massive spending and an increase in the size of the public sector.
It's about the approaching fiscal calamity. The US is following in the footsteps of some of its states- California, NJ, NY, Michigan…
In other words you are unable to back your claim that no lending took place. The previous comment provided evidence that the slowing of loans resulted from the unprofitable market and not unavailable capital.
Bingo. You just shot the bailout a fatal blow. Plowing more capital into banks does not help when they are unwilling to loan it out.
Comment by Bradford — April 10, 2010 @ 10:30 am
April 10th, 2010 at 10:40 am
An irrational fear of bankruptcy leads to excessive reliance on bailouts.
Comment by Bradford — April 10, 2010 @ 10:40 am
April 10th, 2010 at 11:00 am
The subject was the global financial meltdown. Using the term "Obamaization" when referring to the first decade of the century doesn't make sense.
What about "credit freeze" don't you understand? You were provided references from the Brookings Institute, Money, and the Bush Whitehouse. This isn't something secret. The banking system broke down, and led to the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
Of course there was capital! That's what we said. Which brings us back to two thoughts. Can you put them together now?
The government didn't pull capital out of the markets. Capital pulled out of the markets in an accelerating downward spiral. Even huge banks were at risk. Nobody even knew how to calculate the risk, who was holding toxic assets, who would default next. Only the government had the wherewithal to save the markets. There was plenty of capital available, so the government didn't suck it out of the economy.
Gee whiz. It's like you never heard of the Great Depression or something. You can't just let the entire banking system collapse.
You didn't know that the credit markets froze in 2008, and you don't seem interested in learning about it, but you are very sure that New Jersey has been Obamazied during the Bush Administration.
Comment by Zachriel — April 10, 2010 @ 11:00 am
April 10th, 2010 at 11:09 am
The banks are paying Tarp back, it's GM that's not.
Unfortunately TARP is being used by the government to take over the banks.
The stimulus, oh well, goodbye money.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 10, 2010 @ 11:09 am
April 10th, 2010 at 11:10 am
Sure it does. Obama has brought federal deficit spending to new and dangerous levels. We see what has happened in NJ and the same beckons for the nation at large if the federal spendthrifts continue to get their way.
Comment by Bradford — April 10, 2010 @ 11:10 am
April 10th, 2010 at 11:16 am
A partial history (Zach):
The complete story entails the government coercing banks to alter time tested lending practices to effect social policy change, namely promotion of the doctrine that everyone had a "right" to a home. The resulting chaos and loan defaults were inevitable. The risks were introduced when lending institutions abandoned sound loan principles. The ensuing economic difficulties can be traced to unsound government policies promoted by those in office with no business experience.
Comment by Bradford — April 10, 2010 @ 11:16 am
April 10th, 2010 at 11:19 am
Look shit for brains. If you want to promote your arrogance and ignorance do it at the swamp or find some other place to post comments.
Comment by Bradford — April 10, 2010 @ 11:19 am
April 10th, 2010 at 11:40 am
It was demand driven. The shadow market in securities was creating huge profits for banks. They couldn't get enough. Lax oversight in the mortgage market certainly played a part, but nearly complete lack of oversight in the securities markets drove the hot-potato scheme.
Your eloquence overlooks what was said.
We documented the claim, from authoritative sources, and can provide as much documentation as you require. The credit markets were in seizure. The financial system was in freefall, and nearly every major bank was in danger of collapse.
You're thinking of this place all wrong. As if I had the money back in a safe. The money's not here. Your money's in Joe's house; that's right next to yours. And in the Kennedy house, and Mrs. Macklin's house, and a hundred others.
We documented that, as well. Because the problem was in the shadow markets for securities, no one knew who got left holding the bag, who was in danger, whom they could trust. Banks simply stopped lending to one another.
Comment by Zachriel — April 10, 2010 @ 11:40 am
April 10th, 2010 at 11:48 am
Olegt,
Thank you again for your response to my querries about Lucas. I went ahead an ordered Classical Theory of Fields Fourth Edition by Landau and Lipshitz.
I made an omission, it appear there were 4 parts to the velocity dependent potentials and forces which had roots in the work of Weber and even good criticisms from Helmholtz.
I think you've put forward very good objections to many creationist ideas. I pointed out one such objection in this thread which I brought to Dr. Sanford in person, and it is an objection that can't be dismissed.
I thank you for raising it, and I thank you for raising objections regarding Dr. Lucas work. If you wish to provide more, it turns out I cited only the first part of Dr. Lucas work earlier.
If you have such distaste for Lucas, but might be curious for the work of lesser heretics, I found some work by Phipps. Phipps actually recovered some work by Hertz! I didn't even know Hertz had an alternate E&M theory!
I don't believe Phipps is a creationist, but he is obviously cited by some creationists like Lucas.
Here are the 4 parts in reverse order:
Derivation of the Universal Force Law Part 4
Derivation of the Universal Force Law Part 3
Derivation of the Universal Force Law Part 2
Derivation of the Universal Force Law Part 1
I will be quick to say, in as much as Dr. Lucas cited mainstream sources (like Jackson's E&M, the works of Faraday, Lenz, Gauss, Ampere, Maxwell, Lorentz) I had no issues. He made passing reference to Hooper, which I have issues with, but I don't think it materially affects his results. Hooper's work was reviewed and lab work done at NASA Glenn research, and the results were inconclusive at best. But I don't think it materially affects Lucas' work.
The objections you put forward regarding Landau and Liptzhitz seem more substantive. I will pass them on to Dr. Lucas.
Lucas references the work of Phipps and Wesley. Phipps seemed generally mainstream, and Lucas modified Phipps' work. Phipps appears to have published in mainstream journals.
So if you have any more ammo to use against the creationists, it would be welcome. There is no point in me promoting false ideas. It would be helpful to all interested parties to be made aware of all sides of the issue.
Thank you again for you past comments, and thanks in advance for any further critiques of Lucas or Phipps or Hertz.
For interested readers here is Dr. Lucas creationist claim:
Some of Phipps work is in his book Old Physics for New: a worldview alternative to Einstein's relativity theory
Phipps wrote: Heretical Verites
From a review at Amazon:
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 10, 2010 @ 11:48 am
April 10th, 2010 at 11:49 am
Spell it out or shut your pie hole. How's that for eloquence?
Comment by Bradford — April 10, 2010 @ 11:49 am
April 10th, 2010 at 11:56 am
You did not document your absolute claim. Lending slowed but never halted. It slowed because lending institutions make loans so that they can make profits and the market for loans became too risky. You cannot promote social change by mandating business changes and walk away from responsibility for the ensuing disaster as apologists for Andrew Cuomo, Barney Frank and others have tried to do.
Comment by Bradford — April 10, 2010 @ 11:56 am
April 10th, 2010 at 12:34 pm
It was a credit freeze. Of course there was minimal lending. There was lending in the bank crisis of 1930's.
In 2008, the system was in freefall. Banks wouldn't even lend to other banks. Try to understand what was happening, find some common ground, and move on.
Comment by Zachriel — April 10, 2010 @ 12:34 pm
April 10th, 2010 at 1:50 pm
Try to understand this Zach. I don't goose step through life mechanically repeating fairy tales about heroic gubbermint leaders rescuing us from evil white businessmen. Bush had options other than the ones he chose. Most of the bailout money was not needed by those to whom it was given with no strings attached. The GM bailout was mishandled as well. The best options were forsaken. The crisis had its roots in social activism.
Comment by Bradford — April 10, 2010 @ 1:50 pm
April 10th, 2010 at 5:48 pm
Yes, he did. But you can't discuss that history if you deny that the banking system was collapsing, and the ramifications of that. Even with intervention, the damage to the global economy was substantial.
That's not supported by the facts. It was demand side as the shadow market sucked more and more assets into the bubble of complex and unregulated security instruments that reached $60 trillion before it collapsed.
Comment by Zachriel — April 10, 2010 @ 5:48 pm
April 10th, 2010 at 6:15 pm
It is supported by facts. Centuries of sound loan practices were forsaken to appease dictums originating with Andrew Cuomo during the Clinton term. Easy but never should have been granted loans to avoid the liberal racism hobgoblin used as a club to bludgeon all from business to Tea Partyers. The mortgage loan snowball took on a life of its own. There was unsurprisingly a spike in demand too. Consumers are not ignorant of loan trends.
Comment by Bradford — April 10, 2010 @ 6:15 pm
April 10th, 2010 at 10:19 pm
The credit freeze was in 2008, not 1998.
You completely ignored the comment about the unregulated $60 trillion shadow market.
Comment by Zachriel — April 10, 2010 @ 10:19 pm
April 10th, 2010 at 11:43 pm
Zachriel:
The credit crunch was not poofed into existence over night. Factors which brought it about acted over a period of time. I found Thomas Sowell's analytical book on this persuasive. He sources the crisis to a complex of different factors acting over several years before things came to a head. Would effective regulations have averted a crisis? Very likely. But I think Sowell had it right when he pointed out that market dynamics were negatively impacted by regulations- and not simply the lack of them. That would make input from the the public sector an unintentional but nevertheless real contributory factor to problems manifest by private sector actions. So are mechanisms now in place which would prevent replays?
Behind all the too big to fail worries looms the ultimate nightmare- a financial meltdown of the world's largest economy due to unsustainable debt accumulation by the federal government.
Comment by Bradford — April 10, 2010 @ 11:43 pm
April 11th, 2010 at 1:06 am
Some Facts: Medium Mum on Barney Frank's Fannie Connection
Bush had his problems, but don't blame Bush for Barney Fwanks misdeeds.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 11, 2010 @ 1:06 am
April 11th, 2010 at 2:13 am
Potential help for understanding cancer cures:
Hideous Rodent May Provide Cure for Cancer
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 11, 2010 @ 2:13 am
April 11th, 2010 at 2:24 am
Here is a potential wonderdrug:
http://www.lowdosenaltrexone.o...
I have a friend taking it, it has done wonders. She suffers from a genetic blood disorder that is aggravated by viruses. The treatment boosted her immune system. It has had a surprising effect on multiplesclerosis patients overturning the general belief that MS should be treated by suppressing the immune system.
The principal researcher was from Harvard Medical. Sharp guy.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 11, 2010 @ 2:24 am
April 11th, 2010 at 8:48 am
Bradford, you still ignored the comment about the unregulated $60 trillion shadow market. What was the primary source of profits for mortgage originators during the runup to the fiscal crisis?
Comment by Zachriel — April 11, 2010 @ 8:48 am
April 11th, 2010 at 2:33 pm
Also unsustainable debt by consumers (i.e. people defaulting on loans) and businesses.
This has partly come about because of policies advocated by the likes of Obama (even before Obama was a senator).
By the way, my favorite scoundrels, Hayman Capital and friends, are capitalizing on the misery caused by socialists.
Notice how capitalists label the collection of governments with a debt crisis and government run health care, and unionized government workers as "PIGS":
When will people learn. Socialism doesn't help the common man in the long run.
It's like charging a credit card today and living it up, only to have an angry lender knock on the door in the future. That sums up Obamanism, except Obama runs up the credit cards and your kids pay for his mistakes.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 11, 2010 @ 2:33 pm
April 11th, 2010 at 3:04 pm
Greek Debt Crisis and the end of the European Dream
Oink, Oink.
PS
Thanks Bradford for the Open Thread. YAY!
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 11, 2010 @ 3:04 pm
April 11th, 2010 at 5:29 pm
Zachriel:
You tell us. I've already indicated on multiple occasions that I'm not opposed to reasonable regulations. Neither am I blind to the fact that there is greed among speculators, borrowers who should know better than to even seek a loan and loan originators who have only their self-interest at heart. But it would be compounding a tragedy to write the history of that era in such a way so as to place the blame solely on "Wall Street" to fuel populist sentiments about what took place.
Here is an illuminating article. Sowell went into greater detail on this in his book. The anatomy of the bailout is complex and does not lend itself to ideologues wishing to whitewash either the public or private sectors. They both had a role in the many events leading to the crisis and the bailout legislation.
Comment by Bradford — April 11, 2010 @ 5:29 pm
April 12th, 2010 at 8:48 pm
Dr. Edward Feser takes on ID
VJ Torley Responds at UD
Comment by Daniel Smith — April 12, 2010 @ 8:48 pm
April 13th, 2010 at 12:59 pm
Some want to Greekify the US economy.
Voters in November may slow things down. We'll see.
In the meantime: Obama Approval Drops to Record Low
This tells me some people are seeing the truth:
Looks like Bush is gaining on Obama.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 13, 2010 @ 12:59 pm
April 13th, 2010 at 2:37 pm
Salvador:
Here is a solid indicator:
In 2009 state and local government debt grew 4.8% while federal government debt grew 22.7%. This is a road to disaster. Americans are not uneasy for nothing. They have good reasons to be apprehensive.
Comment by Bradford — April 13, 2010 @ 2:37 pm
April 13th, 2010 at 7:25 pm
McCarthyism and witch hunt hysteria are alive and well on the left.
Comment by Bradford — April 13, 2010 @ 7:25 pm
April 14th, 2010 at 7:51 pm
Here's another thread where Edward Feser is holding forth on why ID is incompatible with Aristotlian/Thomist (A-T) philosophy.
Fascinating.
One of the most interesting points Dr. Feser makes is what can only be described as a philosophical case against abiogenesis:
Pretty cool stuff!
Comment by Daniel Smith — April 14, 2010 @ 7:51 pm
April 14th, 2010 at 9:00 pm
Careful:
To see my objection let me deliberately insert some changes
The reasoning is too open to counterexample and mis-interpretation.
Better yet:
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 14, 2010 @ 9:00 pm
April 14th, 2010 at 9:28 pm
O'Reilly: Nobody's ever said at Fox you'll go to jail if you don't buy health insurance.
Comment by Zachriel — April 14, 2010 @ 9:28 pm
April 14th, 2010 at 9:54 pm
I'll see your one O'Reilly lie and raise you 8 Obama lies!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Fun game Zach! How do we know who wins?
Comment by chunkdz — April 14, 2010 @ 9:54 pm
April 14th, 2010 at 10:20 pm
Obama and Congressional leadership debate health care insurance reform, on C-Span.
Obama answers questions about health care bill at Republican Conference.
Health care debate in the U.S. Senate.
Health care debate in the U.S. House of Representatives.
More on the Health Care debate, on C-Span.
Comment by Zachriel — April 14, 2010 @ 10:20 pm
April 14th, 2010 at 11:28 pm
I see. He meant he'd broadcast the debates two months AFTER the bill passed the Senate!
I loves me some Zach!
Ooh here's another broken promise!
http://www.politifact.com/trut...
This game is awesome!
Comment by chunkdz — April 14, 2010 @ 11:28 pm
April 14th, 2010 at 11:45 pm
Two hit points for this one!
http://www.freerepublic.com/fo...
Zach, are you wearing your cardboard culture-warrior armor and your styrofoam sword covered in tin foil?
Comment by chunkdz — April 14, 2010 @ 11:45 pm
April 15th, 2010 at 7:49 am
The Senate health care bill passed December 24, 2009. You were pointed to debate starting November 20 through December 23. There were many debates throughout the process—it's been going on for months—, and the bills were posted on the Internet so that the public could express their concerns.
Your examples could be reasonably construed as examples of changing directions or modifying schedules. And Obama has had to answer to people for these changes. For instance, Neil Armstrong has strongly condemned the change in the space program.
These are very poor equivalents to what Bill O'Reilly did, which is to claim to have researched then 'misremembered' a fact important to the discussion. However, if O'Reilly issues an immediate correction, and apologizes to the Senator Coburn, then he will have put this particular to rest.
Even if you argue that Obama cynically promised the Moon with no intention of providing it, that doesn't excuse FoxNews's constant and blatant misrepresentation.
Comment by Zachriel — April 15, 2010 @ 7:49 am
April 15th, 2010 at 1:28 pm
INCOMING!! HIT THE DIRT!!!
Chris Matthews "I never heard the word 'regime,' before, have you?" "I never heard the word 'regime,' before, have you?"
OMG! A direct hit!!
Man this is the best game ever!!
But you know, something is troubling me. It's weird, but it is almost as if BOTH SIDES of the political spectrum tell lies! I know, I know… this goes against all the sage wisdom I have heard from Al Franken and Sean Hannity, but we must have the courage to follow the evidence where it leads.
I always thought that our news media personalities were bulwarks for truth and honesty! Now I find that Bill O'Reilly and Chris Matthews are liars! I don't know which side to place all my trust in anymore!!
Same with politicians. Bush, Clinton, Obama, Edwards: All liars!
What political ideology am I supposed to blindly follow now that I know that they are all liars?? Where in the world am I going to go to get spoonfed my political beliefs??? I know! I'll go see America's trusted Newsman Dan Rather! He'd never lie to me, would he?
Noooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!
Hold me, Zach. I'm frightened!
Comment by chunkdz — April 15, 2010 @ 1:28 pm
April 15th, 2010 at 2:19 pm
On a more serious note, Zach, this offers us agood illustration of how context is important to critical thinking.
It may be sweetly emotionally satisfying for a partisan like yourself to relish a "gotcha" moment like this. Clearly O'Reilly was wrong. This adds support to the belief that one's perceived political enemies are evil entities engaged in "constant and blatant misrepresentation." And neuroscience informs us that it is just as sweetly satisfying to selectively ignore the lies that come from members of our own political "tribe".
But critical thinking demands that we look at such emotionally charged accusations through a rational prism.
First, let's examine the quotes. Time magazine collected them.
http://swampland.blogs.time.co...
Note that all the quotes occurred in November. A time when Health Care was fragmented, and existed in several different iterations.
So was there a version of the plan which contained prison penalties for those who didn't comply with healthcare regulations? Or were several Fox News hosts, guests, and commentators engaged in some dirty "blatant misrepresentation"?
It turns out that in November 2009, H.R. 3962 contained penalties for non-compliance which could indeed result in imprisonment if not payed.
http://republicans.waysandmean...
This provision was later taken out of the final bill.
So were the many quotes from Fox News hosts, guests and contributors regarding this possible penalty "constant and blatant misrepresentation", or was there a context in which these quotes were relevant?
The easy answer, most appealing to the partisan mind, is to say "Yes. O'Reilly was trying to cover up a constant, blatant conspiracy of misrepresentation".
The more difficult answer, which appeals to critical thinkers (I think), is to say "O'Reilly made up his statement, (or got some very bad info from his research staff – still his responsibility), but when the quotes were made on Fox News there were serious questions about whether criminal penalties might be incurred for non-compliance – so this is incongruent with a conspiracy of misrepresentation".
Maybe there's more to the story. Critical thinking allows us to withold judgement pending further information. That's usually the wise call in matters such as this. But from my experience, the WORST possible decision is to seize upon a gotcha moment and use it to prop up previously held conceptions. A good critical thinker constantly challenges his most cherished beliefs.
Comment by chunkdz — April 15, 2010 @ 2:19 pm
April 15th, 2010 at 2:42 pm
I tried posting my question about viruses here in this forum because it was an open forum. I really value TT and your opinions and feedback. Is there a way to get feedback on that question from this community? Do posts in this open forum have to do specifically with "EARTH"? Please help, I'm a bit discouraged.
Comment by siis — April 15, 2010 @ 2:42 pm
April 15th, 2010 at 8:08 pm
Given that both Matthews and O'Reilly are blitherers, O'Reilly claimed that his staff had researched the matter, while Matthews made his remark off-the-cuff. Matthews has since issued a correction.
Comment by Zachriel — April 15, 2010 @ 8:08 pm
April 15th, 2010 at 8:45 pm
When Dan Rather lied did you write about it on ID websites?
Comment by chunkdz — April 15, 2010 @ 8:45 pm
April 15th, 2010 at 9:24 pm
Was the presidential characterization of the health care bill fundamentally dishonest?
Comment by Bradford — April 15, 2010 @ 9:24 pm
April 16th, 2010 at 3:29 am
Imho, what's going on at JPL is bigotry:
Darwinists at NASA Getting Sued
Let's say for the sake of arugment (and only for the sake of argument) Coppedge stepped over the line by loaning a DVD to an interested coworker. That hardly justifies the reprimand he received by any historical standard of practice at NASA.
Will "Merry Christmas" land you a demotion, but "Happy Darwin Day" land you a promotion?
Sal
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 16, 2010 @ 3:29 am
April 16th, 2010 at 7:28 am
Ah, so ID is religion. Glad that's been cleared up.
Comment by Zachriel — April 16, 2010 @ 7:28 am
April 16th, 2010 at 8:01 am
From the UD OP linked to by Salvador and commented on by Zachriel:
It was the JPL who made the religious linkage and very possibly an illegal one at that. In any case the law protects against discrimination sourced from the intent of an employer. If an employer discriminates based on a belief that one is African American while the person is actually Hispanic the employer is still guilty.
Comment by Bradford — April 16, 2010 @ 8:01 am
April 16th, 2010 at 8:03 am
Comment by Zachriel — April 16, 2010 @ 8:03 am
April 16th, 2010 at 8:05 am
Ignorance is no excuse under the law.
Comment by Bradford — April 16, 2010 @ 8:05 am
April 16th, 2010 at 8:21 am
Generally, if an employer allows free-ranging discussions, then they can't discriminate on viewpoint. That would include scientific balderdash, such as ID, unrelated to the job at hand. However, if the conversations become disruptive, then they can impose limits. That someone pointed out that ID isn't scientific, but religious, doesn't necessarily mean it was religious discrimination. The specifics will matter.
Now that's funny!
Comment by Zachriel — April 16, 2010 @ 8:21 am
April 16th, 2010 at 8:29 am
How is loaning a tape disruptive and what religion has a doctrine imputing design to DNA?
Comment by Bradford — April 16, 2010 @ 8:29 am
April 16th, 2010 at 8:38 am
You seem to be thinking that's all that happened. It likely led to heated exchanges that were disruptive to the workplace, in which case the content of the speech is irrelevant.
But to repeat, if people are allowed to have free-ranging discussions, then the employer can't discriminate on viewpont. Typically, tamping down all conversation is the appropriate course. My sympathies lie with free speech. It's ironic to claim religious discrimination, in any case. Maybe he'll win on that point!
Many religions "impute design" to, well, everthing.
Comment by Zachriel — April 16, 2010 @ 8:38 am
April 16th, 2010 at 8:42 am
Witch hunt slowed.
Comment by Bradford — April 16, 2010 @ 8:42 am
April 16th, 2010 at 8:44 am
B
You can't even cite a single religion which cites the core belief of ID as a doctrinal aspect of its own belief system.
Comment by Bradford — April 16, 2010 @ 8:44 am
April 16th, 2010 at 8:47 am
Where is the evidence for this?
Comment by Bradford — April 16, 2010 @ 8:47 am
April 16th, 2010 at 9:42 am
Really? ID is not a clearly defined doctrine or scientific theory. However, many religions do, indeed, claim that life and everything is designed.
When I consider your heavens,
the work of your fingers,
the moon and the stars,
which you have set in place,
what is man that you are mindful of him,
the son of man that you care for him?
You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings
and crowned him with glory and honor.
You have made him to have dominion over the works of Your hands;
His verily is all creation and commandment Blessed be Allah, the Lord of the Worlds! …
Allah hath created every animal of water.
He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.
Comment by Zachriel — April 16, 2010 @ 9:42 am
April 16th, 2010 at 10:02 am
At this point, all we have is an allegation.
Comment by Zachriel — April 16, 2010 @ 10:02 am
April 16th, 2010 at 10:08 am
ID critics have made the case that the Declaration of Independence is a religious document.
Comment by Bradford — April 16, 2010 @ 10:08 am
April 16th, 2010 at 10:12 am
Waxman's accountants determined the charge-offs were reasonable. The companies will no longer be eligible for a tax deduction on subsidies they receive, essentially ending double-dipping.
Comment by Zachriel — April 16, 2010 @ 10:12 am
April 16th, 2010 at 12:10 pm
Sal:
There is not a difference in kind between oxygen&hydrogen and water – both are non-living chemical substances – so premise (a) does not hold. Plus oxygen&hydrogen has in it the potential to become water – so premise (b) does not hold either.
Non-living substances do not have the potential within themselves to become living substances (life only comes from life) but living substances do have the potential within themselves to become non-living (or to produce non-living) substances. Hence a living substance does not violate premise (b) by causing a non-living substance, but a non-living substance would have to violate premise (b) to produce a living one.
Comment by Daniel Smith — April 16, 2010 @ 12:10 pm
April 16th, 2010 at 8:24 pm
Joke break:
Comment by Daniel Smith — April 16, 2010 @ 8:24 pm
April 19th, 2010 at 7:37 am
The New York Times and CBS News have conducted interviews with Tea Party supporters (as part of an opinion poll) and found some interesting opinions:
What a great idea! Have your cake and eat it too.
Comment by olegt — April 19, 2010 @ 7:37 am
April 19th, 2010 at 8:13 am
From Olegt's quote:
SS payments are forcibly deducted from paychecks for decades. How is it a contradiction to expect some return on the forced investment when retirement arrives? That does not mean reforms are not in order. Retirement ages will have to be raised. Government pensions, which are much too generous, will have to be cut back. Means testing needs to be effectively employed so that the needy are separated from the well off with respect to entitlement programs. We cannot afford to pension those already comfortable. Tort reform is needed so that doctors do not feel the need to practice defensive medicine and drive up medicare costs in the process. More than this is needed. But this will do for starts. Tea Partyers are right to suspect the system is fatally flawed when corporate bailouts to the tune of tens of billions is in the process of being institutionalized while the focus is on a "contradiction" about minimal entitlement benefits for the poor and working classes. BTW conservative proposals in the past which would have allowed for greater latitude in investment of SS deductions and a certain degree of individual but regulated control have been rejected by government gods. Any entry level investment advisor knows that a 20 year old gets a much greater return on SS deductions if allowed to invest more freely that same money over a 45- 50 year period. The SS returns are truly paltry.
Comment by Bradford — April 19, 2010 @ 8:13 am
April 19th, 2010 at 8:28 am
Keep in mind that Social Security deductions fund the previous generation. So if you want to have investment, then you have to maintain the current deductions, and add additional deductions. Most people handle this with a 401k or similar plan, while Social Security provides a minimal base income and safety net.
The problems with Social Security are minimal, due mostly to the generational bubble. Medicare is a much bigger issue.
Comment by Zachriel — April 19, 2010 @ 8:28 am
April 19th, 2010 at 8:29 am
Bradford wrote:
Bradford,
Social Security is not a replacement for retirement income, it's a minimal safety net devised in case your investment strategy fails. I thought you were old enough to understand that.
Comment by olegt — April 19, 2010 @ 8:29 am
April 19th, 2010 at 8:35 am
Not an intelligent response. Maximizing a return has nothing to do with the minimal intent of the investment. It's a matter of efficiency.
Comment by Bradford — April 19, 2010 @ 8:35 am
April 19th, 2010 at 8:39 am
Bradford, do you even know why Social Security was introduced?
Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
Comment by olegt — April 19, 2010 @ 8:39 am
April 19th, 2010 at 8:40 am
The SS system was flawed at the outset. The money would have yielded far greater returns had it been funneled to regulated investment firms. The retirement yields would be greater and significantly more so for the poor.
Comment by Bradford — April 19, 2010 @ 8:40 am
April 19th, 2010 at 8:41 am
Olegt, do you understand that a greater return is preferable regardless of intent?
Comment by Bradford — April 19, 2010 @ 8:41 am
April 19th, 2010 at 8:44 am
Bradford,
A greater return implies a higher risk. The Social Security is meant to be low-risk. Right?
Comment by olegt — April 19, 2010 @ 8:44 am
April 19th, 2010 at 8:49 am
Higher risk but smart investments for 20 year olds are not to be confused with the higher risks society faces when even a minimal security fund like SS cannot measure up to minimal cost standards. Stock based investments outperform safe ones in the long term. As a worker reaches middle age his investment options would be restricted by regulation. Much more so as retirement age is neared when very safe investments would be de rigor.
Comment by Bradford — April 19, 2010 @ 8:49 am
April 19th, 2010 at 8:55 am
Bradford,
I am not arguing that the SS has a high return on investment or was even meant to. So don't go there.
Comment by olegt — April 19, 2010 @ 8:55 am
April 19th, 2010 at 9:20 am
Quoting the Times & CBS piece again:
This is a pathetic attempt to debunk the Tea Party. Juan Williams made a similar point on Fox last night so these are likely talking points now albeit very poor ones.
Is anyone able to articulate how collecting SS benefits in conjunction with a distaste for big government is evidence of a contradiction?
Comment by Bradford — April 19, 2010 @ 9:20 am
April 19th, 2010 at 9:33 am
Bradford, your quote is only half-full.
If you add the previous paragraph,
the contradiction becomes obvious: it's not just about collecting benefits, it's about the unwillingness to cut Medicare and Social Security despite all the noise about reducing government spending.
Comment by olegt — April 19, 2010 @ 9:33 am
April 19th, 2010 at 9:55 am
Olegt:
What's obvious is a lack of analytical thought. The federal government has an administrative cost overhead that exceeds that of private industry and charitable organizations and often the difference is extreme. That indicates waste to my dollars and cents mind. There is plenty of waste in the medical field and I alluded to a big one in my prior comment- unnecessary diagnostic procedures prescribed because doctors practice defensive medicine. Many medicare payments should never exist in the first place. Tort reform- the bane of lawyers who compose most legislative bodies. Ah but those clever interviewers thought reduction in government spending conflates to cuts in medicare and SS benefits. How clever and fooling only left wing nuts. Hey guys, how about some corporate welfare cuts? That's Big G too. That's what sparked the Tea Party movement in the first place. That and trillions in overspending. But I don't expect integrity from the Times.
Comment by Bradford — April 19, 2010 @ 9:55 am
April 19th, 2010 at 10:42 am
Bradford wrote:
No kidding.
Whoa, Bradford!
First, its right wingnuts and left moonbats! Don't confuse them.
Second, look at government spending. One-fifth of that is defense and security, one-fifth is Social Security, one-fifth is Medicare, Medicaid and CHIP. Another 15% are other safety-net programs like the earned-income and child tax credits. "Corporate welfare" does not seem to be high on that list.
Comment by olegt — April 19, 2010 @ 10:42 am
April 19th, 2010 at 10:53 am
Social Security's administrative costs are less than one percent—lower than most private plans.
Comment by Zachriel — April 19, 2010 @ 10:53 am
April 19th, 2010 at 11:08 am
For instance, Sean Hannity's Association for the Education of the Children of the Glorious Dead has overhead of about 80-90%.
Comment by Zachriel — April 19, 2010 @ 11:08 am
April 19th, 2010 at 11:14 am
Just to check, I presume chapter 12, section 65 on page 179?
Thank you again, and apologies for the elementary question.
But it seems this section dealt with the inability of the Lagrangian to deal with retarded potentials or better stated "finite velocity of propagation of interactions" it did not specifically challenge the possibility of a velocity dependent potential. It would seem to suggest (and this is a guess) the Lagrangian would be in appropriate to describe velocity dependent forces in addition to retarded potentials.
The Lagrangian is an appropriate approximation if speed of particles is low with respect to speed of light, thus potentials and forces can be modeled as non-retarded, but "instantaneous".
Thank you again for the info.
Sal
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 19, 2010 @ 11:14 am
April 19th, 2010 at 11:34 am
Correction, chapter 8 of 12.
It turns out the book is available on google books:
http://tinyurl.com/y5uxrze
Sal
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 19, 2010 @ 11:34 am
April 19th, 2010 at 11:34 am
Olegt, you left out a trillion in two stimulus bills and an almost trillion dollar bailout. That's the historic cause for the Tea Party movement. We need to update Dirkson's remark. A billion here and a billion there and pretty soon you're talking about real money.
Comment by Bradford — April 19, 2010 @ 11:34 am
April 19th, 2010 at 12:06 pm
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/...
Comment by Bradford — April 19, 2010 @ 12:06 pm
April 19th, 2010 at 12:08 pm
An example of a velocity dependent force would be Drag Force (physics).
However, Drag forces are not conservative forces such as those found in a field, so Drag forces don't create velocity dependent potentials.
What has been proposed by Weber, Phipps and Lucas is not just velocity dependent forces but velocity dependent potential.
They argue the need for retarded potentials can also be removed. It's not clear to me that they are correct or how this can be done, but the question is obviously important to creationists like Lucas.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 19, 2010 @ 12:08 pm
April 19th, 2010 at 12:21 pm
With regards to the stimulus bill, the amount of the ARRA is $787 billion, with 36% going towards tax cuts, and 28% going towards entitlements such as propping up state Medicare accounts. That means more than half of the spending is certainly not "corporate welfare." The balance does often go to corporations for various projects, but some of the expenditures will have some long-term value, such as energy moderization. While some investment will be wasted, most of it will have at least some stimulatory effects on the economy.
As for TARP, total costs will probably be less than $100 billion.
The biggest factors in the deficit are the deep recession and the Bush upper income tax cuts.
Comment by Zachriel — April 19, 2010 @ 12:21 pm
April 19th, 2010 at 12:28 pm
Sal,
It's true that dissipative forces like air drag and viscous friction cannot be described within the Lagrangian formalism (except through a kludge known as Rayleigh's dissipation function*). However, the Lorentz force can be described within that formalism. See §17 in Landau and Lifshitz.
However, describing the motion of charged particles in terms of some potential and kinetic energy is only possible at low speeds, when their motion does not create electromagnetic radiation. Electromagnetic waves are emitted at the third order in the v/c expansion. At that point, it becomes impossible to model the motion in terms of instantaneous interactions.
* See this PDF page summarizing velocity-dependent forces in mechanics.
Comment by olegt — April 19, 2010 @ 12:28 pm
April 19th, 2010 at 1:14 pm
You left out increased spending. Projections into the future all indicate deficits. The health care bill will add to problems. Deficit projections years down the road and increased taxes, sunsets on laws… Blaming Bush is looking ever more lame.
Comment by Bradford — April 19, 2010 @ 1:14 pm
April 19th, 2010 at 1:17 pm
Olegt,
Thank you again for the information and taking time to look into my questions.
Thanks again.
Sal
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 19, 2010 @ 1:17 pm
April 19th, 2010 at 1:23 pm
You ignored the information. TARP and ARRA are both temporary measures.
Comment by Zachriel — April 19, 2010 @ 1:23 pm
April 19th, 2010 at 1:56 pm
If TARP is temporary then why is Geithner trying to institutionalize TARP.
Comment by Bradford — April 19, 2010 @ 1:56 pm
April 19th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
BTW economic cycles are to some extent inevitable. The federal government and individual states have spending problems. If you are going to blame recessions for falling revenue then the logical alternative is to run surpluses during economic boom periods.
Comment by Bradford — April 19, 2010 @ 2:03 pm
April 19th, 2010 at 2:25 pm
Proposed regulatory reform provides a mechanism to liquidate or dismantle failed firms, much like FDIC does for banks, as well as regulating shadow-market securities.
Enlightenment is possible.
It's called countercyclical fiscal policy. It acts to moderate the boom-and-bust economic cycle. (Automatic countercyclical policies include unemployment insurance and progressive taxation.) The last budget surpluses were during the Clinton Administration.
Comment by Zachriel — April 19, 2010 @ 2:25 pm
April 19th, 2010 at 2:36 pm
I predicted you would say this to someone in the room. I'm glad you did because it gives me the opportunity to bring up the ideology card. The Tea Party movement is targeting high spending. Bush amped up the spending following Clinton's departure. Obama has accelerated the trend. Numerous states in the country are near bankruptcy due to to out of control spending. Given a choice between Clinton like spending and what followed I'll take Clinton. With me and Tea Partyers it's about policies and not labels.
Comment by Bradford — April 19, 2010 @ 2:36 pm
April 19th, 2010 at 3:01 pm
The
Prognosticon™ predicted you would say that.Other than Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and short-term spending due to the stimulus, spending under current law should remain about the same percentage of the GDP into the foreseeable future. CBO: The current recession and policy responses have little effect on long-term projections of noninterest spending and revenues.
What spending cuts can you suggest that would make a significant dent in long-term budget deficits?
Comment by Zachriel — April 19, 2010 @ 3:01 pm
April 19th, 2010 at 3:50 pm
There is not an area which could not be cut. I have an acquaintance who works for the Department of Homeland Security. If I ask him if there is efficiency throughout his department he will laugh. Details include waste of which he has personal knowledge. Unproductive positions. Vehicle repair rip offs. Overly generous pensions (my description, not his) and more. Cut the budget of every department by 10 percent (but not benefits). They will have less money to squander in the last 30 days of the fiscal year. We need a bigger private sector and a smaller public sector.
Comment by Bradford — April 19, 2010 @ 3:50 pm
April 19th, 2010 at 3:58 pm
From the same link (The Foundry) quoted previously:
Exactly. The fox is keeping an eye on the chicken coop and taxpayers are funding the expenses for this. The way to reduce the likelihood of ventures that are too risky is to let those taking the risks suffer the consequences.
Comment by Bradford — April 19, 2010 @ 3:58 pm
April 19th, 2010 at 4:46 pm
I mentioned Phipps earlier. I have now his books in my possession including Landau's books.
I've not had grad level Electro magnetics, and at this time, I don't feel comfortable with the material, but I will relate from my current level of low understanding.
Phipps book had the preface and a glowing endorsement by Pierre Noyes an professor emeritus at Stanford. I suspect Noyes was one of Phipps' classmates at Harvard.
Phipps and Lucas can better their position if they have experimental evidence supportive of their theories and if they can demonstrate their formulations will more elegantly express ideas already in the mainstream.
Phipps submitted his experimental results regarding the Thomas Precession experiments to Nature in 1971. It was rejected, according to the editor, because of lack of room for the article. The hostile reviewer at Amazon seemed awfully biased in his critique of Phipps work. Noyes endorsement carries a lot of weight, imho.
Phipps looks favorably upon Ampere's Longitudinal Force Ideas. Those ideas are described here:
Amperes Longitudinal Force
Probably an interesting claim is that of a proposed experiment here:
Proposed motors driven solely by Ampère repulsion
Unfortunately, these speculations by Phipps have been siezed by quacks, and few real experiments have been done.
and from NASA/Harvard archives:
Longitudinal forces in ampère's wire-arc experiment
I'm not in a position to affirm one view over another.
PS
One of Phipps books deals with Stellar Abberation which was pionneered by people like Bradley (James Bradley not Walter Bradley of ID). Phipps suggests using VLBI to verify Einstein's relativity: Very Long Baseline Interferometry. He laments VLBI has not been used to date for the question of SRT (special relativity theory) correctness.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 19, 2010 @ 4:46 pm
April 19th, 2010 at 6:42 pm
Just saying cutting waste doesn't represent significant savings.
Total discretionary spending is about $1.368 trillion, so you've saved about $136 billion by cutting the military, homeland security, transportation, justice, corp of engineers, environmental protection, education, food and drug, scientific research, state and housing, probably adding another million or so to the unemployment rolls. The military and homeland security are about half of all discretionary spending.
Only about $1 trillion more in cuts and you'll balance the budget! Keep going!
Comment by Zachriel — April 19, 2010 @ 6:42 pm
April 19th, 2010 at 6:51 pm
Zach:
True. Just talking like Obama is prone to do does not accomplish things. But doing it does.
!0 percent the next year… Deficits result from cumulative increases. The reverse strategy works. Unless that is, you really are not opposed to deficits unless you can blame them on Bush. Then you can just claim that the whole thing is futile. Give up. Or you can push for higher taxes. A nice VAT would further Europeanize the country and create more mediocrity. What the hell. Blame it on Bush. It's easier than fixing problems.
Comment by Bradford — April 19, 2010 @ 6:51 pm
April 19th, 2010 at 6:55 pm
Deficits result from spending more than you bring in. Are you saying to cut 10% every year?
Comment by Zachriel — April 19, 2010 @ 6:55 pm
April 19th, 2010 at 7:12 pm
Here is a speculative alternative energy idea. Even the investigators have severe doubts. Haish and Moddell are respectable scientists, whith Haish publishing in the mianstream.
Having worked in Electrical Engineering, I see the ability to harness various forms of electromagnetic energy. For example: Crystal Radio. The energy comes from the Radio Station acting like one giant "microwave" oven "heating" the surrounding regions with radio energy.
But can we just grab energy out of a huge noise that surround us naturally known as Zero Point Energy
Can we then just build an antenna and like a crystal radio harvest the zero point energy in a particular mode? Can we tip the balance of spontaneous emission and absorption of photons caused by the Zero Point Energy?
The idea has a foul odor of violating a conservation law akin to perpetual motion machines or Perfect Refrigerators which Violate 2nd Law.
We may be skeptical, but how about the old college try?
Haish and Moddell are respectable researchers with mainstream credentials. Here is their latest attempt:
Zero Point Energy Extraction.
The venture is high risk (in terms of the possibility of failure), but I wish them well for all our sakes.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 19, 2010 @ 7:12 pm
April 19th, 2010 at 7:24 pm
Here is the link to the device description:
Jovion Device Description
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 19, 2010 @ 7:24 pm
April 19th, 2010 at 8:49 pm
Sal, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and invest in Jovion?
Comment by olegt — April 19, 2010 @ 8:49 pm
April 19th, 2010 at 10:03 pm
I'm skeptical that they will succeed. Many fine physicists think they will fail. I pointed out my reservations.
I've thrown out some speculative ideas for discussion.
You've provided criticisms in the past from your knowlege base, and they've been valuable, and I've retracted some of my views as a result of what you said. I benefit from your input, especially with respect to physics.
I have an interest in fringe ideas, but there is no benefit to maintaining them once they are shown to be false. You've helped me get closer to the truth with some of your criticisms.
I really don't know if Jovion can succeed.
I've posted before on one organization I think will succeed, the National Ignition Facility:
https://lasers.llnl.gov/
Sal
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 19, 2010 @ 10:03 pm
April 20th, 2010 at 11:14 am
Feynman hypothesized using a ratchet system to utilize brownian motion to achieve movement from point A to B. Some have said this is implementing Maxwell's Demon, but my guess is that this is probably a mischaracterization.
By way of analogy, if we have a pulley system like this where Ma approximately equal to Mb:
http://www.vcu.edu/cte/resourc...
One can move a 5 ton truck (Ma) upward on one side of the pulley somewhat easily if the other side of the pulley has a 5 ton truck (Mb). There is merely a transfer of potential energy. A relatively small amount of energy is needed to effect the process (if the system is low on friction). Energy is mostly conserved in the movement of the 5 ton truck upward since it is paid for by the movement of another 5 ton truck downward.
In comparable fashion, a protein can move from one end of physical system through a liquid medium to another end of the system. How is it able to do this with almost no propulsion system? It is paid for by the loss of kinetic energy of the environment.
The protein motor uses Brownian motion and Feynman's ratchet. It absorbs the kinetic energy from the random noise in the environment, and as it goes from point to point and its eventual destination, it gives back the energy to the environment. Energy is conserved!
The issue is whether this violates the 2nd law regading getting useful work from a system where the heat source and heat sink are the same temperature. Hard to say, since we're dealing with a molecular sized system. Surely there is a limit to how many of these motors can run in a given closed medium. One surely couldn't get spontaneous motion of all the molecules in the same direction. Only organized motion by a few molecules in a sea of randomness is possible. So imho, Feynman's ratchet does not implement Maxwell's demon in general. There is really no violation of the 2nd law…..
Formally speaking a ratchet transport system begins with 0 kinetic energy and ends with 0 kinetic enery. If it moves horizontally and stops, there is no change in net kinetic energy. What about potential energy if the protein ratchet moves up. Potential energy is also conserved since, like the 5 ton truck example, the protein ratchet moving up is compensated by the liquid medium moving down to occupy the space the ratchet vacated. Energy is conserved, yet an object has moved from point A to B in a directed fashion without much of an internally generated propulsion means!
The important thing is we have a model in nature of Feynman's Ratchet:
http://www.springerlink.com/co...
With respect to these brownian ratchet motors, the speed of the brownian-powered vehicle is limited since the medium that allows the motion also impedes it. But in principle, it seems that biology tells us we can get from point A to B without necessarily consuming a lot of energy, the problem is scaling the principles in biology to the macroscopic scale (like say to cars and spaceships) but without all the complications. The major complication is that the medium that facilitates movement by a ratchet motor also impedes it. But what if we can get around this problem?
What if one could tap into a "brownian like" medium but then travel through a vacuum. A hypothetical ratchet system is proposed to tap into the "brownian-like" Zero Point Energy. I suppose there is no violation of conservation laws, merely a transfer of energy, but the nice thing would be that the Vacuum energy that provides the energy won't simultaneously oppose the motion (as is the case with Feynman ratchet biological motors ).
At least that is the theory, and I suppose that's why NASA and DARPA have been willing to part with some of their (your taxpayer) money to explore fringe ideas. The chance of failure high, but the payoff for success is also high.
One energy extraction method is suggested. I don't say it is right, but it has good intuitions, and in parallels the Feynman ratchet motors in biology:
http://www.integrityresearchin...
The Jovion system is very speculative, it relies on the Casimir cavity creating degenerate quantum states below the ground state.
Fat chance of that happening, but I commend the effort to leave no stone unturned.
The rectifying of brownian motion or quantum fluctuations may hold promise. Further we have working examples that they work (biological systems), the issue is scaling up the intelligent design we already see in biology to the macro scale.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 20, 2010 @ 11:14 am
April 20th, 2010 at 7:33 pm
The plot thickens!
Now Thomas Cudworth…
William Dembski…
and Jay Richards…
have posted replies to Ed Feser's posts on thomism and ID.
Am I the only one here interested in this? I would think that this debate between the heavyweights of thomism and ID would at least receive some comments here – if not a thread of its own.
Comment by Daniel Smith — April 20, 2010 @ 7:33 pm
April 20th, 2010 at 8:32 pm
I don't think so, but it may be possible to build greater interest.
FYI — regarding the question you asked in a thread that is now closed, I did respond in the related thread concerning Antony Flew. (Just wanted to be sure you didn't miss it.)
Comment by eric — April 20, 2010 @ 8:32 pm
April 20th, 2010 at 10:48 pm
Daniel Smith pointed to posts by several authors on the exchanges concerning attacks by Thomists (e.g. Feser) against what they perceive ID to be doing.
Of those, I found the posts by Jay Richards and Thomas Cudworth clearest and most helpful. As Richards explained (emphasis added):
Unfortunately, Feser's post reads (not surprisingly) like one is coming into the middle of a conversation. In particular, he assumes that one already understands what he intends by "mechanistic".
Spot on. The post by Cudworth reinforces the sense that this is a discussion badly in need of people who are willing to work past misunderstandings and work toward translation and mutual understanding.
Comment by eric — April 20, 2010 @ 10:48 pm
April 21st, 2010 at 8:45 am
Salvador T. Cordova wrote:
Feynman's ratchet is a nice example of maximally efficient thermal engine that can be worked out in great detail. It can only do mechanical work if the temperature T2 of the ratchet and pawl is lower than the temperature T1 of the paddle. If the two temperatures are equal then the ratchet is in thermal equilibrium and all it can do is randomly rotate back and forth.
Energy conservation is the first law of thermodynamics. By itself, it does not preclude conversion of random thermal motion into mechanical work. Those restrictions are imposed by the second law.
A finite temperature difference in Feynman's example is key. One can also utilize a pressure difference to produce mechanical work. Bier's analysis of a protein motor shows that a difference in ATP concentrations can be converted into mechanical work. But you can't continuously convert chaotic thermal motion into mechanical energy without dumping a portion of energy into a colder environment. Furthermore, unless the temperature difference is not maintained, the energy dumping will eventually warm up the colder reservoir, the flow of energy will stop and the engine will no longer perform any work. Alternatively, one has to maintain a pressure or ATP concentration gradient to keep the engine running. There is no free lunch. You can't just "tap" into Brownian motion. The second law of thermodynamics puts stringent limits to that.
This is way off the real axis. The zero-point energy is the lowest energy attainable by a physical system. You simply can't extract that energy because the system can't go any lower in the energy landscape. And if it could go to a lower level then that lower level would be the zero-point energy. This is completely nuts.
Comment by olegt — April 21, 2010 @ 8:45 am
April 21st, 2010 at 9:16 am
[A typo I suspect. I'm guessing you intended "unless the temperature difference is maintained" or "if the temperature difference is not maintained".]
Thanks for contributing from your knowledge. Your input has value.
One of the reasons I value your contributions above those of some skeptics is that I sense that for you it is not merely a rhetorical game. I believe you do sincerely care about consistency and logic and forming a coherent picture — which is why you won't say things that you know are silly and you are able to acknowledge certain potentially problematic facts.
So I hope you don't mind when I appeal to you to examine the consistency of your views. Consider it the compliment that I believe you care about consistency more than always trying to appear to score (ultimately empty) rhetorical points, as some might do.
Comment by eric — April 21, 2010 @ 9:16 am
April 21st, 2010 at 11:23 am
Olegt,
Thank you for your response.
I looked up the link you provided.
You gave information I was not aware of, I highlight the information that was most informative to me.
You observed:
If I may apologize in advance for my misunderstanding, but is the ZPE an average value or is it always the same value with no variation?
I agree if the ZPE is the absolute lowest, then there is no possibility of an energy differential, and analogous to the absence of a gradient, energy can't be extracted.
But in a Casimir cavity where modes are blocked, does this not imply we shouldn't include the energy of those modes in the value of ZPE in the cavity. I would presume that is why some experimenters claim they can sort of make a battery like device with the Casimir cavity. I'm not trying to disagree here, but this is the part that confused me when scanning the literature. It would seem the Casimir cavity acts like a colored lens, blocking out certain frequencies of E&M energy.
If there is a link, I'd be happy to read it. You've been kind enough to type out already one lengthy response, and I feel bad imposing on you for another lengthy response. So if a link is available that you are aware of, that would suffice, otherwise, I'll go ahead an look for the info myself. You've already provided a lot of info.
Thank you again for taking the time to correct my misunderstanding. I was unaware of the further information regarding the Feynman ratchet above. Thank you again!
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 21, 2010 @ 11:23 am
April 21st, 2010 at 7:21 pm
Obama suggests value-added tax may be an option
Brave New World folks. Big G, more restrictions and laws, more taxes and stodgy economies to boot.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/201...
Comment by Bradford — April 21, 2010 @ 7:21 pm
April 21st, 2010 at 9:29 pm
You already indicated that long term deficits are a problem for the U.S. But you can't seem to find the necessary cuts. In order to bring the budget into balance, you said you would trim waste by cutting 10% from all discretionary spending, leaving entitlements alone. Apparently, you are somewhat in sync with the President.
Anyway, you have made 10% cuts in Homeland Security, Defense, Justice, Food and Drug. Now you only have to find another $1 trillion in cuts. What do you suggest?
Comment by Zachriel — April 21, 2010 @ 9:29 pm
April 21st, 2010 at 10:02 pm
Here's a plan.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/handb...
Not a plan.
Comment by chunkdz — April 21, 2010 @ 10:02 pm
April 21st, 2010 at 11:32 pm
Obama makes pretty speeches but has no plan other than the failed raise spending and taxes too which leads us to the fate of PIGS.
This is a plan:
Comment by Bradford — April 21, 2010 @ 11:32 pm
April 21st, 2010 at 11:44 pm
The belief that expanding the public sector while increasing tax burdens on the private sector leads to robust economies has been refuted by history but the myth keeps rearing its ugly head. VAT also shows Obama's lack of concern for middle income earners as they will now face a tax increase despite the election campaign promise.
Comment by Bradford — April 21, 2010 @ 11:44 pm
April 22nd, 2010 at 6:58 am
Corner fight!
Jim Manzi reviews Mark Levin's Liberty and Tyranny. His verdict? "This is wingnuttery." Cornerites are not amused.
Andy McCarthy: "Why pick Mark for the Pearl Harbor treatment?"
K-Lo: "I found Jim's tone deeply disappointing. Especially at a time when Liberty actually is endangered and Mark Levin is not to blame."
You rip what you sow, guys.
Comment by olegt — April 22, 2010 @ 6:58 am
April 22nd, 2010 at 7:55 am
Beware of sulfer dioxide and cooling effects:
And then there is this for the benefit of the John Travoltas and private jet setters:
Comment by Bradford — April 22, 2010 @ 7:55 am
April 22nd, 2010 at 7:55 am
"The key to averting a federal fiscal crisis in the years ahead is to cut the three main ‘‘entitlement’’ programs—Social Security, Medicare, and
Medicaid."
"This option would turn Medicaid into a block grant and freeze the federal contribution, thus forcing state governments to pursue cost-cutting reforms."
The plan, then, is to shift the costs to the state in the hopes they'll figure out how to cut spending or raise taxes to cover the shortfall. Many states are still reeling from the recession, so, more than likely, it will result in substantial cuts in benefits.
Yes, cutting grandma's Medicare is one solution to the deficit problem.
Comment by Zachriel — April 22, 2010 @ 7:55 am
April 22nd, 2010 at 8:01 am
eric wrote:
Yes, that was a typo.
Happy to oblige and hope that my opponents do likewise. (Yeah, right.)
Comment by olegt — April 22, 2010 @ 8:01 am
April 22nd, 2010 at 8:02 am
The emphasis is reforming a broken system so there will be something there for the grandmas of the country. I'm not surprised you would rather discuss anything but Obama's plans since the rabbit is now out of the hat and he wants larger and more expensive government, more regulations and more taxes. Not the platform he ran on.
Comment by Bradford — April 22, 2010 @ 8:02 am
April 22nd, 2010 at 8:21 am
by Larry Elder (my favorite racist)
Comment by Bradford — April 22, 2010 @ 8:21 am
April 22nd, 2010 at 8:25 am
As chunkdz pointed out, Obama hasn't proposed a deficit reduction plan. The global economy is still recovering from the fiscal crisis, so deficit reduction is still a couple of years out. That leaves time for studying the problem, and for Fox News to rally support for putting the primary burden on
the elderly and disabledfreeloaders.Obama campaigned on healthcare reform and investment in energy and education.
Comment by Zachriel — April 22, 2010 @ 8:25 am
April 22nd, 2010 at 1:22 pm
No, many states are reeling from decades of bloated budgets, spending sprees, and massive deficits. Case in point is California which is $500,000,000,000.00 in debt largely because of unfunded pensions and unfunded mandates.
Since Grandma's Medicare was never paid for, yes it will have to go back to the store. What kind of evil person promised grandma a gift that he knew he couldn't afford?
Evil, evil, evil.
Dumbest thing I've heard all day.
Kind of like saying "Honey, I just got a demotion and a pay-cut at work, we have no savings, and we're massively in debt – so in a couple of years we're going to have to think about cutting back on our spending."
Dumb, dumb, dumb.
Comment by chunkdz — April 22, 2010 @ 1:22 pm
April 22nd, 2010 at 2:28 pm
Feser has several posts related to this subject on his blog. If you only read the top one, then you were coming into the middle of the conversation.
The point (as I see it) is that a thomist already has five sound metaphysical proofs of an eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God in his hand, why would he then embrace a method that only seeks to probablisticly arrive at some form of intelligence?
Comment by Daniel Smith — April 22, 2010 @ 2:28 pm
April 22nd, 2010 at 3:42 pm
Paraphrasing one of my banker friends:
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 22, 2010 @ 3:42 pm
April 22nd, 2010 at 4:41 pm
A possible explanation.
Comment by chunkdz — April 22, 2010 @ 4:41 pm
April 22nd, 2010 at 6:56 pm
California's debt is about $73 billion. The immediate problem is drop in revenues due to the recession causing high deficits. Of course, excess accumulated debt is a problem.
Just wanted to clarify that was your position.
Of course it is affordable. Other industrialized countries, less wealthy than the U.S., manage to provide health care to their elderly.
Countercyclical policy has been the reigning paradigm in economics for most of the period since the Great Depression. Weakening of the policy over the last generation has led to increasingly dangerous fiscal crises.
More like Uncle George got took in a scheme and lost all the cash and the company truck. There's no choice but to go to the bank to cover the losses and borrow enough to keep the business going.
Comment by Zachriel — April 22, 2010 @ 6:56 pm
April 22nd, 2010 at 7:20 pm
The recession merely hastened the inevitable debt crunch. Chunkdz is correct. Unfunded pensions and mandates are the driving force behind the state fiscal crisis. California is keeping a close eye on NJ where Governor Christie is becoming a fiscal icon through his heroic battles against government employee unions. Government workers are overpaid, under worked and their pensions are scandalous. Employee pensions are bankrupting state governments. We need more gutsy governors like Christie if our states are to avoid evolving into PIGS.
Comment by Bradford — April 22, 2010 @ 7:20 pm
April 22nd, 2010 at 7:25 pm
The correct recounting is that the federal government mandated the fair housing concept by coercing lending institutions into making ill-advised loans. With Freddie and Fannie scarfing up the secondary market a snowball effect ensued. As late as 2006 Barney Frank was claiming there was no bubble.
Comment by Bradford — April 22, 2010 @ 7:25 pm
April 22nd, 2010 at 7:39 pm
That's just California's bond debt. The real 800 lb. gorilla is the $500,000,000,000.00 in unfunded pensions.
"Daddy, why can't my school have new textbooks?"
"Because, Johnny, we have to pay for grandma's six figure pension"
I wasn't stating a position, I was stating a mathematical certainty.
Perhaps other countries have adopted the bizarre fiscal policy of spending less than they take in.
And this is how you justify spending trillions of dollars that you don't have?
Sure there's another choice. Live within our means. We are still wealthy, and we still have lot's of revenue. We just need to stop spending like greedy fools.
Who was it that taught you that when finances get tough you should spend more and run up your credit cards?
Comment by chunkdz — April 22, 2010 @ 7:39 pm
April 22nd, 2010 at 8:30 pm
Sorry, no bank was ever required to make bad loans. It was securitization of bad loans during during the Bush Era. The runup was demand driven. Once the shadow market developed, it had an insatiable appetite for more. It grew to $60 trillion, and when the last sucker was in the game, and it couldn't grow any more, it collapsed. It's not a new phenomena.
No, it was definitely a position.
It is quite possible for a government to spend less than they take in. The U.S. had a budget surplus just a decade ago. In any case, there is more than enough money.
Countercyclical policy means (preferably automatic) tax increases and spending cuts during economic expansions, and the converse during economic contractions.
You're apparently not good at analogies. Uncle George blew the money. It's gone. It's not coming back. The bank is demanding the money. The truck is gone. You need a truck to work. You have no choice but to sign the note and try to rebuild.
$10-$20 trillion disappeared in the fiscal calamity at the end of the Bush Administration. The money is gone. You're just borrowing operating capital to get restarted. If you didn't cover the losses, the system would have collapsed.
Comment by Zachriel — April 22, 2010 @ 8:30 pm
April 22nd, 2010 at 8:41 pm
A decade ago, the U.S. was in surplus. America faced a choice. Put the money aside in a lockbox, or spend the money and then some. Most people chose to put the money aside in a lockbox, but by a historical quirk in the U.S. electoral system, the other guy won.
Comment by Zachriel — April 22, 2010 @ 8:41 pm
April 22nd, 2010 at 8:57 pm
Sorry, wrong. Go buy a car that you can't afford and you'll agree with me.
I already said that. I wonder why you learn so quickly but Obama doesn't.
Keynesian economics has been dominant in this country in one form or another for decades. It doesn't work when the economy is saddled with enourmous debt – which happens to be the case right now. At some point, a nation that utilizes countercyclical policy under enourmous debt will spend so much money servicing debt that it will end up bankrupt – unless spending is sharply curtailed.
The truck is gone? Talk about bad analogies. The truck still runs – we still have enourmous revenues pouring in, just not enough to support the lavish lifestyle we've grown accustomed to.
Sign that note, Zach, and you are dooming your children to a life of financial burden which they did nothing to deserve. Why don't you man up and take responsibility instead of passing the problem on to your own kids? Do you have any integrity at all?
Maybe, maybe not. You certainly have no way of knowing now. Perhaps if the banks were allowed to fail other capitalists would have bought up the pieces and made them profitable.
Or perhaps the government could have used the TARP money to guarantee loans instead of just giving it away with no strings attached.
Comment by chunkdz — April 22, 2010 @ 8:57 pm
April 22nd, 2010 at 9:17 pm
Zach:
Yeah right.
Companies are not required to hire Joe Minority either but just make sure you have your quotas lined up or else. There was no way to make house ownership affordable to low income people without dispensing with standard loan practices. Just ignore the armed gorilla in the room who has the authority to regulate your behavior and fine or imprison you if you're found to be not in compliance. Government is inherently coercive.
Comment by Bradford — April 22, 2010 @ 9:17 pm
April 22nd, 2010 at 9:20 pm
But we know the U.S. can afford to provide health care to its elderly.
Globally. (You had said it was "Dumbest thing I've heard all day." Most economists would disagree with that appraisal, even if they disagree with the theory.)
Indeed, the cost of borrowing is an important consideration. That's why running deficits during expansions is a bad idea. Government borrowing competes against borrwing by the private sector, and overstimulates the economy. In this case, though, there is very little borrowing in the private sector (It's a recession, remember), so the short term cost is low. You are correct that the U.S. will have to bring their books back into balance as soon as practical.
Consider how deep the recession was with aggressive intervention. It could have been far worse. This isn't just theoretical mumbo-jumbo. The recession has resulted in severe dislocation in the financial sector, labor and industry. The damage will take some time to repair.
Total cost of TARP is now estimated to be only about $109 billion.
Comment by Zachriel — April 22, 2010 @ 9:20 pm
April 22nd, 2010 at 9:24 pm
Bradford: The recession merely hastened the inevitable debt crunch.
Zach, that gobblygok has absolutely nothing to do with state fiscal crises in California, New Jersey and other states.
Comment by Bradford — April 22, 2010 @ 9:24 pm
April 22nd, 2010 at 9:33 pm
Recessions always take time to get out of and entrepreneurs lead the way in spite of and not because of government bureaucracy.
Comment by Bradford — April 22, 2010 @ 9:33 pm
April 22nd, 2010 at 9:35 pm
California revenues dropped from $103 billion in FY2008 to $83 billion in FY2009. They are struggling with a $20 billion deficit.
New Jersey revenues dropped from $33 billion in FY2008 to $29 billion in FY2009. They have been struggling with a $3 billion deficit.
Free markets are the best way to generate wealth, but unregulated markets are subject to boom-and-bust cycles that can be very destructive and erode confidence in markets.
Comment by Zachriel — April 22, 2010 @ 9:35 pm
April 22nd, 2010 at 9:42 pm
Do you have any idea as to how much state pensions in NJ are underfunded?
Comment by Bradford — April 22, 2010 @ 9:42 pm
April 22nd, 2010 at 10:00 pm
Yes, about $46 billion. The fund lost $23 billion just in 2008, but has recovered somewhat and is currently at about $67 billion.
You had asked about the "state fiscal crises in California, New Jersey and other states." You were provided important data in that regard.
Comment by Zachriel — April 22, 2010 @ 10:00 pm
April 22nd, 2010 at 10:04 pm
All evidence to the contrary.
However, American citizens who live within their means are able to take care of their elderly.
Show me where Keynes thought it was a good idea to quadruple the deficit while burdened with record debt.
Keynes was about smoothing out the bumps. Obama is about "never letting a good crisis go to waste".
Comment by chunkdz — April 22, 2010 @ 10:04 pm
April 22nd, 2010 at 10:21 pm
Budget deficits only indicate the government spends more than it brings in. As already mentioned above, other developed nations provide healthcare for their elderly and still have strong market-based economies. The U.S. has a $14 trillion economy and among the highest income per capita in the world.
People have bad luck or make bad decisions. Some don't have children. But your position is clear for our readers.
In Keynes's private letter to Roosevelt in 1938, in which he advocated additional relief for the unemployed, easy short-term money supply, public works and investment.
The relevant economic principle has to do with available credit. If there is excess capital and economic capacity (such as during a contraction), then the government can leverage this to stimulate the economy. If there is a dearth of capital or capacity (such as during an expansion), then it will create bottlenecks and induce rising costs of borrowing or inflation.
Comment by Zachriel — April 22, 2010 @ 10:21 pm
April 22nd, 2010 at 10:21 pm
New Jersey's problems (and the similar problems of other states) lie with overly generous pension plans. Underfunded or Overcompensated? contains a remark from our articulate and smart governor. It points out that state fiscal problems are not revenue sourced. They can be attributed to unsustainable expenses. Governor Christie:
Comment by Bradford — April 22, 2010 @ 10:21 pm
April 22nd, 2010 at 10:48 pm
And yet Medicare is still a $39,000,000,000,000.00 (that's trillion with a T) unfunded liability.
Whoops!
I think both of ours are. I am for personal responsibility, small limited government and public sector philanthropy and charity.
You are for the nanny state and saddling your children and grandchildren with an unimaginable burden of debt. I'm not sure how you sleep at night knowing that you are advocating such an evil.
Comment by chunkdz — April 22, 2010 @ 10:48 pm
April 22nd, 2010 at 11:29 pm
Bradford,
Christie's numbers seem a tad unrealistic to me. I doubt that many state workers retire at the age of 49, the minimal retirement age is something like 60 or 62. It looks like he deliberately chose a special case where someone worked a relatively short time, earned a high salary during his last couple of years, and through a quirk of fate retired early.
The $3.3 million figure is based on life expectancy of 82 years and a pension of $100,000. What was his salary at retirement? Something upwards of $175,000 assuming he started working for the government at the tender age of 18.
Comment by olegt — April 22, 2010 @ 11:29 pm
April 23rd, 2010 at 12:13 am
It's worse than you imagine Olegt. Most teachers, firefighters and police officers get hired in their twenties. 20 years and half pay, 25 and 65% and 30 and 70 for the last two groups. Teachers have had a different arrangement but very favorable also. Medical plans excellent. Payment toward them until recently- minimal. Other government workers do not have these arrangements but have much better pension plans than their private sector counterparts. Until Christie even part time workers could be pension vested.
Average base salary for municipal and county police officers in New Jersey for 2009 = $82,691. Overtime adds to that. Incredibly base pay exceeds $100,000 in Bergen County. Prior to retirement when pay peaks overtime is padded to allow for maximum pension benefits. And you thought physics professors were smart.
Here are some information links:
http://www.njslom.org/magart03...
http://njtoday.net/2010/03/23/...
Comment by Bradford — April 23, 2010 @ 12:13 am
April 23rd, 2010 at 7:14 am
Bradford,
I know the place well. I visit a classmate of mine in Fair Lawn every year.
The higher salaries of police officers in Bergen and Passaic counties reflect the higher cost of living alongside white-collar workers commuting to NYC. Here is an article from northjersey.com that sheds some light on the issue.
You can reduce police salaries and benefits and fewer people will go into that profession. It's simple economics.
Comment by olegt — April 23, 2010 @ 7:14 am
April 23rd, 2010 at 7:34 am
P.S. And Bradford, are we going to see a back-of-the-envelope calculation of how a police officer, even in Bergen county, can retire at 49 with a pension of $100,000?
Comment by olegt — April 23, 2010 @ 7:34 am
April 23rd, 2010 at 7:46 am
Good thing you don't have to pay it all at once. Medicare spending was 3.5 percent in 2009 and is expected to rise to 4.6 percent in 2020.
Yes, we can see. When the elderly see their investments disappear during a financial meltdown not of their doing, they should suffer so next time they'll know better.
Comment by Zachriel — April 23, 2010 @ 7:46 am
April 23rd, 2010 at 8:21 am
Medicare spending was 3.5 percent {of U.S. GDP} in 2009 and is expected to rise to 4.6 percent in 2020.
Comment by Zachriel — April 23, 2010 @ 8:21 am
April 23rd, 2010 at 12:11 pm
Bilbo and I have this apparent
sick and twistedneed to stick it to each other regarding WTC 1, 2 and 7, so who am I to stop thispointlessentertaining exchange.Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — April 23, 2010 @ 12:11 pm
April 23rd, 2010 at 1:15 pm
You say this as if we should be encouraged by this news.
Nice misrepresentation, Zach. I said Medicare will have to go back to the store because it was never paid for and you say I want old people to suffer to teach them a lesson.
Does this assuage the guilt you feel for passing your obscene debts on to your children and grandchildren?
Even now, school budgets are being cut to pay for unfunded government pensions and other entitlements.
Do you feel any guilt at all for supporting such waste at the expense of innocent children?
Comment by chunkdz — April 23, 2010 @ 1:15 pm
April 23rd, 2010 at 1:27 pm
Ever wonder what Obama's administration thinks about Bilbo?
Apparently, Obama's top regulatatory official thinks:
A) Bilbo suffers from a crippled epistemology and cognitive blunders
B) Bilbo needs to have his views outlawed
C) Bilbo represents a threat, potentially violent
D) Bilbo's "group" (truthers) needs to be infiltrated by the government.
The Animal Farm is coming folks.
Comment by chunkdz — April 23, 2010 @ 1:27 pm
April 23rd, 2010 at 3:24 pm
Without Social Security and Medicare, half of America's elderly would live in poverty. That means your desire for "small limited government and public sector philanthropy and charity" are inconsistent goals. Either the government is heavily involved, or the elderly will suffer.
Comment by Zachriel — April 23, 2010 @ 3:24 pm
April 23rd, 2010 at 4:09 pm
I assume you mean if nothing else changed.
There are two things we can discuss here. One is whether there could be a better way involving public sector philanthropy and charity. The other is whether there's any practical way to change from where we are now to that better way. I'm not sure whether you and chunkdz are considering the same question.
Comment by don provan — April 23, 2010 @ 4:09 pm
April 23rd, 2010 at 4:25 pm
That is correct. And presumably, people would rely less on Social Security and Medicare if they didn't exist. But the evidence indicates that those adjustments would not be sufficient. Between 1960 and 1995, poverty rates dropped from 35% to 10% in direct correlation to increases in Social Security benefits. Many millions simply don't have the resources, either through bad health, bad decisions or bad luck.
The modern system is mixed. Most people have private savings, but include Social Security as a secure base and as a safety net for their retirement planning.
Chundkz's main point seems to be that it isn't affordable, but that position doesn't seem justified. Much of the current problem is due to the generational bulge, plus the fiscal crisis.
One way or another people will need health care and a minimal standard of living. It's going to be paid for, one way or another, or there will be suffering.
Comment by Zachriel — April 23, 2010 @ 4:25 pm
April 23rd, 2010 at 4:43 pm
Olegt, I don't dispute you on matters of physics. But read carefully. There are long waiting lists for police jobs. Sometimes applicants are on lists for years before being selected. A HS degree in some towns suffices and other times an associates degree. For people without advanced training and without business acumen and the willingness to work long hours at their own business, a three figure salary is way beyond anything else they can get.
If it were simple economics salaries and pensions would be brought into line with private sector parallel positions and we would save quite a bit of property taxes and have qualified police officers to boot. But this is not about economics. It's about feelings of entitlement and the belief that government money is somehow free. Public sector salaries are driving fiscal crises in NJ and other states. Reform is needed.
Comment by Bradford — April 23, 2010 @ 4:43 pm
April 23rd, 2010 at 4:52 pm
One more thing. The Bergen County base salary would note what a beat cop without overtime would make. A sergeant or lieutenant or captain with overtime would make much more. Retirement income is based on end of career earnings when a police officer is much more likely to be in a supervisory role.
Comment by Bradford — April 23, 2010 @ 4:52 pm
April 23rd, 2010 at 6:03 pm
Bradford,
You have expended lots of words, but I haven't seen any numbers from you. Show me how a police officer can retire at 49 and have a $100,000 pension. Or admit that Christie's example was a red herring.
Comment by olegt — April 23, 2010 @ 6:03 pm
April 23rd, 2010 at 6:40 pm
Where did the 100,000 pension come from? Christie's example was a teacher. I showed you that after 30 years in NJ police and firefighters can retire at 70% and that salaries in excess of 100,000 are well within reason for officers within police departments. Add overtime. These scenarios are not controversial. I know individuals they apply to. Know them personally.
Comment by Bradford — April 23, 2010 @ 6:40 pm
April 23rd, 2010 at 7:01 pm
There's more to the situation than just the individuals. For example, sure, giving people money is an easy way to get them from one side of the poverty line to the other. Does that actually reflect an improved life? If so, can we rule out something just as good or better having made similar improvements if in operation for that same period?
But charity is essentially out of the picture now, having been replaced with social security. As usual, it's the side effects that are the rub.
I have to admit I haven't been following the conversation, but chunkdz seems to be coming from the fairly normal direction of being against big government. I think his point about the actual dollars as just more grist for the mill.
Naturally the core of the debate is whether the government is allowed to control it, which includes various questions about whether the government is the most efficient way to pay for it, whether the government will produce the best solution, and whether we want the government to have that much more power.
Although there are actually other questions that are interesting to consider, such as who will suffer and why, whichever solution is implemented.
Comment by don provan — April 23, 2010 @ 7:01 pm
April 23rd, 2010 at 10:33 pm
For most people, being lifted out of poverty means an improved life.
We'd all love to see the plan.
Poverty rates were very high among the elderly before Social Security.
Those are legitimate questions. But claiming providing a basic social safety net is beyond help, as others have, is not a supportable position. The U.S. can easily afford to provide a safety net without bankrupting itself and without undermining the economy. Market solutions may help bring down the cost, of course.
Comment by Zachriel — April 23, 2010 @ 10:33 pm
April 23rd, 2010 at 11:23 pm
Yes, we all recognize that giving someone additional income raises their income. The question is to what degree this additional income was offset by other factors, such as the withdrawl of the support of others because of the additional income means decreased need.
The plan, of course, is to leave it up to the private sector.
If that's what you and chunkdz want to debate, then I'll leave you to it.
Comment by don provan — April 23, 2010 @ 11:23 pm
April 24th, 2010 at 8:55 am
Poverty rates were very high among the elderly before Social Security. Poverty rates have dropped in direct correlation to increases in Social Security benefits. Historically, the private sector alone hasn't provided sufficient resources. A mixed system seems relatively effective in preventing the extremes of poverty due to age or disability, including a government safety net, charity, family, and private savings.
Comment by Zachriel — April 24, 2010 @ 8:55 am
April 25th, 2010 at 3:49 pm
[Sorry, didn't notice this post before now.]
Yes, which is exactly why I said that it "(not surprisingly)" felt like one is coming into the middle of a conversation.
If I had more confidence that Fesser and similar critics were sincerely interested in accurately understanding and clearly representing ID, I might be more motivated to wade through the extended case. However, Thomas Cudworth's post, Professor Feser’s Puzzling Assault on ID, does not reassure me of such a hope or that the time investment would be well spent.
Nevertheless, I do intend at a minimum to follow the series of articles by Jay Richards to better understand what the fuss is about. Richards is an excellent communicator who does have a good understanding of ID. A sincere "Thank you" for pointing out his initial post (as well as Cudworth's).
If the goal is to talk about proofs for God, there may be no need. For starters, biological indications of design are insufficient for that purpose (though one might look at cosmological ID inferences as more relevant).
This is another indication of the fact that philosophy and science are not the same thing. If the Thomist beef with ID rests upon conflating philosophy and science, my motivation to take the criticism seriously will further dim.
It seems as though the Thomist critics are making a serious category mistake.
Comment by eric — April 25, 2010 @ 3:49 pm
April 25th, 2010 at 5:25 pm
No one's contesting that.
Comment by don provan — April 25, 2010 @ 5:25 pm
April 25th, 2010 at 7:34 pm
Speaking as one who has read a lot of Dr. Feser's works – including Aquinas and The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism (the latter more than adequately living up to its subtitle) as well as most of his recent blog posts, I can assure you that he is not making a category mistake. His main criticism of ID is the mechanistic form of nature it cedes to the naturalist. By doing so, it places itself squarely out of sync with classical theistic philosophy. Not that science is philosophy, but science – specifically in regard to the question of the origin of life – has philosophical implications.
IMO, the only way ID might fit within a Thomistic framework would be if it were to redefine itself as "miracle detection" rather than "design detection". ID is essentially arguing that the laws of nature had to be superseded for life to come about – that is the definition of "miracle".
I'm only a fledgling thomist though, so I might be wrong about that.
Comment by Daniel Smith — April 25, 2010 @ 7:34 pm
April 25th, 2010 at 9:26 pm
Ann Coulter smacks down Rachel Maddow.
http://townhall.com/columnists...
Comment by Bradford — April 25, 2010 @ 9:26 pm
April 25th, 2010 at 11:03 pm
Rachel Maddow concerning April 19
Comment by Zachriel — April 25, 2010 @ 11:03 pm
April 26th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
Rachel Maddow: Obama Shreds Constitution
Comment by chunkdz — April 26, 2010 @ 2:03 pm
April 26th, 2010 at 10:31 pm
That would be incorrect concerning ID.
An important point to remember, which will be helpful if you put it into regular practice, is that we infer intelligent design routinely about many things, not just rare events like the origin of life or the fine tuning of the universe.
When we see ancient artifacts, that infers intelligent design — not a miracle. When we find a watch in a field, that is a famous design inference. When a detective determines that a death was not a planned murder, not an accident, that is a design inference.
None of these require superseding the laws of nature. A cell phone is not an impossible or miraculous arrangement of matter. It is merely an artificial arrangement, i.e. an arrangement that the matter would not have taken on its own according to its internal nature and absent a guiding influence. Its properties indicate intelligent design.
Stone, of itself, does not make a statue. When a carver makes a statue, he or she is not superseding the laws of nature.
Does all that make sense? I really believe it will be helpful to your thinking and to discussion if you reflect on this. This is what inferences to intelligent agency are about.
[p.s. Separate observation.
Now, one might say that anytime God acts, one could consider that miraculous because of who is acting, depending on definitions. But as a side point, I don't consider that God needs to ever "break" the true laws of nature in order to act within nature, any more than I need to break my car to get into it and drive it. Our statements of laws only indicate the behavior of nature apart from other influences. Planes do not "break" or "violate" the law of gravity. Rather, the "law" of gravity describes one influence, allowing that there can be others acting on the same object as well.]
Comment by eric — April 26, 2010 @ 10:31 pm
April 27th, 2010 at 7:34 am
Human design, based on our knowledge of the artisans and their art.
Human design, based on a familiarity with other such human devices and manufacturing capabilities.
Human design, based on opportunity, motive and modus operandi.
Comment by Zachriel — April 27, 2010 @ 7:34 am
April 29th, 2010 at 12:05 pm
I'm well aware of what ID means by design detection eric – having argued extensively for ID for years myself. I'm not talking about that – I'm talking about a possible way ID's "design detection" would be compatible with A-T philosophy. Since A-T philosophy holds that God designed everything, the only thing ID's detection methods would be useful for from a Thomist perspective would be if it was showing that God had to go above and beyond the laws of nature to create life – i.e. a miracle.
Comment by Daniel Smith — April 29, 2010 @ 12:05 pm
April 30th, 2010 at 10:39 am
Right. And since biological ID inferences do not and cannot show that, then the proper conclusion is that such inferences are not useful from a Thomist perspective.
I am quite content with that, since they are useful from other perspectives (i.e. for science) and I never thought the role of such inferences was to prop up Thomism. The grief seems to come only from the Thomist camp, where there seems to be some expectation that scientific inferences ought to be more like Thomist metaphysical arguments.
However that may be, my earlier point was that biological ID inferences cannot show whether anything miraculous happened. (That type of inference is typically unable to show the details of "how".) If you have been following what Cudworth and Richards have been saying, they are also making that point. When Thomists incorrectly accuse ID of being "mechanistic" it seems they don't understand that point. [But then, I do not understand their point.]
The closest that ID inferences might come to that would be in the case of cosmological inferences, such as the fine-tuning of the universe for life and for discovery. That still doesn't reveal a "how", but it is on the scale of the universe, so strongly implies the "who".
Comment by eric — April 30, 2010 @ 10:39 am
April 30th, 2010 at 11:59 am
I don't think you understand Thomism. It is not "propped up" by empirical science. It is based on undisputed empirical premises (e.g. "things change") and so does not need propped up. The empirical findings that ID has to offer may show that no natural law or power could create life. From a Thomist perspective, that would imply that God (who is the known creator of life) used miraculous intervention.
That's really all I'm saying.
Comment by Daniel Smith — April 30, 2010 @ 11:59 am
April 30th, 2010 at 2:29 pm
eric,
I've decided to continue this discussion here in the Mars thread.
(Warning: Now the Scotists are involved!)
Comment by Daniel Smith — April 30, 2010 @ 2:29 pm