RE: Nomenclature (was) Chemicals R Us
From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Nick Arnett Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 10:26 AM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Nomenclature (was) Chemicals R Us Organic gardening bugs me. Sounds like the opposite would be inorganic gardening. Like organic food...as though non-organic tomatoes were carbon free. I like to think of it as Amish gardening...getting back to the 19th century. Unfortunately, there is a lot of that going around. Dan M. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Lifestyle changes better than drugs
I'm sorry that this went first to just Debbi, but the mail went to me and brin-l, and my reply to user just went to her, not brin-l. Debbi convinced me that this study found a long term weight loss. From studies I'm familiar with, weight loss is usually short term...the average weight change 5+ years after various diets have been tried is positive; yet this study has found that there was an overwhelming number of people who kept at least a third of the weight off. So, I looked around, and there were few free references to long term weight loss that were not advertisements. I didn't feel like buying papers; so I just found a couple of free references. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/pa-04-092.html http://tinyurl.com/yds2l83 The first is a grant announcement from the NIH for studies looking into why people don't keep off weight. The second states with a footnote that I'd have to pay to refer to how weight loss is rarely maintained. Then I got creative, and found other studies with long term follow ups, which also showed about a third of the weight staying off. Why the contradiction? Then it hit mestudies usually _pay_ participants. Someone who is paid to stay in a study, and gets support for weight loss during that entire time is a unique individual. Thus, they are far more likely to maintain weight gain than folks who do not have this type of backing. Thus, we have a reason for the inconsistency, and why most folks don't keep weight off after they diet. I think there is little argument that losing weight is the first option for pre-diabetics, people with high cholesterol etc. But, in the real world, physicians tell people they need to change their lifestyle and most don't. That's why I see a strong correlation between abstinence before marriage and fidelity in marriage (include gay marriages if you will) as the best form of AIDS prevention and lifestyle changes as the best means of improving health. Both, if practiced, have shown tremendous results. Condoms, for example, only decrease the chances of pregnancy and getting AIDS, they don't prevent either. Given the fact that most folks are promiscuous, and education doesn't prevent it, talking about safer sex in schools makes sense. Just like it makes sense for a physician to tell a patient to try diet and exercise at the first signs of weight related problems and then go to meds at the next visit when the weight is either unchanged or increased. Dan M. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Richard: Dark Matter / Energy in Doubt
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of KZK Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 12:11 PM To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: RE: Br!n: Dark Matter / Energy in Doubt I don't dispute anything you write, except for this. Forgive me if I am mistaken, but my understanding was that they did not in fact have to modify the MOG theory in order to explain the data in the case of the bullet cluster. The paper seemed quite clear on this point. In fact the whole reason I pointed out the paper in the first place, and what makes it so interesting, is that they didn't have to change any of the parameters of the theory in order to explain the Bullet cluster, whereas Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) was apparently eviscerated by the bullet cluster data. Maybe Richard can weigh in on this because he was a boffin in a former life; not just a plumber. But, if they set their parameters using earlier observations, then I would think they would be very clear about what those parameters were, and how they set them. If you look at landmark papers, such as the first observations of charm, while they can be understated, to a physicist reading their paper the results stand out clearly as if they were in 50 pt Bold. I don't get that with this paper, but maybe I'm missing something. Where do they state the earlier data that they used to set their parameters? Second, it seems clear from the sites I quoted that they had to change their parameters to match later observations. Third, folks who tried to work the progress of the clusters from before collision through the collision using their theory needed very specific preconditions to obtain the results. Seems to me that if neutrino's oscillate between having mass and not having mass, That's not what neutrino oscillation is. It is oscillation between different type of neutrinos, from electron neutrinos to muon or tau neutrinos. It is akin to kaon oscillations, where a K0 is produced, but a K0-bar can be observed. It's kinda neat physics, with production and interactions are kaons (down,strange-bar) or kaon-bars (down-bar,strange), but transport occurs with K-short: [(down,strange-bar)- (down-bar,strange)]/sqrt(2) and K-long: [(down,strange-bar)+ (down-bar,strange)]/sqrt(2) that they would oscillate between being bound by gravity and moving in a straight line, ah, light is bent, and it has no massbut it has relativistic mass. FWIW, although one can do it either way, the convention now is to call rest mass mass and to just see relativistic mass as E/c^2. Dan M. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Br!n: Dark Matter / Energy in Doubt
Dr. Brin, in one of your recent blog posts you mention the article about dark energy but not the paper about dark matter. This is confusing, because the paper on dark matter is the much more interesting of the two, seeing as it doesn't rely on any might-be's or other supposition's, but rather takes existing data and matches it against the current MOG theory, and shows how the theory matches the data, as is. MOND/TeVeS may be dead theories, but it appears MOG is still a viable alternative to Dark Matter. I'm a mere plumber, but let me try to explain the difficulties with the ideas presented in this paper. FWIW, I know these guys are not crackpots; they have come up with a theory that's a bit out there, but that's what boffins do. It's up to plumbers like me to show that they are wrong, and every now and then to show that they are right. There are two real problems with their theories. First, they have to modify the theory every time new data comes in. There is still enough room in parameter space for them to do that, but their room to maneuver in that space is shrinking. We cannot explain the rotation of galaxies with only the matter that is seen and GR. So, we either modify GR or postulate matter that follows GR, but does not emit detectable radiation, like stars, or illuminated galactic dust, or hides emitted radiation like galactic dust that covers stars, or is otherwise directly observable. Dark matter seems to be a simple way to explain this. There is no fundamental reason for not having dark matter; but it is a free parameter because it is not seen. The other explanation we are considering is modifying GR. But, it's not a simple modification. For example, we can modify gravity to explain the bullet cluster. But, there has to be a rather specific modification that requires very unique preconditionsindeed as one of the sources I refer to indicates, we have not been able to walk through the whole collision process with this modified theory. Second, as new colliding clusters are seen; different behavior is seen. For dark matter, we have to postulate that different clusters have different ratios of dark/regular matter, different ratios of different types of dark matter, and so on. These are, in a sense, free parameters. But, in the same sense, to explain why some stars are blue and some are red; why some supernova and others don't, we have to postulate different amounts of matter in the stars. The two references given below discuss these difficulties. http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2009/09/dark_matter_part_iii_dark_ma tt.php http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2404693 Having a theory that is changed with each new observation is problematic. In a real sense, the modified gravity folks are being painted into a corner. As this happens, physicists tend to lower the probability that this is the correct theory. But, time will tell. If, all of a sudden, the shrinkage slows, and we have a narrow range of possible modifications that work with everything, then that is evidence for modified gravity. Most people are betting, however, that plumbers will find enough evidence for there to be no room left to stand...there will no longer be any possible set of parameters for the modified gravity theory that allows it to fit the data. The second blow is that we have independent strong evident for dark matter: neutrinos. There is very strong evidence that neutrinos have mass: http://www.hep.anl.gov/ndk/hypertext/solar_experiments.html http://seesaw25.in2p3.fr/trans/heeger.pdf Now neutrinos alone will probably not provide enough dark matter by themselves to explain the behavior of galaxies, galactic collisions, etc. However, they are dark matter as long as they have rest massand the evidence keeps on piling up that neutrinos are massive. I hope this helps. Dan M. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Knowledge of Complex Systems and Ecconomics
After reading John's arguments that strongly imply the best possible state is the natural market, I thought a bit about what we do know about the economy and complex systems. For example, we know that the economy has had boom/bust cycles. We know that players in the market are not purely rational creatures; they are emotional/rational beings. We know that the financial system is a network. We also know that there are financial products, such as credit default swaps, that match the size of the world's GDP in size. I wrote this two days ago, but it didn't get through. We also know that complex systems can have subsets that have rules that are too hard to deduce from first principals, but are nonetheless apply. For example, even though chemistry is extremely complicated electroweak theory, and we haven't done first principals calculations on any but the simplest chemistry; chemistry is still a science. With biology, we have very complex chemistry, yet biology is a science. If we don't know anything once things are complex, then biology and chemistry would be impossible. We also know that there are interesting patterns that crop up in complex systems. For example, there can be tipping points, where they go from one meta-stable position to another. We know that, while we cannot see trends as absolute rules when dealing with complex systems, the most persimmons model consistent within the data has the best chance of being a reasonable approximation of what we will understand as we gain a better, more detailed understanding of the system. In addition, it has the best change of future predictions. Note, I didn't say that it would always be right; there are many times that extrapolations beyond data are wrong. But, if one were to consider all possible theories available at the time,, one's best chance of being close is choosing that theory. Relating this to a short thread on first do no harm deciding not to decide is also an action. One cannot wash ones hands of the repercussions of doing nothing, while criticizing those who strive and fail. One can argue that doing nothing (e.g. surgery) is the best option, accepting that there will be instances where that fails and doing the surgery would have been successful. The only argument one would need to make was, given the information available at the time, the inaction was the best choice...given the range of possibilities for intervening or not intervening. Dan M. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
First, do no harm
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Andrew Crystall Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 4:25 PM To: Killer Bs DDavid Brin et al Discussion Subject: Re: Ben Bernanke, fearless leader On 30 Aug 2009 at 12:22, John Williams wrote: One of a doctor's fundamental guidelines is do no harm. A responsible doctor would never operate on a patient to remove the appendix simply because the patient complains of a stomach ache. More information about the state of the patient is needed before an operation is justified. An excellent example. Doctors are expected to remove a certain percentage of healthy appendixes. I can't remember the exact percentage, but it's significant. Why? Because the effects of an acute burst appendix are so nasty. If a doctor isn't removing enough healthy ones, then he is actually not serving his patents properly. You may wish to reflect on this as regards your stance. There is one other point that clearly falsifies the first do no harm taken as an absolute rule for medicine. Take, for example, the fact that there are always unknown factors and low probability events in medicine. For example, even with the most common surgeries, there is a chance the patient will die in surgery. Thus, if we first do no harm, we never do surgery. Clearly, I'm not arguing with you here, its just that your point made me reflect a bit. Dan M. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Why not discuss the topic?
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of John Williams Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2009 12:41 AM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Why not discuss the topic? No chutzpah required, since I am convinced that the recession is largely the result of unforeseen consequences of imperfectly understood regulations and interactions between them, of people and businesses finding ways to game regulations, and of wrong-headed government bailouts of people and businesses who would have lost money in a free market which would disincentivize such behavior in the future, but instead the bailouts incentivize such things. OK, I'll bite. We know that the financial crisis can be traced to things like the use of the VAR model and credit default swaps to the tune of 45 trillion dollars. A system was set up that was based on the assumption that a model that cuts off the low probability tale would be perfectly adequate. If financial risks/rewards followed the normal Gaussian distribution, that would be true. The VAR would allow one to skate very close to the edge, running highly leveraged investments, with virtually no risk. But, we know that, historically, black swans have been a key part of both true financial growth and financial collapses. One might reasonably argue that credit default swaps were a clever way to have high leverage without technically violating the laws that limit bank leverage. But, the collapse was due to the overwhelming leverage itself. Your argument would be valid if and only if leverage would stop causing problems if only the government didn't try to stop it. But, of course, there are countless examples of leveraged bubbles bursting in areas that governments had not regulated, so one would need to show how government regulations where they didn't regulate caused it. Your writings are consistent with the viewpoint of one who knows government is the root cause of all that is wrong a priori, and needs not look at data to look at the truth. Dan M. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
Ever since I was given Atlas Shrugged to read by a girlfriend in 1975, I've been discussing the wonders of free markets with objectivists, radical libertarians and the like. When asked how disputes over contracts, ownership, and the like were resolved, all agreed that a governmental court system was necessary. John, would you agree that some sort of community system, like the courts, are necessary to resolve disputes over true ownership of property, contracts, and the like? Dan M. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of John Williams Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 7:32 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: The Role of Government in a Libertarian Free Market On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 3:04 PM, dsummersmi...@comcast.netdsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote: No, it's the courts that decided, not the patent system itself. Enforcement of patents and other IP are in the courts, not through patent clerks. So, if some politicians decided to make a law that all Texans must have a job and they cannot be paid more than the minimum wage, and the courts enforced it, then it is the courts fault? No, that is the fault of the laws as written. The problem with the court system is that they do not understand enough to enforce the laws as written. No matter how the laws are written, those with the most money tend to win. Laws are typically analyzied right left and upside down. They are typically gamed by lawyers, and the ones who can afford to spend the most on gaiming them almost always wins. That sounds like a good argument for severely limiting the number and complexity of the laws, so that anyone can be familiar with most or all of them, and easily understand them. So, then, we need to have no field of engineering so complex that a layman cannot understand it? Simple laws can be gamed and have long been gamed. Let me give you an example from my field. The laws of classical electrodynamics are so simple they can fit on a tee shirt. Yet, people who have studied them and worked with them for years can still be surprised by their application. Such it is with the law, and its application. Or, if you just want to consider the law, think about the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is a _very_ simple document. Its interpretation has been varied, subtle and complex. Dan M. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Libertarian Morality--Up with good King John, down with Robin Hood.
Of course, I knew there was another strain in libertarianism that was based in morality. This was an ideological commitment to maximize individual freedom. Basically Aleister Crowley's Harm no one and do what thou wilt, with the harm no one clause being optional--particularly when doing business. That's not a moral principle. That's principled amorality, an abandonment of social responsibility. At best it is mysticism; faith that we don't have to do anything for our neighbors because the universe will take care of them (if they deserve it, or whatever). Morality an antidote, not a synonym, for self-centered pragmatism. Well, how do you define what a moral principal is? I'd argue it is an axiom of a system of ethics. Now, from your arguments, I suspect you and I both strongly differ with some of the basic axioms of, say, Objectivistic ethics, but that does not keep it from being an ethical system. You can't prove or disprove ethical, moral principals. You can either posit them explicitly, or implicitly. Personally, I prefer explicit, because the principals are out there to be discussed, and the implications of those principals can be arrived at logically and more clearly. Dan M. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Br!n: Libertarian Morality--Up with good King John, down withRobin Hood.
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Trent Shipley Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 3:23 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Br!n: Libertarian Morality--Up with good King John, down withRobin Hood. While writing this I tried to imagine how a certain kind of libertarian thought about the world. It is a shallow exercise in participant observation. To appreciate what I wrote you must at least partially empathize with our libertarian subject. I have a question for you Trentdon't libertarians assume that, in a free market, those that create wealth get to keep at least a tenth of a percent of the wealth they create? I've got a trillion dollar counterfactual that I've discussed here before for that argument. Dan M. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: WeChooseTheMoon
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of John Williams Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 12:32 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: WeChooseTheMoon On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 8:58 PM, Doug Pensingerbrig...@zo.com wrote: Absolutely not, but isn't that how the free market works; the people with money/power decide what's in the best interest of the people they control? People they control? Huh? Politicians and regulators control people. Free market allows people to choose for themselves. Then we have the ringing success of the U.S. health care system to tell us how well the free market works for sick people. The US health care system is not a free market. Medicare and Medicaid make up more than 50% of US health care spending Hmm, my sources (one is HHS) indicate that, as of the last measure, Medicaid spending was to be ~400 billion in 2008, according to Keiser, Medicare was $410 billion in 2007, and with several projected increases of 7% for 2007 to 2008 it would be about ~430 billion. Total healthcare costs for the US in 2008 was about 2.4 trillion, according to several sources. So, were talking about Medicare and Medicaid making up roughly 35% of total costs. How did you get 1.2 trillion for Medicare and Medicaid? Dan M. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Why not discuss the topic?
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Warren Ockrassa Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 10:55 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Why not discuss the topic? On Jul 17, 2009, at 8:07 PM, dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote: There are arguements for the free market. My Congressman wants a free market solution, and I respect him because he doesn't pretend facts don't exist. But we have free market solutions. We've had them for decades. And for many, those solutions don't work. Agreed. But, where he and I agree and where a John would disagree is that a free market can be shaped by the laws within which it resides. For example, if you required insurance companies to accept pre-existing conditions, you would get rid of one of the major problems with the present system. If you got rid of the strong incentives for hospitals to refuse admissions and for insurance companies to deny claims, then aspects of the market can be helpful. For example, our local grocery store has a cheap clinic in it; with minimal overhead and total cost for minor problems (including those that would be major if left untreated). My son had a staff infection that could have killed him if left untreated, and the total cost of treatment without insurance was $60.00 (we have insurance with a modest per person deductable he didn't reach). The idea of insurance is that a large number of people pool their resources together to lighten the burden of loss for a few. (This is, in essence, socialism.) I wouldn't call it socialism, because it is pooling resources voluntarily because any one of those who pooled it could be the unlucky guy/gal. I bet, if you knew you'd never get in an accident and if it wasn't required, you'd be far less likely to pay 2500/year for car insurance just to help those who do get into accidents. It's also a very Christian concept, for those who are of that mind. Inasmuch as ye do it unto the least of these, my brethren, ye do it unto me.) That's a different concept...it's about helping folks who need it. In fact, Jesus directly compared this to helping those who you know will be in a position to help you later. I'll give you a personal example of this. When we took in a teenager who was thrown out of the house by her drug addict mom and was living in a used car her grandfather had given her (I'd say a quarter step above homelessness), we didnt do it because we thought we or our kids would be homeless. We did it because, as Christians, we felt called to do so. (And I am not saying that the non-Christians on the list wouldn't do thisI'd just say that they'd have a parallel feel for the moral requirement to do so). Dan M. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Why not discuss the topic?
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of John Williams Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2009 12:41 AM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Why not discuss the topic? No chutzpah required, since I am convinced that the recession is largely the result of unforeseen consequences of imperfectly understood regulations and interactions between them, of people and businesses finding ways to game regulations, and of wrong-headed government bailouts of people and businesses who would have lost money in a free market which would disincentivize such behavior in the future, but instead the bailouts incentivize such things. OK, are you arguing that the bubbles and busts in history when government had all but no regulation were products of that small regulation because government regulations is known a priori to be the cause of all problems in the market? That one cannot look at multiple cases with small and large regulations, and compare them to get a decent rough estimate of the effect government regulations? Dan M. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: WeChooseTheMoon
From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Doug Pensinger Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 6:26 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: WeChooseTheMoon John wrote: On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 8:58 PM, Doug Pensingerbrig...@zo.com wrote: Absolutely not, but isn't that how the free market works; the people with money/power decide what's in the best interest of the people they control? People they control? Huh? Politicians and regulators control people. Free market allows people to choose for themselves. So if there was some vital benefit to society and it couldn't be provided without a financial loss, how would the free market provide it? Then we have the ringing success of the U.S. health care system to tell us how well the free market works for sick people. The US health care system is not a free market. Medicare and Medicaid make up more than 50% of US health care spending, so the majority of the US health care system is government controlled. And why isn't it a free market? What is the free market mechanism that provides _all_ of the citizens of one of the worlds wealthiest nations with health care? Folks do get health care, just not in an efficient or timely fashion. In fact, my Republican congressman says that about 20% of the cost of health care for those with insurance is covering the care and the overhead for hiding the cost of the care of those who can't pay for the care they need not to die. I have A Modest Proposal on this. The free market would be part of evolutionthose who cannot afford healthcare would be considered unfit until all humans could afford it. :-) Dan M. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: WeChooseTheMoon
Somehow this just went to the author instead of the list. So, I'm reposting, even though I got a nice reply from Lance. -Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of dsummersmi...@comcast.net Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 11:33 AM To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: RE: WeChooseTheMoon An interesting aside on this. It took the Mercury program a bit over 9 months to go from the first sub-orbital flight to the first orbital flight. The big private enterprise sub-orbital flight happened almost 5 years ago (5 years this coming November IIRC). It cost 100 million to develop, and won a prize of 10 million. I can find nothing in development for private orbital flight. (By private I mean without government money, not government contractors). I have no idea when it will happen, but I will bet a case of beer against one beer that it will be more than 10 years from the first sub-orbital flight. Yes, we have announcement of Virgin planning sub-orbital flights in a big-time manner, which will probably be close enough to break even to be worth it in PR. And, the owner is a multi-billionaire who could afford it. But, I think it very worth noting that we are not talking about a step that took the government less than a year not being on the privatae horizen after 5 years. There is something fundamental going on here, IMHO. Dan M. mail2web.com What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you? http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Drinking Water From Air Humidity
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of hkhenson Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 12:29 PM To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Drinking Water From Air Humidity At 07:05 AM 7/13/2009, Dan M wrote: snip Because it clearly won't work well at any time but the pre dawn hours in the desert. The collectors have to be cooled below the dew point. Let me give a US example. In Las Vegas yesterday, in the heat of the day, the temperature was 42C, while the dew point was -1C. Even shaded, it takes tremendous power to keep collectors that cold while deliberately being exposed to a very hot wind. Obviously they would not build them this way. Think about dehumidifiers. In a damp basement this one will put out 33 l of water a day on 750 watts http://cgi.ebay.com/FRIGIDAIRE-70-PINT-POWER- DEHUMIDIFIER_W0QQitemZ330340172232QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?ha sh=item4ce9cf01c8_trksid=p3286.c0.m14_trkparms=65%3A7|66%3A2|39%3A1|293% 3A1|294%3A50 Dehumidification: 33.1 Litres/Day EEV (L/KW/H): 1.6 OK, would you agree that this is kinda a best case scenario? I've used dehumidifiers in damp basements, and the relative humidity was quite high 80+%. You're right about different deserts, I happened to pick Las Vegas because I've benchmarked the local NWS office, and Las Vegas temps for the last few days is just a few clicks from that bookmark. But, the UAE, for example, would be better offbut not as good as the basement. I also have numbers for the Perth desalinization plant, which quotes 3.2 kwH per 1000 liters. I have the website for them on another computer, but will bring it over if folks have trouble finding it. Now, this could be propaganda, but I have a hard time believing that they could lie about factors of 100 and get away with it. So, it looks like desalinization is much less energy intensive when salt water is available. That's probably why places like the UAE are looking at desalinization instead of condensers. Dan M. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Drinking Water From Air Humidity
Why doesn't the wind turbine count as a source of energy? It absolutely does. My question concerned how much energy per liter compared to other unconventional methods. It's pretty obvious that when he said none he meant no _external_ source of energy. Well, since he was responding to my post, I stayed focused on the question of how much energy it took per liter of water produced...and wanted the reader to draw exactly the conclusion you did.the wind turbine was a source of energy. But, as I said elsewhere, in a remote location, even otherwise inefficient sources of necessities become relatively efficient compared to having stuff hauled zillions of kilometers. I neglected that point because I saw it, thought it reasonable and clear, and had nothing to add. But, I didn't know off the top of my head the relative energy efficiency vs. other techniques of getting fresh water from unconventional sources. So, I asked. Dan M. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Drinking Water From Air Humidity
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Charlie Bell There are several devices to do this, some of them actually on the market. One is a wind turbine arrangement that produces around 10 litres an hour (plenty for drinking purposes for several people!). I looked at reports on this, although I didn't even bothering checking the website you mentioned because you said it was down. One think struck me, although they talk about being great because alternative energy sources can be used, there was no mention of the amount of energy needed per liter of water. It reminded me of your discussion of how energy intensive desalination is. It both makes sense and is interesting how dependent so many things are on the availability of energy in low entropy states. Because, if it was just energy we needed, all we would need to do was tap the tremendous energy in the heat of the atmosphere or the oceans. Dan M. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: In despair for the state of SF
From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Danny O'Dare Sent: Sunday, July 05, 2009 3:05 AM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: In despair for the state of SF There is so much good science fiction - not to mention 'slipstream', 'New Weird', etc - out there (old and new) why waste your time reading the crap? One thing I've noticed, however, is that the shelf space for what I, and from what I read most folks on Brin-L consider good sci-fi continues to shrink, being replaced by game based series, movie based series, etc. BTW, I don't think graphic novels inherently fit under the crap category. I thought The Watchman was very good. My son and I had one big argument over it. He argued that it was good literature. I argued it was good, but a different art form than literature because it used graphics to tell so much of the story. Dan M. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: In despair for the state of SF
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Max Battcher One thing I've noticed, however, is that the shelf space for what I, and from what I read most folks on Brin-L consider good sci-fi continues to shrink, being replaced by game based series, movie based series, etc. I think that is probably more the bookstores that you shop than an objective reality shift... I mean, sci-fi has always had a strong relationship with its pulp and mass media sides. If anything, the prominence of the game based sci-fi and movie based sci-fi should be a sign that that the industry is successful and healthy. What I am talking about is this: I've been going to a national chain: Barnes and Nobel's for over a decade. The amount of shelf space devoted to Sci-Fi/Fantasy has been constant during that time. As time went on, there has been less shelf space available for standard sci-fi and fantasy, and more for TV, movie and game based serialization. You know, the books that make you appreciate what a good writer Kevin Anderson really is. :-) We've recently had a Border's books open and it has similar ratios. When big bookstores like these change (they've driven Walden's Books out of business) it's probably not just the local store. Also, there is more speculative fiction slipping across the aisles into other categories. There have been a number of books added to my sci-fi wishlist recently that are categorized in the Literature areas of most bookstores, due to both the high brow prominence of some authors toeing into the waters and what appears to be an increasing tolerance by the literary elites for sci-fi/speculative themes and hooks. I guess. I do know that the books that are off the radar are the Evangelical Christian books that are the best selling books without appearing at all on the NY Times bestsellers list, because they are sold in stores that the NY Times doesn't look at. As much as I dislike the Left Behind series, they, after the Potter Series, were the best selling book series of the last decade...just off the radar. Certainly the graphic novel is a different medium for literature than the traditional novel, but graphic novels fit well within my definition of literature. Certainly semantics could be argued for days, but I think that graphic novels do trend closer to literature than, say, art or film. Film, definitely. But, I'd argue that graphic novels combine literature and art. Good art can be part of storytelling. For example, Guernica by Picasso certainly tells a story. I see graphic novels, at their best, as a new art form on the border between literature and painting. Which has real potential, since, unlike pure art, hasn't been explored to death over the last few centuries. Dan M. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Drinking Water From Air Humidity
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Charlie Bell None, once it's out there. IIRC, it's a small wind turbine that cools collectors in it, and desert air is often humid even if it doesn't rain much. If the collectors are cooled, there _has to be_ a source of energy that is being used. If not, then we've just found an exception to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. A useful statement of the 2nd law for our purposes is that it is impossible to transfer heat from a cooler reservoir to a warmer one without adding work of some kind. The sites I read said that a wind turbine, solar cells, or thermal solar heaters could be used. All are sources of low entropy energy. Now, one might thing that a solar heater is an exception to the rule, but it isn't. With it, one has three reservoirs. Hot, medium, and cool. The hot is the solar heater water, the medium is the environment and the cool is the collectors. One can simultaneously transmit heat from the hot and cool to the medium, the ratio of which is determined by the laws of thermo. If need be, I can still work out the problem analytically, but it's been a while since I did the actually number crunching. :-) Speaking metaphorically, there has to be a waterwheel of some kind driving the mechanism that pulls things uphill. Even a cold beer at 3C attracts a lot of condensation. This is definitely a small scale solution for remote locations. And it took work, probably from an electric motor, to make that beer cold. Now, if you have a cold reservoir available, then the thermo is simple, but I don't think that's what's being talked about. It definitely looks like work is involved. I suppose I could figure it out, but with a wife recovering from a second knee operation, keeping house, and working full time, I probably won't do the problem just for the fun of it. But trust me, some external, low entropy source of energy is needed. A wind turbine would qualify. In essence, all we would need to know is what the output of the wind turbine is, what the water production is, and we'd have our answer. It reminded me of your discussion of how energy intensive desalination is. Yeah, but that's a different process. Fair enough, but I'm guessing you'll find that it takes a lot more energy per liter of water than you might think to pull the water out of the air. But look at how much water comes out as a by-product of airconditioning systems... And look at how big my electricity bill is to run it. :-) Dan M. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Population growth rate differentials and consequences
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Charlie Bell Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 5:28 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Mention of David Brin And anyway - reducing populations by lowering breeding rates is just as effective, and as has been shown the world over, as populations become more affluent and better educated they breed later and less (often choosing to have none or one child). So the answer to the population crisis is development and education, not culling. Isn't the population crisis sorta old hat? According to Wikipedia, the latest numbers (provided from the CIA) has the world fertility rate dropping from 2.8 in 2000 to 2.61 in 2008. For developed countries, the ZPG rate is 2.1, for countries with high mortality rates (e.g. much of sub-Sahara Africa), the ZPG fertility rate can approach 2.5. In fact the UN, IIRC, is forecasting world population to peak around 2050-2060, and then start dropping. This process will not be even. Europe is already near the tipping point, with the EU fertility rate at 1.5. Japan has passed the tipping point, with the death rate exceeding the birth rate by 21%. Russia is in free fall, with the death rate exceeding the birth rate by 50%, and the population falling 0.5%/year. The US is almost perfectly on the ZPG point. It accepts far more immigrants than anyone else, so it will continue to grow. China has a big demographic bulge that has to work its way through the population; but the under 20 set is relatively smaller than older age cohorts because of the 1 child policy (as well as having a strong male bias). India is approaching ZPG and, with present trends, should get there in 5-10 years. But, Mid-Eastern countries, such as Iraq and Iran, still have high fertility rates, and don't have corresponding low lifespans (like Africa) to balance them out). So, we will see a vastly different looking world in 2050, unless there are massive changes in social attitudes. For example, Russia will be mostly old women. Japan will be very old and shrinking fast. Europe will be smaller and fairly old. The US will be browner, but otherwise it's forecast to have similar demographics to today, with the main cause of the aging of the population will be advances in medicine. If one adds to that the fact that the 40+ crowd is not the usual source of trend setting and radical innovation (yes, I know that includes me), one will see a tendency for Europe and Japan to become backwaters, full of pensioners who will be overwhelming the working age population with their need of support. So, in essence, the countries that lead the drop in population will become unimportant on the world stage. As far as solving the environment vs. human poverty conflict problem, it's clear that the best chance we have is for wealthy countries to develop a breakthrough that allows an environmentally friendly, cheap source of energy. Right now, we are in a period where, compared to say 1920-1990, there is a dearth of fundamental breakthroughs. The hottest potential fields are nano-tech and synthetic biology. The latter is virtually red-taped out of existence in Europe, so the main hope for that is in the US. Billions are going into venture capital and IPO projects in this area, and there is potential for a real breakthrough (e.g. algae that produce fuel from CO2 and ocean water without being hothouse plants). But, without that, the EU and US can cut CO2 emissions 50% in the next 30 years, and it will only have a modest effect on the rate of increase of CO2 emissions. In short, those countries/regions that continue to be way below ZPG will find that their children and grandchildren will have little say in the future of the world, because they will have little impact. The few of them that will be around will be busy taking care of the old folks (e.g. folks like me :-) ). Dan M. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Population growth rate differentials and consequences
Behalf Of Andrew Crystall Also, the European trends are based mostly on the analysis of the old EU countries, and not the countries the EU has more recently expanded to cover, which have younger and more fertile populations. OK, let's look at the fertility rate for countries added since 2000 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_European_Union_enlargements#History_ of_European_Union_enlargements Bulgaria 1.48 Czech Republic 1.23 Estonia 1.42 Hungary 1.34 Latvia 1.29 Lithuania 1.22 Poland 1.27 Romania 1.38 Slovakia 1.34 Slovenia 1.27 I hope you notice that _all ten_ have fertility rates under 1.5. GB and France are the two main countries that are above the 1.5, with GB at 1.66, and France at 1.89. Dan M. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
French tour etiquette
I have a general question for those interested in the Tour. It seems that Armstrong has stolen a march on his official team leader, Contador, and is now ahead of him. After team time trials tomorrow, Armstrong could/should be in yellow...since Astana is thought to be the strongest team and he's only 40 seconds off the lead and in 3rd right now. Contador would remain 19 seconds behind Armstrong. If I understand tour etiquette properly, the narrow margin puts the team in a gray zone. Armstrong said after the race it doesn't take a genius to know that you have got to be there at the front when it is windy because anything can happen. If he wearing yellow, will he be expected to fetch bottles for Contador? My understanding is no. The team would/should let both stay up front, have neither fetch bottles, and let the mountains decide who the real leader is. Dan M. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Iran
Things do not look overly promising for the protesters, but if they manage to make it through tomorrow without their heads being cracked Iranian public sentiment may swing decisively in their direction. It really depends on how hard the Supreme Ayatollah swings back at them. We should see by morning. Well, it's the next day, and I don't see any resolution. I think that the splits in the leadership are promising, though small. But.the best organized force is the Revolutionary Guard, and they appear to be fanatical. I'd guess, if push came to shove, they wouldn't mind killing thousands to keep orderand I don't see anyone standing up to them in a fight. Dan M. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Iran
Whatever the final outcome Ahmadinejad's position has to have been severely weakened. As he's a nut case, this is a very good thing. OK, I'll agree that his position with some factions within the ruling elite has been lowered. The real question, of course, it what is the position of the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. He backed Ahmadinejad strongly, and issued a clear threat of violence against any protesters. The Revolutionary Guard and the associated paramilitary (brown shirts) appear eager for violence. So, the risk of Ahmadinejad doing something against Iran's interests is probably lower, but I think he was always on a leash. My prediction is that, after a few more demonstrations of a few hundred people get knocked down with scores dead, the struggle will go underground. Thirty years from now, there will significant changes, but before then I think that Iran will have a score or so of nuclear weapons, without even the command and control that Pakistan has over its nukes. Pakistan is looking a bit better now than 2 months ago, but it is still very dangerous. One thing that I read that is very disturbing to me is that it is near impossible to predict the future of Iran, even for those who devoted their life to studying Iran, even for those who are ruling Iran. Once they have the capacity to eliminate Israel in half and hour (probably 5 years from now), I fear that after that, an Ayatollah who wishes to hasten the return of the Mahdi will be come Supreme Ayatollahor that a faction of the National Guard that does will gain command and control of, say, 3 nuclear missilescause that's all it would take to virtually eliminate Israel. Dan M. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
New Uplift Universe question....
I've got a question that I think about when I think of Brin. He hasn't written a regular novel since Kiln People, which was about 6 years ago...and his last graphic novel was a year after that. Is it fair to say that, while he will continue to write short fiction, the probability of a new novel is exponentially decaying, or will there be new novels? Dan M. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Texan Education
From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Nick Arnett Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 12:42 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Texan Education On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Bruce Bostwick lihan161...@sbcglobal.net wrote: On May 6, 2009, at 5:57 PM, William Goodall wrote: Anti-evolutionist Don McLeroy, a dentist and chair of the Texas State Board of Education, testified at Friday's hearing: I disagree with these experts. Someone has got to stand up to experts. Especially people who .. you know .. lack any kind of scientific expertise at all? I guess it helps if you go in already knowing what you believe and determined not to let objective reality get in the way .. I think this sort of thing has been unfortunately encouraged by rules and policies like the Fairness Doctrine, which was based on the well-intentioned, but seriously flawed, idea that every argument automatically has a legitimate counter-argument. Well, this is an area where you actually agree with Rush. :-) There are problems with the Fairness Doctrine, I agree. If liberal radio talk can't find listeners, then there is a problem, since listeners generate ad revenue. Thus we get all sorts of experts to offer the other viewpoint on all sorts of things. On issues where there are many legitimate opinions, this kind of thinking dilutes them to just two. Big media has encouraged this sort of non-thinking.\ But, big media is dying. Well, at least parts of it are. Think of the main sources of news 40 years ago: network TV and newspapers. We see that the Grey Lady is in terrible shape, and other newspapers are not far behind. The free news and fast blogging of the internet has cut into subscribership. I have no reason to buy a newspaper. And, there are now a lot of different TV channels, with several all news channels. It's not as it was when I was I kid where Huntley Brinkley or Cronkite were the only news sources we got on TV (ABC hadn't made it to Duluth until the late '60s, and then Sam Donanldson was an alternative (or maybe someone before him, I don't remember). I think what you are seeing is the breakdown of news that has to go by a fact checker. Bloggers put out what news they want, and those that believe them follow them. That's the real impact of the internet so far, we are grouping into ideological camps who each have separate sources of facts. Dan M. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Texan Education
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Charlie Bell Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 5:13 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Texan Education Bloody po-mo all opinions are equally valid crap. Really gets up my nose, along with the everyone has to pass rubbish some school systems push. Gr. I hope you aren't too insulted by this Charlie, but you've summed up two of my pet peeves rather well; I'm 100% with you on this. :-) Some of my fondest memories was losing in tennis to my dad, who use to be the local club champ in his youth...and kept on remembering his game as I got older and better. My mother suggested that my dad let me win occasionally, and we were both horrified by the though. It's OK to lose, its OK to admit a mistake. Dan M. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Impossible account security questions.
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Matt Grimaldi Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 12:57 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Impossible account security questions. ]From: John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.com ] Gary Nunn garyn...@newpacifica.net wrote: ] ] This morning, I was trying to access a credit card webpage to check my ] account, it didn't like my password. I was given two security challenge ] questions: ] ] 1. What is the last name of your fifth grade teacher? ] 2. What was the license plate of your first car? ] ] Ha! They should flag it as suspicious if people DO know the answers to ] those questions, since it is obviously not you but someone who has ] stolen your identity database file and has all the information in ] front of them! Wow! If the bank had those kinds of things on record, what else might they ask? I have a credit card account with Capital One. They are quite vexed with me because I used that account's offer of low interest as a cheap loan while I was spending money to fix up/upgrade my house (about 40k) so I could fit the market and sell it. Now that I've paid it off, they keep on asking me to go back into debt. I take that as a general positive sign, since I have a good sized credit limit that I'm not using. But, I've not had your problem. I wonder if a weird form of practical joking/hacking is involved. Someone puts in security questions and expects you to answer them. Those are not the questions the average bloke knows the answer to (I don't for either), so it makes no sense. I'm lucky in that I have a personal banker I can talk to face to face who fixes minor problems before they become a real pain (with Chase, who seems to have escaped the worse of the banking crisis so far). Dan M. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: On the Housing Market
Thanks John! Those were pretty much the kinds of arguments I was seeing in 2006-2007 that made me anticipate the bubble bursting. Do you see the correction lasting 12 - 18 months or perhaps longer? I won't argue with the basic premise, because I saw it too...especially for the coasts, NV, etc, but I have found that it is more expensive to live in a 1350 sq. foot apartment that's not as nice as my house than it would be if I bought my old 2950 sq. foot house at the price I sold it, paid 20% down, and lost the interest on the down payment money. This figures in all the costs of maintenance, the but not the 400 sq. foot of storage for furniture and books and stuff that we are storing until we move to wherever Teri gets a call. On the whole, up on the north side of Houston, it's cheaper per sq. ft. per year to own than to rent. I think that's very unusual for the US, so I think Houston is just below the live because of expensive downtown rentalsif we weren't hoping to leave soon, it wouldn't make sense to rent. Dan M. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
RE: Galactic Effect On Biodiversity
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Doug Pensinger Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 10:36 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Galactic Effect On Biodiversity Dan wrote: Even really revolutionary data, like the data that suggests dark energy, are written up in such a way that it implies that the big bang is now in question. That drives me crazy in the same way. Yea, god forbid scientists that are skeptical about the big bang! I was flip and trying to be humorous in my reply, but was then thinking that you might be referring to questions that exist about the initial big bang theory that are being looked at. For the general outline of the big bang and the evidence for it, UCLA has a nice site: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#bestfit But, the very start of the big bang, without modification from the original idea, is known to be problematic. I found a good site for discussing those difficulties: which are mainly the non-existence of relic exotic particles, (e.g. magnetic monopoles) that would have been expected to have been produced at ultra-high densities. http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/kenny/papers/inflat ion.html Well, I should say those are the problems that place a limit on how far back we can extrapolate. Things are clearly problematic at the Planck density, about 10^93 g/cc. On the other end, the big bang theory describes conditions very well back to nuclearsynthesis. For the time in between the theory of inflation has been developed. quote from the last article As I said before, it is almost certain that the big bang model gives an accurate description of the universe back at least as far as the time of nucleosynthesis. The earliest it could possibly be applied would be the Planck era. If we were to consider it valid all the way back to the Planck era we would have to suppose that all the very fine-tuned initial conditions we observe such as homogeneity and flatness were present from the beginning, presumably as a result of some unknown quantum gravity effects. Even given this assumption, however, it is unclear how the theory could avoid the production of relic particles that would destroy the successful description it has made of the later universe. It would be wonderful if a theory existed that with a minimum of assumptions could explain the initial conditions such as flatness and homogeneity, eliminate all high energy relic particles, and then segue into the big bang model itself by the time of nucleosynthesis. In 1980 Alan Guth proposed such a theory, known as inflation, end quote The actual process of nucleosynthesis is though to have stopped 20 minutes after the big bang. We know that the inflationary period had to end after densities were below those sufficient to produce magnetic monopoles. So, if you are arguing that the big bang did not survive without modifications, and that some tweaking may still be needed, then that's not problematic. The common nomenclature for this is that the big bang needed to be modified to handle these problems, not that it is false. False would be, for example, finding the steady state universe to be correct. So, I think you had been arguing more towards something of the latter, but if it is the former, than our differences are mainly semantic. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Bruce Bostwick Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 12:20 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years? On Jan 23, 2009, at 12:00 PM, dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote: Since then, I've been seeing promises of competative electric cars. When gas prices were at $4.50/gallon, the premium for hybrids was within $1000 of being a wash. But, now that prices are back close to $1.50 (around here at leastbut when we were up near $4.50, I'd guess you were higher too) hybrid sales are falling like a rock. And that, in turn, is a symptom of how susceptible the mainstream is to short-term thinking and its application to decisions with long-term effects. People buying cars really seem to think that fuel prices will always be what they are right now, and we won't have another $4+/gal peak or even higher soon. They also really seem to think there won't be an overall upward trend on top of seasonal and market-driven fluctuations. Discounting 2008's ups and downs (which were spectacular), we saw a steady price trend in most commodities (e.g. iron ore, tin, gold, aluminum) from the mid 70s to 2007: downward. Last year was a roller coaster, but few of the folks who are responsible for making long term decisions that are highly dependant on prices assumed that 4+ dollar gas would last long. The bet in the oil patch was that oil prices would settle back under 80. If you really believe that oil will go back north of 100 within the next 5 years, you should sell oil short on the futures market. The long term trend is off this bottom, but you could still sell for 62 dollars in 2 years and 70 dollars in 5. That's consistent with the general range that long term projects were assuming last summer, when prices spiked near $150. So, on average, $2.50-$3.00 (inflation adjusted) gas is a good bet for the lifetime of a car. No other interpretation makes sense to me, when people turn around and buy 10-15 mpg SUV's and pickups the moment fuel goes down below $2/gal. (The only exception would be if they plan to trade the thing in next summer when the fuel prices go back up, which is a different kind of insanity.) But, they were buying them in decent numbers when gas was $2.50-$3.00/gallon. There is nothing that indicates that the long term average price of oil (say over a 5 year period) will go above $80.00/barrel within the next decade. The oil patch would love steady oil in the 60-80 dollar range, and steady natural gas at about $6.00/thousand cubic feet. Remember, peak oil was first predicted to be within 5 years in 1920. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Which oil patch?
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Chris Frandsen Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 7:56 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Which oil patch? Which oil patch are you talking about? You know, the one that Schlumberger, Baker Hughes, Halliburton, Weatherford, Pathfinder, Phoenix, Ryan, Tucker, Great Guns Logging, and a number of other smaller wireline and MWD companies log in. Offshore drilling is not feasible at the 60-80 dollar range as was proven by the fact that over 66 million acres under lease have not been drilled. When oil was $9.80/barrel back in '98, I developed tools that were running offshore on oil rigs. I know folks who had to bid projects, and who were told what range the field had to make money at. For example, back in '00, when prices went back over $20 barrel, any new field had to be justified at $15/barrel. And, a number of them were offshore. I believe the last dry hole offshore in Alaska cost $150 million. If it was a rank wildcat, that's possible. But, the US has been developing offshore fields for longer than I've been in the business (25+ years). My wife's small share of oil rights in west Texas were not opened up until we hit the 80+ range and at least one of those wells was depleted in six months. That's a real old field. In traditional Texas fields, yields are low. Reopening old wells is a iffy business. Once a well is shut in, it tends to restart at a much lower production rate and be much easier to go dry quickly. Can we agree that the price of oil is being manipulated? There is no data that suggest that. The biggest player in the marker (OPEC at 40% market share) has watched helplessly as oil prices hit the floor several times during supply gluts. The oil field has had downturns that no other industry I'm familiar with has. I've been through 50%, 80% and 50% layoffs during three downturns. It's true that there are fields that are profitable at $150/barrel that are not profitable at $80/barrel. But, anyone who has lived through the ups and downs of oil prices over the last 25 years knows that spikes are followed by troughs. Remember, it takes a long time to develop a field. From seismic to a developed field can take 10 years. No one in their right mind would authorize a field that is only profitable if the latest spike holds. That's stupid beyond belief. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Galactic Effect On Biodiversity
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Charlie Bell Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 5:16 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Galactic Effect On Biodiversity It's closer to the first example you suggest than the second, but it's part of a general trope of less-good science writing that pitches every new minor spin on science as rewriting the whole body of theory that is really starting to wind me up. We need more better science writers - there aren't enough Ben Goldacres and Carl Zimmers out there... I think the problem is that an honest report of scientists are excited that, after five years of hard work by an very talented team of 300 Phd physicists, another small incremental improvement in our understanding has been achieved would sound too dull to read. I emphasize with you on this. I've been through the idea that everything we know about physics is now challenged by X, where X is a fairly minor tweak to a well established theory. Personally, the tying together of astrophysics and evolutionary biology, if it holds up, seems like a neat thing to me. But, it involves neither the rewriting of astrophysics or evolutionary biology. Even really revolutionary data, like the data that suggests dark energy, are written up in such a way that it implies that the big bang is now in question. That drives me crazy in the same way. But, at least that may lead to something truly new. This is just a minor neat thing. I think people will read/watch about science if and only if there is a good story told. Telling a good story without resorting to overstating your case is very hard. I can state things clearly and precisely, but, alas, I usually make folks eyes glaze over. Even good shows like Nova have had to dramatize what actually happens to make a story. The best do it without subtracting too much from an accurate description. Unfortunately, I fear the best are becoming less popular as drama becomes the driving force. Anyways, I honestly think I can empathize, not just sympathize with you here. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Galactic Effect On Biodiversity
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Doug Pensinger Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 10:36 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Galactic Effect On Biodiversity Dan wrote: Even really revolutionary data, like the data that suggests dark energy, are written up in such a way that it implies that the big bang is now in question. That drives me crazy in the same way. Yea, god forbid scientists that are skeptical about the bing bang! Which scientists? Are they the same ones who are skeptical about evolution? :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of xponentrob Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 7:47 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years? - Original Message - From: Dan M dsummersmi...@comcast.net To: 'Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion' brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 2:05 PM Subject: RE: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years? So, I'd say fund nanotech, not the present technology, which won't give us the home run that is needed. Well.short to midterm. we don't need a homerun, we just need a single. We don't need an electric car that matches a gasoline powered auto in every specification. Hybrids will do that job well enough. We need electrics for city driving and commuting. This involves some changes in habits, but nothing drastic. Most families own 2 vehicles and what most people are proposing is that 1 of them be more efficient and clean. OK, let's say we do that. We decrease the US greenhouse gas emissions 15% within the next 20 as a result of this happening. From normal development, the availability of hybrids at a 4k premium now and the limited availability of electric cars in several years (I'm inclined to take the Chevy, Honda, and Toyota numbers with say 20% more cost as a good guess) at a 25k or so premium for compact cars. But, that won't have much of an impact on the total greenhouse gas emissions because it doesn't address China, which will, barring a tremendous setback in the Chinese growth, will overwhelm the emissions from the US and Europe combined. To see why this is critical, let's look at the 4 top GDP countries in terms of tons of carbon per $1000 GDP. The figures for 2000-2006 are shown below. (2007 isn't available yet). China US Germany Japan 2000 0.980.60 0.40 0.37 2001 0.940.58 0.40 0.37 2002 0.960.58 0.39 0.37 2003 1.030.57 0.40 0.38 2004 1.120.56 0.40 0.37 2005 1.130.55 0.39 0.36 2006 1.120.52 0.38 0.36 You see that China has actually risen in their energy intensity per dollar of GDP. The US has fallen, and will probably continue to fall, with the singles that you are talking about. Germany and Japan have been fairly steady, but will probably fall enough to drop their per capita emissions. But, the singles you are talking about won't affect China because they are in a totally different point in economic development than the US. People there are demanding economic growth, and the 5%-7% expected next year in China may be low enough to spark civil unrest. Unless electric cars are as cheap as gas cars, then they won't switch. If you put together a series of singles, you can get a score. It doesn't have to be a perfect vehicle right off the bat. Virtually every car is more vehicle than people need on a day to day basis anyway, so it isn't as if folks are going to be suffering if they own an electric or a hybrid. Sure, it's been argued for a long time that Americans can do with a lot less. Let's say we do. The problem is that this argument doesn't hold for the Chinese, who are now the leading emitter of greenhouse gasses. My view was that the West had the money to buy a home run, and a home run will be the only thing to get emerging economies, like China, to switch. Wellthe government establishes MPG ratings, and they do it with only one passenger, the driver. I don't see that your criticism amounts to much in this case. (Ever notice the YMMV disclaimer? I think that is especially applicable in this discussionG) Sure, but when they test a big SUV, they test it with one driver, but the full load. They don't change the configuration of the car. That's where the Will 240 rating is suspect. They replaced passenger space with battery space, changing the nature of the car itself. It's like having a small Hummer that can only squeeze three people in it with a shoehorn and then using its mpg in ads for the full blown Hummer. In contrast, the Tesla rating system seem fairly rigorous, and the numbers they get are probably about as optimistic as nominal mpg ratings. Most auto manufacturers have BEVs in the works and almost all have hybrids either for sale of coming soon. I don't think that many manufacturers would be doing something obviously stupid or that they are all *that* corrupt. There has to be some advantage beyond simple demand or expediency. (ReallyI'm thinking that Toyota, Honda, Tesla, Fisker, Lightning and several others have shown what can be accomplished, and dozens of 300 million dollar manufacturing plants are more than just PR. Literally billions are being spent to bring these vehicles to market, with private money, and I struggle to envision that thousands of engineers, accountants, CEOs and investors are tilting at a battery
RE: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Doug Pensinger Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2009 10:33 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years? Dan M wrote: Sure, it's been argued for a long time that Americans can do with a lot less. Let's say we do. The problem is that this argument doesn't hold for the Chinese, who are now the leading emitter of greenhouse gasses. My view was that the West had the money to buy a home run, and a home run will be the only thing to get emerging economies, like China, to switch. Didn't I read (on list I think) that the Chinese are requiring that all new cars sold after 2011 are required to be 100% electric? Doug Just Asking, maru I googled for that and found nothing that hinted at that. Given China's only two priorities: 1) The government keeps total control 2) The economy keeps expanding Even if that were pronounced, it would have to be taken with kilotons of salt. For example, several years ago, there were pollution regulations passed. They have all been ignored, with no real consequences. The only exception to this was during the Olympics, when some industries had to shut down and most people had to stop driving so Beijing looked as good as possible. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of xponentrob Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 7:47 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years? Did you see 60 Minutes last night? Seems like there might be a little fallout. I saw it on their website, and it fit my expectations for a 60 minutes story. They had a story line and they included interviews and facts that fit the story line into the show. Anything that detracted from telling a good story was eliminated from the show. They don't stay a highly rated show by including too many long boring chalkboard sessions. So, the primary thrust of their argument is that it is futures traders that determine the price of oil, not supply and demand. They pointed out that demand was falling as the price was reaching its height, and that supply and demand should indicate that it falls as demand falls. In a sense, that is true. It isn't just supply and demand, it's that and anticipated supply and demand in the future. That's why it's a futures market. And, like any other market, it can be prone to bubbles and panic. But, it's there for a reason. Using it, an airline company can buy futures for aviation fuel and oil companies can sell futures in crude oil. It's true that everyone wants to get in the act, so most of the transactions are not by folks who actually need to buy or sell the product, but folks who see a profit opportunity. And, for the most part, markets like this market or the stock market are efficient. That is to say that it's hard to find someone with a long term pattern of beating that outside the statistical norm. (e.g. there are enough brokers so that if they used coin flipping as their strategy, a good number would have beaten the market average performance in 10 out of the last 12 years). Warren Buffet looked to be the one exception to the rule, but that's even debatable. But, these folks don't operate in a vacuum. There is a fundamental reality that underlies the pricing: supply and demand. Back in '98, there was a significant excess of supply of crude oil. Everyone knew that. In that environment, futures prices were not going to go through the roof. Instead, they exaggerated the effect of supply and demand and fell below $10/barrel. So, lets get to July, 2008. We have, from EIA, the following information for supply and demand. Date Supply Demand 2004 83.10 82.41 2005 84.56 84.00 2006 84.54 84.98 07Q1 83.96 85.97 07Q2 84.21 84.97 07Q3 84.25 85.64 07Q4 85.30 87.00 08Q1 85.34 86.41 08Q2 85.66 85.24 08Q3 85.69 84.73 As 60 minutes pointed out, demand was falling in 2008 and supply had increased. But, what they didn't point out was the fact that this data was not available at that time. Only the data until Q1 of 2008 was available. We knew that the US demand was dropping, but between 2004 and 2007, it had dropped 2.8%, while the total demand (including the US) increased by 1.7%. With all the talk of peak oil, and China's and India's economies booming, one can understand why such a bubble was in place. Most folks in the oil patch didn't count on such a bubble lasting. Big oil companies wouldn't approve projects that were profitable at $150/barrel, but required them to be profitable at, roughly, half of this. But, that was also true back in 2002, when prices were $30/barrelcompanies would require profitability at under $20 barrel. And then, the bubble burst with the financial crisis. As the world went into recession, demand slacked, and prices fell through the floor. There was a market panic. But, it was based in the reality that the OPEC cuts didn't happen as fast as the demand drop and the fact that tankers are sitting out there floating with tens of millions of barrels waiting until prices go back up to dock. So, speculation does effect prices. But, in the long run, the fundamentals of supply and demand either end panics or burst bubbles. In a sense, markets exaggerate the normal market forces. Finally, to get to the villains of 60 minutes: the speculators, we see that a lot of them lost their shirts. If you look at the sales and prices for Feb 09 crude oil you see that a lot of speculators bought these futures at $140/barrel. They are about to expire at under $40. Speculating on commodities futures can make you millions. But, for every speculator who made a fortune in oil in the last year, there is one who lost a fortune. But, that's a boring story, and wouldn't get CBS the ratings they needed. I'd argue that futures markets are the worst way to sell commodities, except for all the other ways that have been tried, of course. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of xponentrob Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 6:16 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years? - Original Message - From: Dan M dsummersmi...@comcast.net To: 'Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion' brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 12:56 PM Subject: RE: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years? First, I got a not there when looking for the paper. Second, batteries will have to become many orders of magnitude better for storage of power generation at off peak times for use at peak timesparticularly if we are thinking of things like wind power which would be close to economically feasible right now if there was such a storage mechanism. There are a few companies currently promoting business plans wherein downtown office buildings would purchase *used* current technology Li-ion auto batteries to store off-peak power for re-use during peak hours. Storing power on-site would have some advantages. OK, that's a much smaller usage than I was thinking of that is based on the fact that industrial users have a big portion of their bill based on their highest usage rate for the month. I can see why that would make economic sense for those companies. But, it does little to cut CO2 emissions, it may actually raise them slightly (battery storage is good but not perfect). If this use were extended, then it might slightly decrease the number of power plants needed to be built, but would slightly increase the amount of electricity used. Indeed, it might be an incentive to add to the fraction of electricity generated by coal. That doesn't resemble any plan I've seen. What I've seen has storage only mitigating peak usage for 24 hour cycles. If the wind doesn't blow, you just lose out on savings. But, it also means that wind can't be counted on. In another forum I was debating this, and was led to a website maintained by the company that has the largest fraction of wind in its mix. They stated that they can only count on about 5% of nameplate capacity, and that this was becoming a limiting factor on their use of wind. and compressed air storage downhole. I think we discussed this about a year or so ago. One of our wind power discussions. Yup Already occuring. Industry is also funding considerable reseach on it's own. A lot of good reseach results have already come in as a result of battery nano-research. There is already a Li-ion battery that will recharge to 90% of capacity in 10 minutes and full charge (from dead) in less than an hour. They are working on manufacturing techniques to reduce cost and increase reliability, but that news is around a year old. And, I haven't seen battery prices fall. If the market and the technology is there, someone will take advantage of it. Look at computers, were a zillion companies sprang up out of virtually nowhere after the IBM PC was developed 25 or so years ago. If we can get Li-I batteries to increase their capacity by say 10x, while holding their cost constant, then electric cars become economically feasible. But, if we don't, then we can subsidize electric cars with hundreds of billions and we still won't have anything more than an expensive subsidy program, like ethanol. When manufacturing capacity comes online here in the US costs should come down fairly dramatically. The problem currently is that there are only a few manufacturers, almost all overseas, and none can supply enough to cause a price drop. But there is a LOT of money to be made even with lower prices, so there are a good number of companies vying for a piece of the pie. Why is manufacturing overseas? What massive Li-ifactory building programs exist in the US? The problem with US manufacturing is that, even at minimum wage without benefits, labor costs are relatively high here. In Zambia, for example, getting two dollars a day at a factory is a big step up for most people. Here, with tax and government overheads, a minimum wage worker costs a company $8.00 per hour. I spent a few minutes googling and found no indication that there are now factories with large capacities for building these batteries now being built in the US. I also got no announcements, except from the governor of Michigan who said she wanted Michigan to give tax incentives to do so. If you have sites that show that the US is getting into the Li-I battery manufacturing business, that would be great to see. Otherwise, I think you can understand why I think that this manufacturing, like so many other factories, will be overseas. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
techniques can shave off costs and improve reliability. But, you are old enough to remember, with me, when Japan was suppose to blow past the US in GDP because of their superior manufacturing techniques. Their approach to manufacturing is superior. But, having a colleague who worked with Japanese on a RD project, I know that their risk aversion approach to innovation means that they are not as good at disruptive innovation as cowboy engineers. Thus, their 5th generation computer program was a failure, and the US economy did far better than the Japanese economy over the last 20 years. But none of that is as important or as relevant as the fact that there is _no_ future for petroleum based energy for this country. That's an easy statement to make, but natural gas is doing very well at the moment. In particular, one needs to consider how there are now shale plays, something that would have been not thought possible years ago. As long as oil and gas are a lot cheaper than alternatives, people will choose to use them. You might argue that folks aren't smart, but short of a dictatorship, you cannot force good choices against the will of the overwhelming majority of people. And, what most people want is to pretend that they are going green by recycling their milk jugs without making any real sacrifices. 0 The only way to stop this is to find a cost competitive method. If it were just a question of manufacturing and industry working closely with government, then the Japanese would have had efficient battery cars years ago, they are much better than the US, on the whole, at manufacturing, and their government has poured multiple billions of dollars into various industry projects. They are far more dependant on foreign energy sources, and their dependence on the good will of the US for their national defense makes them even more vulnerable. If it were just a question of manufacturing, why does Toyota offer no more than a 100 mile range battery car that looks to be a subcompact (maybe) for 40k or so? Toyota is very good at manufacturing, they build quality stuff. We spend billions upon billions of dollars on maintaining a presence in the Middle East to protect our sources while we finance our enemies with the money we spend on oil. Factoring the political costs of our dependence on oil makes it quite a bit more expensive than you imply. The geopolitical risks inherent in dependence on Mid-East oil have been apparent, not just to the US, but to Japan and Europe since 1973. In the 35 years, there's been lots of talk, but the dependence on foreign oil has grown in the US, has decreased then increased again in Europe, and has stayed unbelievably high in Japan. Yet, none of these countries have changed this. I'd argue it's because for every country, while the price of dependence is high, the price of switching has been higher. Otherwise, why would _no one_ do it? Germany and Japan are manufacturing juggernauts, and have both had a history of oil being/contributing to their undoing in war. Why don't they provide a reasonably priced solution? The answer is obvious to me. If they could, they would. Fossil fuels are so cheap, that switching to alternatives would be prohibitively expensive. (with nuclear power as the exception that the French have taken and US has decided not to take). By providing ourselves with alternatives, even if they are initially more expensive, we provide ourselves with a future and make the terrorists irrelevant (not to mention broke.) Sure, but magnitude matters. If the alternatives were 20% more expensive, it would be a piece of cake. But, we are talking about massive percentages of GDP more expensive. I know you've been involved with engineering, so I am flabbergasted that you write as though new technology is simply a matter of willpower. If there is a hidden conspiracy here, it would have to involve oil companies controlling the EU, Japan, China and India, as well as the US. Do you really think the Japanese government cares about the profits of Chevron? I fear what will happen is that fundamental research will not be supported, and we will repeat the ethanol subsidy disaster with electric cars based on present technology and hundreds of billions of government money, and we'll make as much progress in the next 10 years as we have in the last 10. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of xponentrob Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 9:11 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years? - Original Message - From: Dan M dsummersmi...@comcast.net To: 'Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion' brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 1:24 PM Subject: RE: Scouted: U.S. Heh! I'm aware of the math involved. Frex: http://www.gunaxin.com/chevy-volt-bmw-mini-tesla-roadster/4055 Worth reading. Especially the part where he stated he has no idea why gas prices dropped so much. :-) The problem with breaking down the math is that it pretty well preaches to the already-decided. People are going to buy what they want to buy unless they just can't afford to, and that is likely the only math that counts. That pretty much means that some people will take a premium hit if they believe that there will be other indirect benefits. Then too, it must be repeated that these are initial estimates, and that the prices will inevitably lower. It is just a question of how much, and that kind of market forcasting is near impossible at the moment for anyone. But, to first order, curve fitting of past prices aren't bad for things that are technology based (this clearly doesn't work for commodities that show both highly inelastic supply and highly inelastic demand). That is why bioengineering is an area that has potential; its costs are dropping a factor of 2 per year. Battery costs aren't. Now, we only need a factor of 10 for batteries, so it is possible that nanotech will provide a solution. So, I'd say fund nanotech, not the present technology, which won't give us the home run that is needed. Vaporware? The Tesla can be bought. The others are still being configured and are not available for sale. I've always been skeptical about what the price and performance will be. The engineering rule is that projects take twice as long and cost twice as much. Cutting this factor down, because they are in prototype stage, a conservative estimate is that costs are 30% higher than discussed. They talked about 5 people, they talked about 240 miles, but never said that 5 people could be taken 240 miles. My guess is that the 5 person seating is tight, and only for the 80 mile version of the carotherwise they'd explicitly say otherwise (If I were the project manager I'd be all over the tech. writer's back to make sure that the capacity was stated explicitly if it existed...if it wasn't there, I'd be happy with what they wrote). Second, the 240 miles would probably be under ideal conditions. Exactly the same as with gasoline vehicles, only no one ever questions this. For some reason I find that humorous. Because we have real personal benchmark against which we can measure the difference and because someone other than the companies themselves test MPG ratings? You also have to factor in the lower costs of using electricity as an energy source. I was assuming 0 electricity costs. Depending on where one lives, gas is 3 - 5 times as costly as the equivilent in watts. What is the value of a vehicle you may have zero maintainance with in the first 5 years? Like my computer power supplies? The car that isn't built yet is like the backup quarterback when the team is struggling.no problems are reported. Eventually, I think the answer is Yes. I'd say the answer is it depends. If the money is thrown at electric cars now, before the battery breakthrough happens, it will be as useful as ethanol. I don't think there is any question that there is a need to get away from carbon based fuels and from millions of mobile units burning them at various rates of inefficiency. IMO ethanol is not really a helpful long term solution. I agree, but bioengineered fuels are not ethanol. There are algae that exist right now that produce aviation fuel with 1000x the efficiency of ethanol. The basic process is taking CO2 and H2O + solar energy to make complex hydrocarbons and O. These can be burned, producing CO2 and H2O. The net effect of the cycle is constant CO2, no net emissions. Now, there are problems with these algae being suspect to infections by fungi. But, with bioengineering exploding even faster than computers did, its quite possible that we can bioengineer solutions to this problem. The fact that venture capitalists are dropping good sized investments in startups in this field (Sapphire Energy has received 100 million in capital) indicates that there is at least some potential here. It may not work, there may be problems scaling up that are unanticipated. But, there exist in that field the same sort of fast learning curve that we had seen with computers between say 1955 and 1980. I expect such taxes are coming, but phased in over a number
RE: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
of future breakthroughs because I've seen a zillion of them. I don't see today's electric cars having much to do with long term solutions. Long term solutions might very well include electric cars, but I think the government should not be in the business of subsidizing electric cars. Rather, it should be in the business of funding research in the litany of areas that might work and then let companies use that research to fund concerns that make economic sense. Personally, I'd bet a beer that bioengineered fuels, that have 10x the efficiency of ethanol production will have a significant market share in 10 years (say 10% of jet fuel), but electric cars will not be a significant player (5% of cars sold worldwide in 2019) in that time. But, I have no problem in placing chips on battery development, because the payoff from a given winner should be substantialwe just don't know which bet will pay off. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Metric Conversions
Seems like a reasonable question to me, Max. How many litres are there in a liter? African or European? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of xponentrob Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 7:21 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years? If one wants to make direct comparisons of a type of batteries capabilities, one has to go no farther than a hardware store or Lowes or Home Depot. I've been using cordless drills for a couple of decades. They were once using Ni-Cad batteries, until the Nimh batteries swallowed the market. The Ni-Cad and Nimh battery packs were pretty much the same size and performed about the same, only Nimh had a slight edge in most categories. In the last 2 years Li-ion batteries have begun to take over the market. The battery packs are smaller and lighter, but deliver more power and torque and do it for longer with a shorter recharge time. In short, Li-ion are starting to dominate the market and it is a market that has requirements that has similarities to the requirements in Auto applications. I agree with your methodology, but wish to add one thing: cost. The added cost for modest energy densities is not a big factor, but at $4.27 per Wh, it means a lot if one needs a lot of watt hours. In the case of power tools, the use isn't as much as one thinks, My memory is that the Tesla uses these batteries, and its price tag has a lot to do with how expensive they are. I think we'd need a factor of 10 reduction in price/Wh before they are commercially feasible for Joe and Joan commuter. But, I would not necessarily rule that out; because the evidence for research on the techniques indicates that there may be some room for improvements both in storage density and price per battery. The other factor is that we will either need to switch to nuclear power for virtually all of our electricity or find a very efficient high volume energy storage system to match with wind. Right now, power grids can count on only 5% or so of the rated capacity of wind farms. Pairing them with natural gas plants makes this reasonable, but then we are burning fossil fuels to get the electricity. That's slightly better for the environment than gasoline, but far worse than high tech biofuels that might come on line in 5-10 years. So, in the short term, I'd argue for building nuclear plants, finding ways to make batteries denser and cheaper, and biofuels from non-food sources which produce aviation fuel far more efficiently than ethanol is produced, developing high efficiency massive energy storage, and a raise in the gas tax. But, you've heard that before. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
The Tesla is not the best example one could use. I think the Heuliez Will is a better example of an electric vehicle that is just about there. The price should be around 27-34K (when it hits market) and the car can do 0 - 60 in around 10 seconds with a top speed of 87MPH and has a range of248 miles. Yes, but if you read what they write carefully, they never say that they can go with long range and carry a full passenger load. If you compare it with domestic sub-compact cars, it looks as though its maximum range version will carry about the same as a 11k sub-compact car. It is not as sexy as the Tesla, but it is much more of a reply to peoples needs than the Tesla and costs should go down as more are manufactured. And, it's still being designed, according to the manufacturers. Costs go up and performance goes down on vaporware cars, in my experience. Yes, it hit the auto show, but its not going to be produced for a year or more, and we all know how that can change things. Basically, who but a rich environmentalist would buy a car like this at 3x the price of a comparable gas engine car that gets 40-50 mpg highway? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Physicists offer foundation for uprooting a hallowedprinciple of physics
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Ronn! Blankenship Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 11:27 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Physicists offer foundation for uprooting a hallowedprinciple of physics At 10:45 PM Monday 1/5/2009, Julia Thompson wrote: On Mon, 5 Jan 2009, Rceeberger wrote: http://www.physorg.com/news150388964.html An apple and an anti-apple might not fall at the same rate. xponent But A Mac And An Anti-Apple 2E Do Maru rob Wow, it's almost 11PM, and I was almost despairing of encountering a good reason not to have liquids at the computer today! Congratulations, Rob! Julia Humor aside, wasn't the idea that a particle and its corresponding anti-particle might fall at different rates under the influence of gravity put forward and supposedly tested and rejected back in the 80s? I read the article and didn't see how this was different from what was suggested then (though the details are lacking) . . . Well, my memory was different, given the fact that most anti-matter that I knew of had a charge and the electromagnetic forces involved swamped any gravitational effect. I did a Google search and got the following from Duke http://www.phy.duke.edu/~phillips/gravity/frameIndex.html which is a proposal to measure the force of gravity on antimatter. So, it appears that the theory mentioned earlier is testable, but not yet tested. I'd bet on boring results, but that's physics. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Bruce Bostwick Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 11:42 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years? On Jan 5, 2009, at 2:58 PM, Dan M wrote: The few productive industries we have in the USA now (the auto industry springing immediately to mind) are in such sad shape -- in the auto industry's case, from putting more energy into fighting a phase c hange into a PHEV/BEV based market than they are into any real RD or new product development -- that they cost more than they generate in value. To me, that seems unsustainable. Am I missing something here? They don't have to put any energy into fighting it; the consumers are happily doing it for them. The sale of the hybrid Prias (sp) has fallen about 50%. Electric cars are toys for the rich. Battery technology has not improved much in the last 20 years, even though there is a multi- billion battery market where one can make a handy profit right now, outside of the car market, by marketing a better battery. Battery technology has matured to the point where it's definitely possible to build a NiMH powered car with at least 140 mile range. If it weren't, it probably would be only academic that Cobasys/Ovonics holds patents to large format NiMH batteries that it refuses to license for automotive use, primarily because it's a wholly owned subsidiary of Chevron. Hmmm, that sounds like the common conspiracy theory, like the 200 mpg carburetor design that was held as a trade secret by an oil company (the company varied with the theory) back in the '60s and '70s. We know that these batteries are buyable on the market in standard over the counter battery usage, and have found a good niche as a camera battery. If they were that good, why didn't they overtake this market? Second, if you look at at http://www.cobasys.com/news/20070313.shtml you will find the proud announcement of their use in automobiles. You will find a confirmation of this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel_metal_hydride_battery where their use in Saturns is mentioned. The demand is there, make no mistake about it. That's a fairly strong statement. At a low enough price, I'd believe it. But, there are real problems with batteries. Look at http://www.allaboutbatteries.com/Battery-Energy.html and you'll see what I mean. We know that the energy density of gasoline is about 46 MJ/Kg. Compare this to the best, most expensive battery (Li ion), and we get a factor of 100. Electric cars are more efficient (90% vs 20%), so this gets down to a factor of 22 or so in power/weight. And, using the highly efficient batteries has a cost, that's why the Tesla Roadster costs 100k. We know that the modest amount of batteries in a hybrid raises the prices 4-5k. We know that the Prius hybrid sales are now falling like a rock (factor of 2 Dec-Dec, and probably significantly more June-Dec), due to the added cost and the cheap price of gas. So, why would there be extensive demand for an expensive commuter car that can only be used for relatively short trips? As soon as a 100-mile- range battery powered car is available, there are plenty of people who would much rather charge their cars overnight (on off-peak electrical power, at home) and get the energy equivalent of 150 mpg (even counting the overall 70% charge efficiency of the battery system) for the daily commute. Enough that even one production generation will bring the concept close enough to maturity for them to displace gasoline-powered vehicles. They are available, they are much more expensive than ICE based cars, and they are selling only in small numbers to those with _a lot_ of discretionary income. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of xponentrob Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 12:09 AM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years? If there's biofuel technology that doesn't significantly impact the food stream as a source of motor vehicle fuel, then I'm all for it. I'm not anywhere near PC myself, and if there's a GMO solution that actually does provide a decent rate of return without investing more energy in getting energy out of the fuel produced or cut too deeply into the food supply, great. Hadn't heard of this. These days I'm looking cynically at biofuels. they do nothing to reduce CO2 levels in most cases (most applications are for ICE), I'm not sure I follow you here. Present biofuels are bad, they divert food into products that have low net energy out per energy unit in. I have no problem with that argument. But, under lab conditions they've gotten over 1000x the yield of corn. Now, there are problems with the algae; it's especially susceptible to fungi attacks. But, with bioengineering costs dropping a factor of two per year, this appears to be an area that can be tweaked, one way or another. It would be akin to knowing you needed a megaflop machine to get your work done back in '76Moore's law would make you optimistic. Battery performance has progressed at a much slower rate. but there is some hope for a good fuel for Fuel Cells That is another possibility for energy storage for cars and there *will* be a long term need for diesels. More critically for biofuel: aviation. It will be a long time before a battery can power a 777 for 8000 miles. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Wayne Eddy Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 1:23 AM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years? Surely Canada Australia are both far less densely populated than the United States? They are. In my haste in writing I was less precise than I wanted to be. I was thinking about the major developed countries (e.g. Western Europe, the UK and Japan). I know Canada is almost a suburb of the US, with most of the population living within 100 miles of the US (and most living south of Duluth MN, where I grew up). I thought that much of Australia is not suitable for high density populations, but I'll stand to be corrected. And of course, Nordic countries have low population densities in the far north and in the mountains. The point I was trying to make is that the US is far less populated than where most of the rest of the developed world lives. For example, the 4th largest metropolitan area in the US (the Houston Metro Area) has the same population density as the whole of the UK (including the rugged NW of Scotland). Vast swaths of the US have both good farm land and relatively low population densities (e.g. Iowa at ~50/sq. mi.) So, there is a lot of room for the US to increase its population before it approaches Europe. Finally, I have a question for those from Oz. My understanding is that most of the population of Oz lives on the southern coast because the vast center of Australia is not a great place to put a lot of people. Is that accurate? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Irregulars question about Culture
No, you didn't follow the directions at all, or you followed fossilised ones you found on the interwebs instead of going to www.culturelist.org : try making the subject subscribe culture, and sending it to m...@culturelist.org We haven't been on busstop for about 4 years-ish - certainly since a while before my Big Lap began. I did the latter, the old website is what came up via two Google searches. Now, I searched again, and both websites now come up...go figure. Anyways, I was trying to subscribe without bothering anyone. It's too bad that Google likes the 4 year old website. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Bruce Bostwick Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 8:30 AM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years? On Jan 4, 2009, at 9:13 PM, Dan M wrote: With a few minor exceptions, the USA is running largely on momentum, which is finite. How does an economy grow on momentum? We've been migrating from a production-based economy to a service-based economy by degrees since the Bush I era, and we now manufacture very little if any of what we consume as most of our finished goods are manufactured in China, Well, then we don't consume much in the way of finished goods. Our imports from China in 2008 (we don't have Nov. and Dec. in yet) will be about 275 billion dollars. Our GDP is about 14 trillion. So, imports from China are only about 2% of GDP. Medical is far higher, at 16%. and the vast majority of the remainder are imported from other countries whose labor is far cheaper than ours. There is no doubt that the era of high pay, low skill unionized work in the USA is drawing to a close. But, from the start of Bush I to 2007, the US GDP grew by 67%. Comparing with other countries, I was able to only get long term growth until 2003...so from 1998 to 2003, the US GDP grew 53% and Western Europe GDP grew 33%, and Japan by 28%. Since then, I know that the US has continued to do better from '03 to '08, but I don't have it in an easy to get at table. (It's the non-US countries that are hard to quantify...the US data is always easy to get to). That's not coasting. Unless I'm reading the signs wrong, it definitely seems to me that the fire has gone out and the machinery just takes a long time to spool down, and this recent collapse is more symptom than root cause. I suggest that you are reading the signs wrong. I think that your argument depends on the economy still being founded on the same footing as they were in the '60s. But, if you look at the additions to the economy since the '70s, you see that the US has done well. In the mid-80s it was supposed to fall behind Japan in the '90s, but it's Japan that stagnated in the '90s. China is a poor country that is positioned to take advantage of its cheap labor, but it is strongly feeling the hit of the US decrease in purchasing. Factory production _fell in Dec, after years of 10% yearly rises. I just don't see the fundamentals currently supporting anything more than a downhill slide into progressive collapse if the systems currently in place continue to operate the way they're operating now. I think that you and virtually every economist differ on what are the fundamentals. One fundamental is innovation. Another is productivity. US productivity has risen faster than other developed countries. The US is either the home or the main market for virtually all medical innovations. Europe has made it virtually impossible for bioengineering firms to operate, and the US is doing very well there. Since that's the only real hope for biofuels (e.g. algae farms producing aviation fuel), the US is well poised to be the leader in that field. As a country, in aggregate, we don't really seem to *do* anything these days other than buy, consume, and move money around. Well, we don't do as much smokestack manufacturing as we had, but remember, we consume (with the exception of energy and food) far less stuff than we did before. With respect to computers and associated electronics, while Japan and the US are strongly competitive, the US is still the clear chip leader. Detroit is in terrible shape due to legacy costs, but its Toyota and Honda sales that lead the drop in auto sales this December. Ford's market share is rising, mostly at the expense of these two companies. Finally, much of 2008's balance of trade problem is due to oil imports. While oil costs have been volatile, they averaged about $100/barrel last year. That means that almost 2/3rds of the US trade deficit went to oil imports. If oil stays in the $50-$60 dollar range, with the slowdown, we should see a dramatic (possibly 50%) drop in the balance of trade deficit. Finally, if the US is in such bad shape, why has the dollar risen, and why (with the US government about to issue another trillion in debt) are T-bill interest rates so low? Even the longest term bonds (30 years) offer less than 3% interest per year. That's the exact opposite of what one would expect of a country that's going down the tubes. The few productive industries we have in the USA now (the auto industry springing immediately to mind) are in such sad shape -- in the auto industry's case, from putting more energy into fighting a phase c hange into a PHEV/BEV based market than they are into any real RD or new product development -- that they cost more than they generate in value. To me, that seems unsustainable. Am I
RE: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Bruce Bostwick Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 8:37 AM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years? On Jan 4, 2009, at 9:13 PM, Dan M wrote: And yet, you sing we're on the eve of destruction? Dan M. I guess part of my cynicism is frustration at having had to live in the wake of the Boomers most of my life, and survive on the scraps they missed, when it seems the only response to my getting closer to actually joining the middle class and becoming financially stable is the goalposts moving farther away just when I think I'm about to get there. I'm sorry if you have financial hard times, but you write as though there is finite pile of money and when it's gone, it's gone. As I mentioned before, I personally know and worked alongside a team that created tens of billions of wealth. In my own small way (http://tinyurl.com/8zp89c) I have created wealthby developing techniques that allow for the accurate measurement of porosity while drillingsaving time and thus money (it takes millions/day to operate big oil rigs) by allowing companies to get the needed measurements while drilling. So, the growth in per capita GDP is not simply a funny number; it reflects the growth of real per capita wealth. Indeed, even if you don't accept that the CPI slightly overstates inflation, deny Brad DeLongs persuasive arguments that inflation has been about 9% less for lower income people than higher income people, and dismiss the value of the rise in the benefits obtained by the average family, the average household income is now higher than it was when I was in my 20s. So, while you might be on hard times, hard times existed in the '60s-'80s too. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
On an SF list you forget Aerospace? I thought of it and meant to include it; does that count for partial credit? :-) Good catch. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Charlie Bell Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 9:15 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years? My attitude is not America sucks, it's hey hang on, the whole world has done some great stuff and let's give credit where it's due). It irritates me just as much when the Brits say we totally cracked the Enigma code, dude, 'cause the three-wheel Enigma was cracked by a Pole, who came up with the first calculating machines (the bombes), and this work was smuggled out of Poland in the diplomatic bag. This doesn't diminish in any way from Turing et al, who went on to crack the 4 and 5 wheel machines, and the Post Office engineer who built Colossus, and so on. We're ALL standing on the shoulders of giants. Just cause the States is the biggest guy in the room right now doesn't make him the *only* guy in the room. You know you've now changed the subject from the original topic. I was arguing, rather convincingly IMHO, that the US was not horrid and not about to fall. Now, you change the argument to the US is not the only country of worth; many other folks in many other countries have done good things. Furthermore, we're all dependant on the good work of those who came before us You have now forced me into the following response by this action sir: I agree with you. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Israel to collapse in 25 years?
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Doug Pensinger Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 6:56 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Israel to collapse in 25 years? Dan M wrote: So, can anyone argue me out of this pessimistic viewpoint? I honestly hope so, even though I'll argue hard for this pointit's one argument I'd love to lose. Well, note that there has never been the kind of tacit support for Israel from moderate Arab states such as Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia as there is in this particular conflict. The Sunnis are probably more fearful of Shia/Iranian ascendancy than they are of a stable Jewish state. The last statement you made is certainly true. The first statement was true when you made it, but it is no longer true. The Arab countries have condemned Israel's incursion into Gaza. Israel needs to, at the very least, minimize the rocket attacks for their actions to be considered successful. There are still 40 rockets/day launched towards Israel since Hamas ended the cease fire. I do not see a quick and easy conclusions to the ground incursion. I don't know if it will happen, but if the current incursion takes control of the Gaza/Egypt border and allows wounded Palestinians (that Hamas is not allowing to cross) to get to the emergency facilities that have been set up there, they might gain a little popular support. Of course the idea is to weaken Hamas enough so that more moderate factions can take charge. I'm sure that there are more than a few members of Fatah that aren't too unhappy with the idea. I agree with this, but the politics on the ground indicate that Fatah had to use the threat of violence to stop popular demonstrations on the West bank in support of Hamas. On the whole, it appears that the groups that are seen to successfully oppose Israel gain among the Palestinians while those that try to find peace lose, and are considered collaborators. Given the education system, this makes sensebecause this is a reasonable position for those who accept the lies taught in the Palestinian schools about the Jews as truths. The real trick is whether Israel can either weaken Hamas so it can be defeated by Al Fatah, or if it can establish effective control of the smuggling of rockets into Gaza in order to stop the attacks. Recent news is not sanguine with respect to the former. Several Al Fatah members have been executed in Gaza for collaborating with Israel. Others are under house arrest. There is no indication that Al Fatah is gaining in the Gaza, and some evidence that it might be falling back in the West Bank. The second point requires the Israeli army to inflict devastating damage on Hamas's leadership and fighters while minimizing civilian casualties. Unlike normal warfare, Hamas gains when the people it governs are hurt and killed. Thus, they are highly motivated to make sure that civilians (especially children) are killed by Israel. Given the rabbit warren nature of Gaza cities, it will be very hard for Israel to kill Hamas and not have a significant incident of civilian deaths. We are now seeing massive demonstrations in Europe, mostly ethnic based. This puts tremendous pressure on the European governments to support a cease fire that will leave Hamas intact, and able to resume rocket attacks on Israel at will (e.g. wait a couple of weeks or months and then restart the attacks). If these demonstrations increase, my feel is that there is minimal European public support for Israel, and that the general tendency is to support quick solutions that, in succession, will gradually weaken Israel over the next years. For, if rocket attacks become the new norm, I feel that they will increase in sophistication and damage as better Iranian arms are smuggled into Gaza. In any case, what the nut case running Iran would like to see is world war 3, and I'm not even sure that he would mind if Iran itself was cauterized as a result. That's a major fear of mine too. I recall how, in the Iran-Iraq war, Iran sent human wave attacks against Iraq, with hundreds of thousands of minimally armed civilians sent to overwhelm the much better armed Iraqis by sheer numbers. IIRC, children were included in these attacks. If the Grand Ayatollah who really runs the country sees the final battle at the end of time at hand, he might feel called to start it by attacking the Zionistic entity which is controlling the world through its evil actions. Dan M. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Experts
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of William T Goodall Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 6:35 AM To: Brin-L Subject: Experts http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2009/jan/04/financial-crisis-anxiety [...] In times like these, everyone should have a book by their bedside to reach for at three in the morning. If the Bible doesn't work for you, Philip Tetlock's nicely oxymoronic volume Expert Political Judgment might be an alternative. Tetlock's book is based on two decades of research into 284 people who made their living commenting or offering advice on political and economic trends. He asked them simply to do what they apparently did best: predict what would happen in the world next in answer to specific questions. Would oil prices rise or fall, would there be a boom or a bust, would we go to war? And so on. When the study concluded, in 2003, Tetlock's experts had made 82,361 forecasts and the results were correlated with the facts as they had turned out. I don't differ with Tetlock's essential findings: the pronouncements of most professional pundits in the areas of economics or geopolitics are less than worthless. I've seen separate documentation that, if you use a broker, you will, on average, do slightly worse than simply investing in a broad based index fund. However, having said that, I think that the implications of his work might lead one to overstate the case; to state that there is no worth in studying or trying to understand finance or geopolitics. The former has been argued extensively here, so let me go to the latter. We know, for example, that the Bush White house had total disdain for the experts in nation building. After the successful defeat of the Iraq army, the provisional authority dismissed the experts in the field, and went there own way, relying on totally unproven techniques. The results were a disaster. In 2006, the US put its COIN expert in charge of the Iraq war. Since then, the US has done much better. Thus, we have a case were the experts were clearly in the right. Thus, we seem to have a good example of taking expertise with a grain of salt, instead of totally disdaining them. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Irregulars question about Culture
I decided to resubscribe to the Culture mailing list (after Comcast took over my Roadrunner account I was automatically unsubscribed) partially because things are now slowing down from my busiest year ever and I will probably have free time. I followed the FAQ directions to send a message with subscribe culture in the body to listmana...@busstop.org. It seemed to go through, but I have received no culture email in a day, and my test message failed. Does anyone have any suggestions as to what I did wrong? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years?
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Bruce Bostwick Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 7:49 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years? On Jan 2, 2009, at 8:35 PM, dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote: From the Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123051100709638419.html As if Things Weren't Bad Enough, Russian Professor Predicts End of U.S. In Moscow, Igor Panarin's Forecasts Are All the Rage; America 'Disintegrates' in 2010 I read this a few weeks ago and got a good chuckle out of it. It shows than Americans aren't the only ones who can be clueless about how things work in other countries. :-) Dan M. Well, one element of it is almost certainly true -- the USA that we'll be living in in 2010 will not be the USA as we know it. If we continue with business as usual, the mostly-completed process of running the country into the ground will very likely reach a point of no return before then Ah, I'd really like some hard data to support that hyperbola. As messed up as Bush was, by most measure, the US is far better off than most countries. Take, for example, one I worry about the most: foreign debt as a percentage of GDP. It is now, by my rough calculations for 2008, at about 45% of GDP. While I think this is bad, it's much better than Great Britain, where it stands at 380%. If you are over 40, you should remember how Japan was going to blow the US out of the water in the '80s. China is the new champonly they are finding their growth is sliding from 10% per year down to a far lower level that folks are guessing at. We know industrial output is down from last year, so they have as much trouble with the trade imbalance as we do. The US is far less densely populated than any other developed country, its air and water suppliers are far less polluted than 40 years ago, and racism has fallen to the point where we've been able to elect a black president. And yet, you sing we're on the eve of destruction? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Israel to collapse in 25 years?
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Doug Pensinger Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 5:17 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Scouted: U.S. to collapse in next two years? Alberto Clearly, the only solution is for the US to mount a massive attack on all the countries listed in the article at once. It's surprising that not a single piece of the future-former-USA went to Israel. Those conspiracy theorists are getting unimaginative. Sheesh, don't you know? Israel _controls_ all those countries. Switching the conversation to something not as much fun, I've been wondering if Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran have found a heads I win, tails you lose proposition. The first two attack Israel with rockets located in the middle of civilians. If Israel doesn't respond, they up the attacks. If it does, it kills lots of civilians and Hamas and Hezbollah gain in popularity. Iran is setting Israel up so it (or the US which is doubtful) will have to bomb its nuclear facility or face an enemy with the ability to wipe out Israel and virtually all of its population in 15 minutes. If Israel does bomb, it won't know if it got all of the facilities, or if there is a buried one. Plus, demographics favor the Palestinians in the long run. Further, since Arabs control oil, there is a great desire to please Arabs by many world powers (the UN tacit approval of the genocide in the Sudan is a good example of this), other countries will have to act against their own self interests to worry about Israel. So, can anyone argue me out of this pessimistic viewpoint? I honestly hope so, even though I'll argue hard for this pointit's one argument I'd love to lose. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: What is wealth?
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of David Hobby Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 7:11 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: What is wealth? Dan M wrote: ... O.K., let me try. There is such a thing as concrete wealth. Wealth lets an individual do things that they want to do. So a person's individual wealth would be roughly defined relative to some standard as the ratio of the utility of what they can do to what they could do in the standard state. I think this is closest to what I think. But, I think that this is a fundamental and difficult enough concept to start slowly with some obvious examples. First, I was think of and will focus on the wealth of nations, communities, the world, more than individual wealth. ... So, historically, a richer nation would have vast areas of fertile farmland that could be harvested year after year to provide food for people. That wealth could be stolen by force, but absent of that, the wealth existed there. So, Italy was far wealthier than a corresponding area in Siberia, because far more food could be grown. ... involved) is somewhat arbitrary. But, the availability of human effort expended in something other than subsistence farming is not subjective; it can be objectively measured. ... Dan-- O.K., you agreed mostly agreed with me, and I mostly agree with you. Some of it is a matter of interpretation: We're both taking the usual meaning of wealth, and trying to clarify it. I had planned to get the total wealth of a country but adding up the individual wealth of its inhabitants (and of its institutions, too?). So starting with individual wealth made sense to me. Do you think that the wealth of a (inhabited) country would be different than the sum of the wealths of its inhabitants? Well, there is always the wealth in the publicly owned infrastructure, oil and mineral wealth on public lands that need to be added. But, my argument for looking at the state instead of the individual was mostly the same as Plato's reasons for writing the Republic as he did. I think that a country that has more than enough food for its people may be wealthier than a country where everybody has just enough. Even if they can produce the same total amount of food. Sure, people can be a source of a country's wealth. But starving peasants may not be worth that much, wealth-wise. So there's more to it then just food production? Yes, definitely. But, I think the first step is the ability for the average workers to produce more food than is needed to feed their family unit. If, for example, it takes 100 families working to feed 105 families, then there is only 5 families that can be engaged in any trade except subsistence farming. If, as it is true in the US, less than 1% of the labor force is required to produce food, then the rest of the labor force is able to produce other things. Clearly, the US is far wealthier when it has a 5% surplus harvest than a country that produced a 5% surplus harvest because there was war the previous year, and a lot of townspeople died. (An interesting site on this is http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/WellBeing/farmhouseincome.htm Particularly the table farm household income by source. Here you see most farm households farm part-time, and have most of their income come from other sources...like friends of mine who have 50 head of cattle on their ranch, but live in town 5 days a week and hold two jobs). Unless you want to define free wealth and bound wealth. The free wealth of a land of starving peasants may be almost zero. Most of it being bound up in maintaining the large number of inhabitants. A suitable plague could release the bound wealth of the country by reducing the population. There are several terms that are typically used. They are national income, national per capita income, and disposable/discretionary income. Clearly, Monaco, although its citizens are wealthy, has far less economic clout than the US. But, clearly, the average Chinese citizen is far poorer than the average Australian, even though China has 4x the GDP of Australia. Then, we have to consider disposable income. Since China has so many people, a significant fraction of the country is still barely above subsistence, even with the increased GDP. Indeed China is particularly susceptible to global recessions because its income is so tied to exports (only 35% of Chinese GDP is domestic consumption vs. 70% for the US). Before the Great Depression, the US was by far the biggest exporter, as well as the biggest holder of world debt. It was the hardest hit country in the Great Depression. I've been reading articles that hint that there is causality here, and that China (and to a lesser extent Germany and Japan) are particularly susceptible to downturns. The US hoped to export
RE: Russia (Was What is wealth?)
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Charlie Bell Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 3:54 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Russia (Was What is wealth?) No, by well-educated I mean professionals - accountants, lawyers, medics etc. I thought that was the case, but thanks for the clarification. Cyprus was full of them working bar, waiting, or worse being exploited in strip clubs. (It wasn't like London where an attractive woman could make good money doing exotic dancing a couple of times a week - these girls were often being forced to have sex with customers). Well, as you know, that's particularly repugnant to me, both as the husband of an abuse victim (who later specialized in social work in working with victims) and as the father of daughters. I have heard about this sort of thing with uneducated poor Eastern European women, but not about it happening to the well educated. It's not that the evilness of this forcing is less if a woman is undereducated, but this strikes me as countering the proposal that education is the ticket out of poverty and exploitation. One question comes up, and you may or may not be able to answer it. Were the professionals allowed to work menial jobs but not professional jobs just because of local laws, customs, prejudices, etc., or do you think that the education system in Russia has fallen to the point where, for example, you'd never want to have a Russian surgeon operating on you? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Russia (Was What is wealth?)
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Charlie Bell Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 4:51 AM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Russia (Was What is wealth?) On 18/12/2008, at 11:46 AM, dsummersmi...@comcast.net wrote: The recovery was caused by two things: Putin controlling the mob so businessmen knew who to bribe, and the rise in fuel costs. But, the last 4 years, as he consolidated his power, he also concentrated the wealthI don't think anyone would argue that Russia is not a more autocratic country than it was even 4 years ago. These types of countries rarely have well off citizens. More than that, why are there so many Russian ex-pats, well-educated, doing menial jobs in tourist resorts? 'cause it's better than no job in Russia. And I bet it's not just the usual theater majors doing menial jobs while waiting for their break (father of a theater major sighs). I've read that the Greek riots are tied to this type of problem; there are no/very few good jobs available for college graduates there. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Russia (Was What is wealth?)
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 6:00 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Russia (Was What is wealth?) Dan M. wrote: I would have thought that a low birth rate is very very good evidence of being part of the first world. It does have that in common with the first world. But, the life expectancy of both men and women in every age catagory is less than it was 40 years ago. And how can we trust communist statistics? By secondary measure, of course. :-) If you want to argue that things were worse than the official statistics under the USSR, you won't find a debate opponent in me. But, after the USSR fell, a lot of data became available. The person who wrote the paper in question is an old lion of polisci, and has a great reputation. And, he is publishing in a very anti-Communist journal. So, I'd be shocked if he just took stock communist statistics without using secondary data. It could be that the fall wasn't as great as he portrayed, but men use to live longer, on average, than 60 years. Over 70 or so years of Communist rule, demographic errors of that magnitude become to big to miss. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: What is wealth?
Demographers have Russias population reducing to under 70 million by 2050. Wow, that's about 4 per sq. km. And with China around 140 per sq. km., maybe dropping a bit to 125 per sq. km by then, just to it's south, that's a problem waiting to happenespecially with the male/female disparity in China (1.13 males/females under 15). It might be cowboys and Indians time again, with a strong China pushing to take over land (or at least push for very favorable trade terms) from Russia. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: What is wealth?
Hi Dan, I am interested to hear what your basis is for saying that Russia is falling out of the developed world. It's based on a number of things, but I think the single item that stood out for me was the male life expectancy: 59.2 years. 25 years ago, it was over 70 years (at least officially). This drop is absolutely amazing. Women fare much better, average life expectancy is 73.1 years or so, but this high death rate among men indicates a tremendous, debilitating underlying problem. Alcoholism gets most of the blame here, but that level of alcoholism is truly staggering. Second, Russia's economy had been in a free-fall from about 1980 to 2000. Living standards had dropped tremendously. Recently, due to oil and gas production, the per GDP has risen noticeably, but the increasing control of Putin over everything reminds me of Venezuela and Iran. It's as Thomas Friedman stated, central controlled one trick pony economies do not develop well (e.g. Iran, Iraq, Nigeria), while diversified ones (e.g. Taiwan, South Korea) do. With the drop in oil prices, Russia's hurting now. While the US, European, and Asian stock markets have dropped tremendously, it's nothing compared to the 75% drop in Russia seen this year. Third, Russia isn't/can't take care of the relatively few children it does have. According to the Wikipedia article on street children, Russia has 2-4 million (the Russian official number is 700k, but they also state that they do not have an AIDs problem...and 700k isn't peanuts). For a country of 140 million, with about 20 million children, this translates into 10-20% of all children. Fourth, Russia built its status on military might and international control/influence. The countries behind the Iron Curtain were set up to trade in a way highly favorable to Russia, for example. It was the enemy of the US, and was able to contest the US from Viet Nam to Cuba. Now, its military might is minimal. Its soldiers are experienced, which is worth something, but its equipment is decaying. On paper, it has a tremendous nuclear arsenal, but in reality the launch success rate would be very low. Indeed, in Security Studies, a detailed analysis has concluded that there is a high probability that the US now has a first strike capacity against the Russia (note, the article went on to discuss possible destabilizing results from this, so it wasn't considered a plus for the US in the article). The Russians easily handled the small country of Georgia. But, based on how it handled that, the Ukraine may give it a decent battle. Star Wars and the Afghanistan war were the beginning of the long slide in military power. Finally, its death rate is about 50% higher than its birth rate. While that is not inherently indicative of dropping out of the first world, the fact remains that it's a dying country, and a dying country that does not take care of its children to boot. If we do find alternatives to expensive ($90/barrel) oil, Russia will have no basis for its economy. At that point, one real geopolitical risk is a strong China will see an empty Russia to its north, with great potential for farming as global warming opens up farming areas. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: What is wealth?
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of David Hobby Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 6:52 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: What is wealth? Dan M wrote: ... Look at the wealthiest countries in the world. With the exception of the US, they have fertility rates below replacement, some (like Japan, Germany and Italy) far below replacement. The countries with high fertility rates tend to be poorer. Thus, wealth is anti-correlated with the probability a person's gene marker will be seen in a given member of the Nth generation after one's own (which is a standard measure of sociobiological fitness). ... Dan-- Sad to say, that remains to be seen. Once wealth has been equalized across the world, then it's reasonable to count numbers of descendants. Its true that its impossible to predict the future, but we've had 50 years of trends, and that's worth something. IIRC, baring some technological breakthrough that will allow folks to live far longer fairly soon, the die is cast for the decline of Europe and Japan. Take Japan as an extreme example. It's somewhat unusual in that it has a double population peak in 2008. The first on is 55-59, the second 35-39. 30-35 is close to 35-39, but then it drops off fast, ending up with 0-4 only half of 35-39. There are a lot of reasons for this, but the bottom line is that the overwhelming majority of females are either out of or leaving the age range of fertility. (65% are 35 or older). As a result, baring a drastic immediate cultural change, the aging and then decline of Japan's population is all but written in stone. The EU as a whole is not as dramatic, but it should expect to see a 20% or so decline in population every year. So, it would take a massive change in attitude to reverse this. The single shining counterexample to all of this is the US, which I'd argue is a unique multicultural country. Second, mass disease/starvation still exists, but it's mostly in Africa. The largest two countries (China and India) have done a great job of pulling themselves out of abject poverty over the last 20 years. China has gone from a per capita income (inflation adjusted dollars) of $1700 to $7600 over that time. That's not rich, but factors of almost 5 are nothing to be sneezed at. India has not done as well: $1100 to $3700, but that's still better than a factor of 3. I remember (maybe you are too young to) the massive starvation in India in the '60s. Now, there is still extreme poverty there, but there is not the same risk to human life. So, we are within a decade of this type of drastic drop in poor country populations being confined to Sub-Sahara Africa. Fertility rates are falling around the world, but nowhere so drastic (besides Russia which is falling out of the developed world) as in the highly developed world outside of the US. A couple of caveats, to be sure. Still, summary info can be made from data. The world will be far less Japanese and European in 100 years than it is today. And it is far less Japanese and European today than it was 100 years ago. Finally, are you thinking about a possible/probable collapse of civilization? That's one possibility that I had not addressed here. Dan M. If the poorer countries wind up with huge population crashes on the way to global equality, then having fewer children who were better off financially may turn out to have been a good reproductive strategy. : ( ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: What is wealth?
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Kevin B. O'Brien Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 9:00 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: What is wealth? The countries with high fertility rates tend to be poorer. Thus, wealth is anti-correlated with the probability a person's gene marker will be seen in a given member of the Nth generation after one's own (which is a standard measure of sociobiological fitness). I tend to think that is a pretty simple manifestation of the Demographic Transition. Children are a net asset in poorer countries (they can be put to work, can support you in old age, etc.). In richer economies, children are a luxury good that cost you a lot and deliver no economic return, hence you will tend to have fewer of them. You know, if you took this and the first statement of yours I responded to as axioms, you could probably put together a system in which both A and ~A are both provable statements. (This was considered a big negative when I took math and logic). :-) So, I think you have to pick one of the two statements you made and reject the other. Or, say that both have some impact, but are not nearly as universal as you've portrayed. Indeed, while I think the latter statement has some truth, the data don't really fit it as a sole explanation. Russia's birth rate fell as its economic conditions fell. There were far fewer births in the Great Depression as there were in the post WWII prosperity. The US has a far higher birth rate among college educated women than Japan does. My suggestion is that sociobiology is a viewpoint to be used, among others, and that it is not a simple explanation. But, unlike others on the list, I do think partial understandings can be helpful. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: What is wealth?
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of David Hobby Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 9:22 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: What is wealth? Dan M wrote: After the discussion about money as a social construct, it occurred to me that that there is something more fundamental underlying this. It is whether wealth is concrete or just an abstract concept. Dan-- O.K., let me try. There is such a thing as concrete wealth. Wealth lets an individual do things that they want to do. So a person's individual wealth would be roughly defined relative to some standard as the ratio of the utility of what they can do to what they could do in the standard state. I think this is closest to what I think. But, I think that this is a fundamental and difficult enough concept to start slowly with some obvious examples. First, I was think of and will focus on the wealth of nations, communities, the world, more than individual wealth. Second, I see two layers of wealth, the first being more obvious than the second. I'd define wealth in terms of resources, first the resources that people absolutely need, and second, the resources that people want, but can do without. For the first, I'd argue for food, clothing, and shelter. I was thinking of medical care, but (for all practical purposes) doctors contributed minimally to the prolonging of life before the advent of modern, science based medicine. They could, for example, do virtually nothing in the face of the Black Plague. So, historically, a richer nation would have vast areas of fertile farmland that could be harvested year after year to provide food for people. That wealth could be stolen by force, but absent of that, the wealth existed there. So, Italy was far wealthier than a corresponding area in Siberia, because far more food could be grown. Second, and this is near to my heart...but I don't see it as inherently a bias, wealth is a function of knowledge and ability. The combination of the horse collar and three crop rotation tremendously increased the fundamental wealth of Europe. Why? The horse collar did because one horse could replace two oxen to plow land. Thus, the amount of food needed to be spent on feeding the plow animal decreased by more than a factor of two. This wealth, in food, was a true increase. With the same conditions, the same weather, there was far more food for people to eat. As a result, a given plot of land could support more human life. Since it didn't take more effort to use the horse than the pair of oxen (probably less), human labor was available for other endeavors. Craftsmen could exist, trading their wares for the surplus food. The nature and distribution of these wares is a subject unto itself, and the desirability of the output of this craft vs. that craft (particularly when aesthetics are involved) is somewhat arbitrary. But, the availability of human effort expended in something other than subsistence farming is not subjective; it can be objectively measured. Three crop rotation also increased wealth. In a sense, it is one of the purest forms of intellectual property, because that idea was a multiplier for the worth of the land. Far more food could be grown over decades using this technique than the older technique. This, the idea itself is seen as a significant contribution to wealth. I'll stop here for, hopefully, comments. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: What is wealth?
-Original Message- From: brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-boun...@mccmedia.com] On Behalf Of Olin Elliott Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 7:05 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: What is wealth? Wealth can be defined in evolutionary terms. Whatever enhances your health, your security, your status or your power in the group is wealth. In other words -- in a state of nature -- anything the possession of which improves your reproductive fitness. That is the ultimate basis of the concept of wealth, and all our elaborations and abstractions don't change that much. What about the facts, would they change things much? :-) I think there is some viability in the sociobiological argument that wealth increases the attractiveness of men as mates. But, if you look at the selfish gene as an embodiment of sociobiology, you see that wealth has had a paradoxical effect. Look at the wealthiest countries in the world. With the exception of the US, they have fertility rates below replacement, some (like Japan, Germany and Italy) far below replacement. The countries with high fertility rates tend to be poorer. Thus, wealth is anti-correlated with the probability a person's gene marker will be seen in a given member of the Nth generation after one's own (which is a standard measure of sociobiological fitness). Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Financial institution fallout
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Williams Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 11:55 AM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Financial institution fallout On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 7:26 AM, Dan M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, I was hoping to set the ground rules for discussion. You do like trying to impose your rules on others, don't you. Actually, they aren't my rules. Don't like to take responsibility for your actions, huh? Nah, just don't like to take credit for the work of others. I am responsible for the posts I wrote. For example, someone rightly pointed out that I over-generalized concerning the breath of people that were dismayed by the recent market performance. The writer of the Black Swan and his camp are probably not dismayed, but are feeling vindicated. I take responsibility for writing a statement that didn't take them into account. So, I take responsibility for writing my posts, as well as embracing scholarship and scientific technique. But, I do not take responsibility for inventing either. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
What is wealth?
After the discussion about money as a social construct, it occurred to me that that there is something more fundamental underlying this. It is whether wealth is concrete or just an abstract concept. One way to ask it is whether the world is actually wealthier than it was 100 years ago; whether the US is? A second is to ask who creates wealth and how do they create it? I have some strong opinions on this, but I hoped that I could stimulate a discussion by first throwing out the questions before I weigh in with my long winded thoughts. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Financial institution fallout
Well, I was hoping to set the ground rules for discussion. You do like trying to impose your rules on others, don't you. Actually, they aren't my rules. The rules I was proposing were the general rules of experimental inquiry that I have learned. I have also observed that folks who follow them are far more successful, in fields where success itself is empirically measured, than folks who don't. For example, my buddies who have created hundreds of billions of wealth followed these rules. But, since the dialog was to be between you and me, I put out a couple of proposals, expecting that any set of rules would be _our_ rules for debate. See, I've learned that to accomplish anything with other people there has to be at least some commonality. Indeed, you have, in your commentary and insults, repeatedly responded as though clear allusions to communal, and even collegial acts were personal claims. The words we and I are two separate words, with clearly distinct meaning in the English language. An inability or refusal to see the difference guarantees poor communication. First, his statement about the relatively poor rebound from the depression under FDR is falsified by historical data. 33-37 was the best rebound since yearly records were kept. (1880). Would you care to quote the statement you are refuting? The subnormal recovery to 1935, the subnormal prosperity to 1937 and the slump after that are easily accounted for by the difficulties incident to the adaptation to a new fiscal policy, new labor legislation and a general change in the attitude of government to private enterprise all of which can. Looking again, I see he is quoting another's false statement to make his point, my apologies for missing the nuances. Professionals almost always publish in professional journals edited by other professionals. Crackpots usually self publish. Keeping in mind that we are talking about economics, it seems you consider yourself a crackpot for publishing your analyses yourself on an email list. This isn't where I publish. :-) Witten's lunch table discussions with his friend Ken on the Middle East does not qualify as publishing either (just in case you want to call string theory crackpot). :-) You can mock academic standards. But, it is a fact that folks who use techniques similar to those used in your arguments here in any endeavor in which there is empirically measurable success or failure (e.g. engineering or science) have failed overwhelmingly, while folks who use the techniques I suppose have had their share of successes. Even I have had a modest success or two. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Financial institution fallout
Hah! Money is no longer on the gold standard and is completely and totally a social contract dependent on the whims of societies and markets and the fiat of governments. Yup. And, if you looked at gold, it has bounced up and down, like all the other commodities. In 2008 dollars here are some sample values, which indicate the volatility 1977 368 1981 1600 2001 342 early July, 2008 970 now 780 Can you imagine the deflationary/inflationary rollercoaster we'd be on if we were on the gold standard. And, if you look at all the gold in the world, in 2001 the amount of money in the US alone (M2) was about 5 trillion. With a total world supply of 142,000 metric tons, that translated into slightly less than 900 billion worth of money in 2001..in the whole world. Assuming that the US has 25% of the money as well as 25% of the GDP, we'd be talking about reducing the amount of money more than 20-fold from what it was. And, I know you recall that 2001 was near the middle of a low inflation span of almost 20 years. So, clearly the gold standard would have required tremendous deflation, which historically has been tied to depressions (e.g. Freeman's arguments). Even the most stringent Kensyian would cringe at the effects of that type of deflation. Libertarians pretend that all would be well when money under the mattress is the best investment. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Financial institution fallout
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Williams Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 12:40 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Financial institution fallout On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 9:51 PM, Dan M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I saw an interesting article from the bastion of free enterprise publication, the WSJ, at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122852289752684407.html Thus, the funds managers who were prudent ether were converted or lost their jobs. Not all of them. Some people and fund managers made money betting against the insanity. And it only takes a few. That is how markets evolve. Survival of the fittest. It just may take longer than we like for the fittest to win out. This is very nice theory if and only if you don't do statistical analysis and don't believe in positive feedback cycles, don't care what happens to billions of people over decades, etc. Here is where you differ with 96% of people. Most people don't worry about the purity of the economic system. They worry about their lives and the lives of the other people in the nation and the world. Whenever I tried to engage you in empirically based discussions (which have to include discussions of techniques because techniques are the key to good experimentation and modeling and are thus essential to developing any theory), you fell back on libertarian polemics. For example, when you put forth a libertarian understanding of the Great Depression, I wanted to discuss historical numbers, techniques, etcthe sort of thing any experimentalist would want to discuss in evaluating the theory. You considered this changing the subject. You also have stated that the burden of proof does not fall equally on every viewpoint, but falls solely on those that differ with you. This technique has a long bad history, recently used by the creationist but also used by astrologers, reflexologists, etc. Everything that you write is written as if it comes from a position that Objectivism is a priori correct. You may not have read much Rand, but your arguments parallel hers. Perhaps you read her followers, peers, or those who came before her. This post sounds like it could have been written by one of the Social Darwinists of the roaring 20s. So, in yet another futile attempt to engage in a discussion of economics on an empirical instead of philosophical basis, let me make one general, well accepted statement about economics and see if you accept it. During downturns where what looked like safe investments turned out to be very risky, people and institutions become loath to loan money to any but those that pose the least investment risk. (e.g. after 1 AAA rated firm went bankrupt and a number more were saved only by government bailout, people turn a jaundiced eye to any loan that is AAA rated or worse and tend to seek safer havens than AAA bonds). Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Financial institution fallout
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Williams Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 12:15 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Financial institution fallout On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 7:32 AM, Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The purpose of a system is not the same as what it produces. If it were, buying a word processor would make you a novelist. More egotism. Everyone in the markets must do what Nick wants them to do! Well, I'll bite again, just to point out that you live in a society with a social compact. Some of it is expressed by the laws of the land, some by custom, some by taboos, etc. Nick is discussing, as I think everyone but you here is how the society can best address economics in that social compact. The unstated assumption is that a good economic system is the one that's best for the economic well being participants in the system. Even supply side economists agree with that, they just have different ideas on what benefits the people of the US and the people of the word than I do. To use another example, Jon Mann and I differ very strongly on socialism, but we have general agreement with each other and with the supply siders on what we want for the society our children's children's children live in. We differ on what's the road there. So, as members of that society, we on Brin-L choose to debate what is best. That's not egotism. The more you write the more I think that your problem with all of us is that we do not believe in your metaphysics. Perhaps, on the odd chance you wish to persuade people, you might agree that this is a metaphysical disagreement, and put forth your metaphysical arguments clearly, instead of through rude comments. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Financial institution fallout
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Williams Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 12:24 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Financial institution fallout On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 8:13 AM, Dan M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here is where you differ with 96% of people. Most people don't worry about the purity of the economic system. They worry about their lives and the lives of the other people in the nation and the world. I am not worried about the purity of the economic system. For example, when you put forth a libertarian understanding of the Great Depression, I wanted to discuss historical numbers, techniques, etcthe sort of thing any experimentalist would want to discuss in evaluating the theory. You considered this changing the subject. If you are referring to Higg's paper that I referenced, then you were the one who changed the subject and started your usual ramblings. And you never addressed a single one of Higg's points. No, I was asking simple questions about techniques. Discussions between people on a paper, results, etc. depend on agreement on techniques for evaluation. I asked whether you agreed on a few essential techniques of empirical investigation. You also have stated that the burden of proof does not fall equally on every viewpoint, but falls solely on those that differ with you. Again with making up views and attributing them to me. Is making up things about people the only way you can justify pretending you know better how to spend other people's money? That's not the point being argued. You see, all but a few people understand that money is a placeholder; it is a social construct. Numbers in a computer or pieces of paper with dead presidents on them have meaning only within a society. Thus, if you are a member of this society, you play by its rules. As Rob said, we haven't drunk the Kool-Aid of radical individualism. We can argue what rules are good or bad for society and the inhabitants of that society. But, your arguments for radical individualism are about as sensible as someone arguing that people are just a construct, all that exist are quarks, leptons, and all the particles that transmit the forces. BTW, when you quote phrases almost word for word, do you think it is mere coincidence that you do so? I'd argue it means that you've heard an idea you like and repeated it. If you're ignorant of where your ideas came from, that's OK, but it's not changing the subject for me to recognize where your ideas originated. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Financial institution fallout
John Williams wrote: No, you were rambling on with nonsense, failing to address a single argument in the Higg's paper. Well, I was hoping to set the ground rules for discussion. But, I have two obvious comments on the Higgs paper. First, his statement about the relatively poor rebound from the depression under FDR is falsified by historical data. 33-37 was the best rebound since yearly records were kept. (1880). Second, let me refer to his technique. The paper you referenced was self published. He was the editor of the journal that it was published in. That's a big red flag. Professionals almost always publish in professional journals edited by other professionals. Crackpots usually self publish. But, I'm not sure either matters to you. That's why I wanted to ask if it did. I'm guessing you consider good technique and actually agreeing with known data nonsense, but I'd be delighted to be surprised. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Financial institution fallout
First, his statement about the relatively poor rebound from the depression under FDR is falsified by historical data. 33-37 was the best rebound since yearly records were kept. (1880). Whoops, that should be `1870. And, with the Civil War and all, one really needs to go back to before 1860 to see normal economics. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Financial institution fallout
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Pat Mathews Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 7:28 AM To: Brin List Subject: RE: Financial institution fallout Yeah. I've been watching this unroll. Though to my shock and horror, I've actually been seeing some of Rand's villains showing up in Washington whining for their bailouts ... I had dismissed her as over-the-top and preachy and impractical for decades! Actually, Rand's hero's are in line there too. :-) They are heroes in her book because they are successful. In reality, the private market failed, and needs the government...even according to its bible. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Wal-Mart is evil, why it must be eradicated
I'm no statistician, but aren't you comparing apples/oranges here. First of all the median income includes all residents while the median home prices include only homeowners. But, affordability indexes usually compare this. It's true that, nationwide, about a third of households are renters. But, the person buying the property to rent has to make money on the rent, so rents are also higher. I realize that there were some goofy disparities between rental property prices and homes in the last 10 years. Here, it's the other way around. I think we are spending more on housing for a 1350 sq. foot apartment than our buyers are spending on their mortgage and real estate taxes (after the tax deduction...without counting that, they are paying about 5% more for 3000 sq. feet than we are paying for 1350 sq. feet). Second it looks to me that median home prices doesn't include condo prices. I'm not sure about the last, but I know that in my parent's home town (Santa Cruz) UCSC students vote in the local elections and I would imagine that that makes them residents. I found another resource, and it said that students living on campus, even if they can vote in the next election, are not counted, but grad students (the only ones who can live off campus) living off campus do count. The median family income is much higher than the median household income: 350k. So, it is a community where the average household is in the top 2% of the nation. That means that as long as those very very high paying jobs are there, the housing prices might stay up. But, I think this recession will hit everyone, and a sinking tide lowers all boats. I know that investment bankers are nervous now. Engineers certainly can't afford to buy those houses, unless they are paid far above averageand then the company that hires them are at a great disadvantagewhich is why HP will keep shifting work to Houston's Compaq campus. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Financial institution fallout
I saw an interesting article from the bastion of free enterprise publication, the WSJ, at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122852289752684407.html It has some interesting analysisand it doesn't seem good. What I find interesting is that it seems to be a balanced analysis, not a polemic for letting the markets decide everything. My feeling is that everyone but those who believe than Atlas Shrugged is the greatest work of philosophy, literature, and economics ever, have been badly shaken by how the market failed. It's not that government was blameless, but they didn't force the 5 investment banking institutions and the biggest insurance company in the world to make the decisions they did. The implications of this article are quite sobering. I don't have time, alas, for an analysis for the list, based on what I read and discussed, but I'll mention one factor here. Fund managers who played things properly, who bet that real estate would not go up forever, quickly found themselves having to explain to their clients year after year after year why they didn't invest in AAA assets. It's like refusing a betting scheme based on there never ever being a straight flush in poker. It usually works, and the person who refuses to get in looks like their losing moneyin this case it would be for decades. Thus, the funds managers who were prudent ether were converted or lost their jobs. I don't think Adam Smith envisioned the GDP of the world being issued as credit default swaps. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Wal-Mart is evil, why it must be eradicated
I think that I learned about it with hog prices...the fact that there is a time constant between the price of hog bellies and the ability to add new hog bellies to the market. This leads to market volatility, since when prices are high, a lot of new little piglets are raised, causing an excess in supply, lowering prices, causing few piglets to be raised, causing a shortfall in supply, etc. This is called the Cobweb Theorem, first articulated by Kaldor. OK, I forgot the name, but I'm glad that someone who's got a Phd in econ reinforces that this is a well known phenomenon. When you are in a doctoral program in economics, one of the things you are drilled in is that the assumptions you make in developing your models are often the most significant factors in the results you make. FWIW, this is the most critical part of solving complex problems with partial information, much of which is not primary information, but information plus the hidden assumptions of those reporting the problems. In working with worldwide downhole fleets of nuclear measurement tools, I've had to deal with this. Problems that are forehead smakers when you finally see them can linger unsolved for months or even years because of hidden assumptions. So, one of the greatest skill sets a team (often comprised of engineers, scientists, techs., field operators, manufacturing people, etc.) can have is going through the data and finding their hidden assumptions that make them miss the elephant in the room. Indeed, if the team is beyond the bare minimum number to get the job done, hiring a well trained person from an adjacent field who has creative ignorance is very useful because they ask good basic questions. 95% of which have easy answers, 5% of which take some though, and 1%-2% of which lead to finding flaws that were missed due to assumptions. That is why grad students and their profs all have large repertoire of jokes in which the punch-line involves an economist making an assumption (e.g. Assume a can opener.) In the case of perfect competition, the assumptions include: 1. Numerous buyers and sellers 2. Homogeneous product 3. Perfect information in the market 4. No barriers to entry or exit Yup, I've heard of that. For all of these reasons I am not one to subscribe to the quasi-religious faith that markets are always the optimum solution. OK, we're on the same page so far. But in the case of the gasoline market, there is in fact some fairly persuasive evidence that there is a pretty high degree of competition. It is the fact that prices do move around a lot, and in both directions. When firms have a large amount of market power, you definitely do not observe this kind of price movement. Firms with power set prices, and control those prices, so as to maximize their profits. You just don't see a lot of price movements. But with gasoline you see prices move on a frequent, even daily basis. What is interesting about this market is that there is a cartel that provides 40% of the output. Yet, this cartel couldn't prevent oil prices from falling to under $10/barrel in '98 because they could not penalize cheaters. The big oil companies (BP, Shell, Exxon) are very small players in comparison with OPEC's national oil companies. Yet, folks are convinced that these bit players control everything. Anyways, it seems, in this case anyways, that we agree fairly completely. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: It's confirmed: Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of xponentrob Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 11:06 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: It's confirmed: Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations Umyeah. Though I have to admit I'm left wondering if you are talking about questions in the soft sciences (which can seem a bit arbitrary to my mind and subject to change for a variety of reasons), or if you are referring to ultimate questions that lay people tend to think physics aims for. (Just for clarity, I think we both agree when it comes to the subject of Truth) I was thinking more of the latter, but the former also helps bring the problem into perspective. Take psychology. We don't really know what people are thinking. Experts in the field of psychology have been fooled by people who outgamed them. Still, empirical observations are made, and models of those observations (say fivethirtyeight's vote prediction) can prove quite accurate. OK thanks! I'm not sure I understand your statement in that case. Fleishman and Pons observations were certainly called into question, as were their methodologies.Same with, say, creationists. So offhand I would expect that the reliability of observations is important, but recognise that you could be defining observation in a way I am not. I think I am defining reliable differently, partially because I'm rather familiar with the debates of the time when physics emerged. Pons and Fleishman made unrepeatable observations. Creationists use bad technique in evaluating phenomenon. But, Pons and Fleishman's problems were not the uncertainty of the empirical and only a small subset of creationists use idealism to question observations (as Berkley (sp) did). We can make detailed models of the empirical and have rigorous standards for good, repeatable experiments. But, we don't worry about what is really there, we shut up and calculate. In a real sense, this Feynman statement is a culmination of what makes physics what it is. I recall that years ago there was a very lengthy thread here that dealt with metaphysical questions of the ultimate reality and why such philosophical discussion is pretty much meaningless. Actually, I'd argue that meaning is one of those metaphysical questions that cannot be determined empirically. I love the statement in the first preface to the Critique of Pure Reason on this. HUMAN reason has this peculiar fate that in one species of its knowledge it is burdened by questions which, as prescribed by the very nature of reason itself, it is not able to ignore, but which, as transcending all its powers, it is also not able to answer. Thus, I take exception with a science magazine which states that the authors pet interpretation has been proven by a new discovery, when it hasn't. Something has been demonstrated. I agree it is open to interpretation. I can think of other explainations that might satisfy the observations, leakage from tiny higher dimensions frex. None of that is needed. Just standard E=m works (I'm using good physicist units here where c=1. :-) ) That's what's frustrating for me; the New Scientist makes standard QM theory out to be a startling new discovery. The theory dates back to at least the early 30s. Nothing has been demonstrated except that QCD works numerically. If they failed with computers 100x as powerful, and everyone did, then that would be something new, because QCD would have been falsified. One real problem, from my perspective, is that the average layman is trying to fit modern physics back into a classical box. To paraphrase one prominent physicist from the 20s when asked to comment on the correctness of someone's hypothesison a theory he thought was horrid, Right? Right, he isn't even Wrong. This is what the first two paragraphs of the New Scientist article remind me of. Last year everything was all about strings (again), but the article seems to ignore all that and doesn't reference. That's at a layer below what was covered in the article...where theorists try to reconcile GR with QCD and the Electroweak...there strings (and now fuzzy space if 2 year old last reading of John Baez's online This Week In Mathematical Physics is current enough). Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Wal-Mart is evil, why it must be eradicated
I'll add one thought that keeps coming to me. If free markets reliably regulate prices, how the heck did we have such a crazy spike in oil prices recently? It's rarely as simple as portrayed in economics 101, but this type of problem has been long known. I think that I learned about it with hog prices...the fact that there is a time constant between the price of hog bellies and the ability to add new hog bellies to the market. This leads to market volatility, since when prices are high, a lot of new little piglets are raised, causing an excess in supply, lowering prices, causing few piglets to be raised, causing a shortfall in supply, etc. Now, you might think that folks could see this and enough farmers would counter-trend in order always make money, and thus smooth things out. Indeed, the futures market was created to help with this, my father-in-law regularly sold future harvests on the futures market to lock in prices and to decrease fluctuation. It's really critical with oil, because bringing a new field on line can take 10 years. That means that folks have to guess what the prices will be in 5-10 years. I can't talk out of school, but it's fair to say that no-one would start oil fields expecting 100 dollar/barrel oil to work. The Saudi's prince's comment that the price needs to be in the 70-80 dollar/barrel range seems close to target. Surely neither supply nor demand changed much in such a short time. No, but when both are quite inelastic when it comes to prices, one can see wild swings. For example, back in '98, oil dipped below $10/barrel, while natural gas was flirting with $2.00. As a result, gas wells were considered worthless, and new oil production plans had to be profitable at $15/barrel over the long term. Since then, demand has taken off. Just look at the last few years, while prices have been rising rapidly. World demand was still growing, rising 4% between 2004 and 2007, during which time the average price rose . Even comparing the second quarter of 2008 to the second quarter of 2007, we see that the demand was still rising (only 0.4%, but that's when prices were spiking above to $140+/barrel. This shows how demand is insensitive to prices. It took a global recession to slow this down. And while the demand forecast for next year is fairly flat, if the world economy recovers in 2010, then oil demand will continue to go up. If oil stays below $60/barrel for a while, then some planned production will be postponed, and there will be another squeeze. Now, those aren't the only factors involved. The drop in the dollar was part of the rise in dollar oil prices (the rise in Euros was smaller), and herd mentality among traders contributed to the volatility. But, those who speculated on future rising prices got killed in the market, so they hurt themselves more than anyone. Oil is a funny thing; some fields in the Middle East can still produce at a cost of under $10/barrel, while the new US oil plays (like the subsalt Gulf of Mexico) require much higher oil prices to be at all profitable. Alternative energy is still more expensive, so with low oil prices, you can either kiss that goodbye or expect every country in the world to voluntarily And I haven't seen anybody argue that any sort of government intervention was responsible. I suspect that what we've seen in oil, housing and other bubbles is that we have created a system that amplifies fear and greed. The housing bubble was partially due to cash with no place to go. But, much of the excess in housing prices was deliberately caused by homeowners' votes against affordable housing in places like California. Why do you think that prices for comparable housing in LA are so much more than Houston or Dallas? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Wal-Mart is evil, why it must be eradicated
Sorry, I hit send before getting a number Since then, demand has taken off. Just look at the last few years, while prices have been rising rapidly. World demand was still growing, rising 4% between 2004 and 2007, during which time the average price rose about 75%. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Wal-Mart is evil, why it must be eradicated
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nick Arnett Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 10:34 AM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Wal-Mart is evil, why it must be eradicated On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 7:52 AM, Dan M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's rarely as simple as portrayed in economics 10 Of course not. For the reason you pointed out later, this doesn't apply. In fact, that's exactly what I was pointing out -- supply and demand for oil change so slowly that huge short-term price swings can't be explained by supply and demand, so some other forces must be regulating it, to the detriment of nearly everybody. The reasons I pointed out later are dependant on supply and demand. If immediate demand exceeds available supply, the law of demand means that prices will rise until demand falls to meet the prices. Your reminders to me of inelasticity were on point, I think. Prices obviously can more easily go non-linear when supply and demand are inelastic. I guess that leaves the question of how to figure out if the price response was rational with regard to supply and demand, or was influenced significantly by non-market forces. But that begs the question of whether or not derivatives and such are market forces, whether or not information was equally available to all, etc. Well, I've been around the oil patch for over 25 years, and have, from time to time, been able to discuss the question of future prices with folks who have been privy to the best understanding of some of the biggest non-governmental players in the field. It is clear to me that these players have a very hard time predicting future prices. For example, the rise in prices over the last 10 years can be traced, mostly, to the rise of emerging market demand and the self destruction of oil production potential in countries such as Iran and Venezuela, and the effects of the long term civil unrest in Iraq (as well as the far more decayed pre-war oil infrastructure in Iraq than expected). Of these causes, the decline of Venezuelan production on the supply side and the rise of Chinese demand stand out, with the rise in Chinese demand seen as the largest unpredicted factor. If one looks at the total failure of the five big investment banking houses, as well as the rating and insurance companies to anticipate the bursting of the housing bubble, I think one would see that these folks failed miserably to predict the future. I'm not saying that insider trading doesn't exist, but the big players in both oil and finance have been too wrong for one to reasonably suppose that they had inside information. Rather, knowing what happened, I'd argue that the investment bankers had inside misinformation. :-) Having said all that, it seems that such price fluctuations are so disruptive that no matter what causes them, it would be in our society's interest to figure out a market-friendly means of moderating them. Maybe that's not true if they are driven entirely by inelasticity, but I sure would like to see a thorough analysis of that question. OPEC is trying now, and they are probably the only people with a shot at it. I agree that wild fluctuations are in no one's best interest, it leads to wasted money...but there is no means of regulating demand by the wide variety of countries in the world. The housing bubble was partially due to cash with no place to go. But, much of the excess in housing prices was deliberately caused by homeowners' votes against affordable housing in places like California. Why do you think that prices for comparable housing in LA are so much more than Houston or Dallas? You have more space. ;-) Well, there is a bit of truth to that, but not enough to explain anything but the prices in the exurbs. I was sent a link (which I can't find now, sorry) of a comparison of the change in price of two downtown condos in Dallas and LA. Given the locations, and equal prices at the start, and given the faster rise in the DFW population, one would think a downtown condo would appreciate more in the city that was growing faster. But, it was the LA condo that rose more in price, far more. When did we vote against affordable housing? No, it was actually done in a lot of little ways. In this particular example, someone saw the rise in LA prices and wanted to build a high rise condo in the neighborhood of the LA condo in question. The had a location where some 50 some year old 2 story apartments were located. After years of effort, they gave up when the 2 story apartments were declared historical landmarks. There was nothing remarkable about them. Rather, the board that was voted in by local land owners was strongly influenced by those landowners desire to keep housing prices rising. So, they found ways to stop new housing from being built. This works for the short and medium term
RE: It's confirmed: Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rceeberger Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2008 9:47 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: RE: It's confirmed: Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations On 11/30/2008 5:30:23 PM, Dan M ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Rob wrote: If physics were anything more than approximate, we would have final answers to all our questions. How? All physics does is model observations. Models make predictions. And over time models have made predictions with greater accuracy and that cover more situations that previous models failed. Mercury anyone? Models also allow us to re-create phenomena for our own purposes. I'm not arguing against modeling observation. Besides paying the bills, it's at the foundation of modern civilization. Without it, we'd be little better off than they were 500 years ago. I was just pointing out that there are plenty of worthwhile questions that will not be answered by science. Physics was created out of Natural Philosophy by tabling the question of the reliability of observations. Which definition of tabling are you using here? Roberts Rules of Order :-) US Now, you can use the results of physics as a reliable model of what we observe when you do metaphysics. But, it is a really really good idea to not confuse when you are doing physics and when you are doing something else. Otherwise you can wander off into the aether. :-) G I think the implication of what I wrote before is that for most of us there really isn't much of a difference. I would think it quite different when having a formal discussion. Sure, and I appreciate your position. But, I've hoped you remember one of the zillion times I remarked that there are a number of different interpretations of physics: many different realities that are all equally consistent with observations, and for which there is no empirical test short of finding the aether, or something equally startling, to differentiate between the interpretations. Thus, I take exception with a science magazine which states that the authors pet interpretation has been proven by a new discovery, when it hasn't. One real problem, from my perspective, is that the average layman is trying to fit modern physics back into a classical box. To paraphrase one prominent physicist from the 20s when asked to comment on the correctness of someone's hypothesison a theory he thought was horrid, Right? Right, he isn't even Wrong. This is what the first two paragraphs of the New Scientist article remind me of. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: It's confirmed: Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations
Rob wrote: If physics were anything more than approximate, we would have final answers to all our questions. How? All physics does is model observations. Physics was created out of Natural Philosophy by tabling the question of the reliability of observations. Now, you can use the results of physics as a reliable model of what we observe when you do metaphysics. But, it is a really really good idea to not confuse when you are doing physics and when you are doing something else. Otherwise you can wander off into the aether. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: European bank failures
with your mortgage payment). But, this wasn't the critical part of real estate that was foreclosed staying on the market. It was the imbalance between supply and demand. Out of curiosity, do you think that we know so little about economics that we are just playing pretend when we think that, in the face of inelastic supply and falling demand that has minimal price sensitivity that there can be great market volatility. That's Econ 101, but maybe you don't believe in that. Me, I think the run up and then the precipitous fall of the price of oil is a classic example of this. The drop in real estate prices available for foreclosed commercial real estate is another. I also think that when it is difficult to impossible to assess the intrinsic value of something for sale, the tendency is, when there is an oversupply, to see market prices drop a great deal. So, let me state the point of contention. I am arguing that, if there was a run on one of the major banks in Europe, and there was no cash to honor checks, then several things will happen. 1) A large amount of cash would have to be generated (hundreds of billions of dollars). 2) This need to quickly sell assets would decrease the value of the assets, since there are not a lot of buyers with a half a trillion in cash in their back pockets. Indeed, we can see from the credit freeze, the unprecedented drop in the T-bill rates as the US government is stating that it will increase its debt very significantly over the next two years, and the rise in the dollar vs. the Euro, that those with cash are fleeing to quality. (again, this is Econ 101, but I know that many libertarians think Econ 101 is socialistic propaganda...even though most businessmen are saying this too). 3) After payrolls are missed, and mortgages are missed, then companies tighten their belts, cutting workers, and previously good sound mortgages are in default. This is called a positive feedback cycle. All of this is market economics. But, since there is no economy with zero governmental involvement, I know you can (and probably will) blame the government for every woe, because, after all, markets are magic. I also noted that you ignored most of my points. I have been trying my hardest to engage in a fact and analysis based discussion with someone with a different vantage point. Your pattern of postings are consistent with patterns I've seen before (e.g. folks who don't believe in global warming or evolution). While that doesn't prove anything, engagement might be nice. I actually learned a great deal look up and talking with sources on this. I'll make a general post later on some of the things I learned (which I'm sure you will consider socialistic fantasies). I just consider it sad when people hold views concerning the empirical that they are not willing to engaged shared analysis with someone who has a different perspective. What's especially ironic, is that, before you were here, I was the main defender of markets and businesses vs. government control. I'm not an absolutist like your posts make you out to be. I think there are times/areas where we need to let the market work, and there are times/areas where the government should be involved. I would love a discussion of when/where between a number of folks with different vantage points on this. Alas, I rarely see this; with polemics tending to be the preferred means of communication today. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: European bank failures
I've waited until I was able to get hard numbers on the ratio between total liabilities and deposits. If we make the assumption (as is true with all balance sheets) that total assets = total liabilities (equity is counted as a liability to get this balance...I guess that's why it's called a balance sheet), we can use the ratio of deposits to total assets to get the ratio of deposits to total assets. I found this for Chase before and after buying Washington Mutual at: http://investor.shareholder.com/jpmorganchase/press/releasedetail.cfm?Releas eID=337648 Before the purchase, deposits were 41% of total assets, and afterwards, they were 44%. But, at http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=jpmannual You have stated, from your experience that deposits are a much smaller fraction of total liabilities. With all due respect, either JPMorgan is deliberately falsifying information, or you make invalid assumptions concerning how one assumes long term debt must be commercial bonds. It is a fact that almost half of JP Morgan's assets are now deposits (unless they are lying of course). The balance sheet you referenced has total assets of nearly 2 trillion euros, and 422 billion euros of deposits under liabilities. As long as the losses on the assets do not exceed about 79% (loss of 1.6 trillion), then the depositors could get their money back. In this case, since Deutsche Bank is a mixed house,that could very well be true. You just brushed off the essential problem at the heart of bank runs with a it would just. I'm not talking about preventing bank runs. The issue I am addressing is whether the depositors would be able to get their money back in bankruptcy. If the depositors won't be able to get their money back eventually, then that is a more severe crisis than just an insolvent bank. Yes, but if checking accounts are worthless until the sweet bye and bye, then there is a giant problem. Further, as I've experienced in cases that only involve the hundreds of millions and you should know, the attempt to sell of trillions in assets all at once would decrease the value of the assets even further. I've lived through the crash of '86 in Houston, where banks got no more than 30 cents on the dollar for many foreclosed properties. The process took years. In your scenario, you have people with checking accounts patiently waiting 2 years before they can write checks again. The results of what would happen are so clear to me, and are born out by recent data, I'm not clear what statements that meet approval but all but the small minority of uberlibertian economists that you think are stuff and nonsense. Some of these assumptions are: 1) Companies who find that they can't make payroll lay people off. 2) People who's checks are no longer good can't make their mortgage payments. 3) Failures within the financial system set off a cascade effect. 4) The failure of AIG immediately after the failure of Leeman Brothers indicates both the interconnectiveness and the inability of private insurance to handle this type of catastrophic failure of a AAA rated company. 5) Without some intervention _all_ of the US investment banking houses would go bankrupt. 6) In such a market, where giant AAA and AA rated companies default en mass, people are fearful and don't know who's a safe bet for a loan. 7) In such a case, credit starts to freeze. Let's, though, go back to Deutsche Bank. They are under water and there is a run on the bank (with their bad loans and the lower transparency in the EU than the US they may be hiding the fact that they are presently under water and hiding it). As a result, checks written on Deutsche Bank accounts are not honored. You ignored this question before, but what do you think would be the action of the people who can no longer pay their bills? What happens when major industries cannot pay their bills? I'd argue that they'd cut every cost possible, but still risk going into default. I'd argue there would be massive layoffs, and mortgages not met. I'd argue there would be a positive feedback loop. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Why the Great Depression Lasted So Long and Why ProsperityResumedafter the War
I do not consider it nonsense, as I don't consider most economics arguments to be nonsense. Or, to put it positively, I think it makes as much sense as many other economics arguments that I am familiar with. Which is to say, plausible, but not entirely convincing, since contradictory views can also be argued plausibly. OK, I think I understand your view of this paper. Calling it plausible, but not the only possible explanation does put good boundaries on your evaluation and I very much appreciate your willingness to move a discussion forward by setting those boundaries. So, I contemplated how to move this discussion forward. There are two linked ways that I tend to evaluate this type of paper. First, I try to look at the numbers the author gives and look for other numbers to check his assertions. Second, I look at technique. For the first, I've obtained a source with yearly GDP for the US going back to 1870, and then decade by decade estimates back to 1820. I think this type of number will allow us to look for evidence of at least correlations between government actions and the GDP in the past. Since the hypothesis is given in the paper for correlations between government actions and GDP, one comes to the obvious conclusion that the author can see such correlations. Thus, looking for others that would be predicted by his hypothesis is a most reasonable way to evaluate his hypothesis. Second, you may not know it, but my formal studies have ranged over a wide range of subjects. About a decade ago, I took a graduate seminar course on Persian and Hellenistic Judaism. During the first week, we were assigned two books to read. After that, the professor apologized for assigning one of the books, because it wasn't a good book.as we should have known. When I asked why, he said technique..and went through the evidence for the use of poor technique. I have found this a good general rule for all disciplines that involve exploring the empirical world in any extent whatsoever.that authors that use good techniques are better than authors that use poor techniques. I'll give two examples of techniques by different people in the area of scripture study: one good and one bad. The good one is Raymond Brown's Death of the Messiah and the bad one is Spong's Liberating the Gospels: Reading the Bible with Jewish Eyes. Brown's book usually includes discussions of the various camps on each critical issue, lists the arguments for each camp and then gives his argument. He makes no claim without extensive support for that claim. He has 200 pages of footnotes, about a third of which references works that come to different conclusions than he does. Spong, on the other hand, makes strong statements like the basic purpose of the gospels is the liturgical following of the Jewish calendar with minimal evidence. Further, he doesn't even consider the basis for previous arguments, (e.g. arguments that reference the detailed work which examines the structure of Mark's gospel). In other words, he makes claims, cites a couple of random facts that support them, and then declares that previous ideas are just mired in the past. So, I've looked at the work you've cited with these types of criteria. Before going on, it would be worth noting whether you think these are acceptable criteria or if you have other criteria for the verisimilitude of an analysis. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Why the Great Depression Lasted So Long and Why Prosperity Resumedafter the War
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Williams Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 1:04 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Why the Great Depression Lasted So Long and Why Prosperity Resumedafter the War I've gone through the attachment with modest care, (I've read the whole thing and read parts twice, but want to ask a question of John before taking the time (stretched out over a few days because...fortunatelymy business is taking almost all of my time) whether he used this paper as just another example of the nonsense economists write. I'm less sure with this paper because it seems to echo his ideas, but if you take his basic principal of economic analysis (the economy is far too complex for the economists to understand),as bedrock, then it seems that this paper is yet another example of failure. So, John, do you quote this paper as yet another example of what you consider nonsense? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
SL failures
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Williams Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2008 10:56 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: My contribution to the bail-out Dan M [EMAIL PROTECTED] First, it isn't that simple, Yes, you do tend to oversimplify. the SL mess (which also came after a spell of regulators looking the other way because government regulation was bad.another of many coincidences, I suppose). Actually, a large contributor to the SL failures was poor government regulations. When inflation shot up, the SL's were prohibited by regulation Q from paying high enough interest on deposits to attract enough money. Hmm, I have a hunch you know, but choose to ignore the main problem with that argument. It is true that the regulatory environment that was reasonable for SLs to work in from the '30s through the mid-70s became problematic in the late 70s to 1980 for the reason you mentioned. As a result, in 1980, the limitation on the interest offered by SLs was lifted. In 1980, the prime rate was around 20%, so I could see that being problematic. It was recognized as such, and the law was changed. There were a few SL failures in the early 80s, and I won't argue against the proposition that this law was a very significant cause of those early 80s failures. But, the fertilizer hit the fan in the late 80s, where regulators (who were following the boss's viewpoint that government regulations were evil and the free market would solve everything) loosened the regulations on SLs as much as possible, and looked the other way when they violated basic rules (like lower limits for equity on hand). In particular, their moving from the mortgage business to the high risk/high gain business loans, and then their failure to accurately account for the value of the business property heading south in the mid to late '80s was the reason that the government had to spend so much money. If you are allowed to cook the books, (like companies did when Reagan told them it was OK to raid the pension funds of their employees using funny math to justify the theft), then it is possible to hide all sorts of bad things until they get so bad that people can't help but notice. I was at ground zero when it happened and watched very closely. In particular, I remember the same arguments you've been giving as the reason why this would not result in either the employees or the government losing money by the acceptance of shady accounting practice as the new norm. Guess what, both did. So, at face value, your argument is that we should ignore this and focus on what happened ten years before. It appears to me that this is only logical if one assumes a priori that government regulation is bad (as happened in the 80s) and then immunize one's arguments from virtually any empirical falsification by appeal to complications. Furthermore, SL's were required to make mortgage loans mostly to customers within a small radius of the SL. With little ability to attract new deposits, and almost no geographical diversification, it is no surprise that they made a lot of desperate, bad investments that ultimately led to many SL failures. The overwhelming number of failures came years after restrictions were _removed_, and the regulators looked the other way while the safeguards that were technically in place were ignored or worked around with imaginary numbers. But, I'm sure you know all that, so let me ask you a question. Why were restrictions that were removed in '80 cause very few failures before '85, but many failures from '86 to '92? Why dismiss a gigantic change in the value of Houston real estate'85-'86 time frame that was papered over, when simple arithmetic shows how it would affect the books? You dismiss the fact that the values of the properties that were used as collateral for the loans went way under water in that time frame, right? You do know that the SL's hid this, and that the regulators looked the other way, right? Thinking carefully through the market solution at the website you referenced, I have distilled it to the following: Allowing banks and other regulations to skate closer to the edge of insolvency, and when they skate too close, and the ice breaks under them (e.g. when the assets they count on to be solvent lose 40%-70% of their book value), allow them to hide this fact and tell people they are still solvent. I cannot imagine how this is a solution. I pointed out that I was around when and where it was tried, and have pointed out it was a disaster. So, to conclude this part of my response, let me ask you a question: do you think that lowering margin requirements, and then allowing banks to hide the fact that a significant fraction of the loans they have outstanding are under water (the value of the property is less than the value of the loan) is a market solution to the problems we have been
European bank failures
John Williams wrote Dan wrote: I assume you were referring to subordinate debt. No, I was referring to all debt, subordinate to senior. OK. Let me pull up a couple of different types of balance sheets for Deutsche Bank to illustrate what I mean. The first one is given at http://annualreport.deutsche-bank.com/2008/q2/consolidatedfinancialstatement s/balancesheet.html http://tinyurl.com/5effsm Now, I realize that the Germans don't use the same categories I'm use to but their accounts payable are at 200 billion euros, and their total current liabilities exceeds one trillion euros. Their assents, as you see are mostly long term investments. Thus, a run on the bank would result in folks not getting the money they thought safe. Even though, at first, Europeans were laughing at the US's sub-prime mortgage lending as irresponsible, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/3260052/Eu rope-on-the-brink-of-currency-crisis-meltdown.html http://preview.tinyurl.com/5btrw5 shows, there is a lot of exposure to bad loans by European bank. There is a complicated set of rules that determines who gets paid and who doesn't, but generally customers (depositors) get paid first and equity holders last. Usually it goes something like customers, creditors, senior debt, subordinated debt, preferred shareholders, common shareholders. As you say, it is likely that the short term assets are not enough to cover a run on the bank. But in every balance sheet I am familiar with, the senior debt on down is more than enough to cover the depositors and creditors. Well, I looked on this balance sheet, and didn't see that. Further, isn't senior debt a debt, not an asset? What I think you mean is that it's big enough to absorb all the loss involved in liquidating assets. So, to look at that, I looked up deutsche bank senior debt and got http://annualreport.deutsche-bank.com/2008/q2/notes/informationonthebalances heetunaudited/long-termdebt.html http://tinyurl.com/62cgfg We see that subordinate + senior debt is less than 200 billion Euros. It would just take some time to get them their money (or to arrange a takeover of the viable portions of the bank). It would just? ROTFLMAO. You just brushed off the essential problem at the heart of bank runs with a it would just. Let's say a company kept payroll money at the bank. I don't know about you, but my dad, from the time I was little, was paid by check, not cash. The check would be no good. He wouldn't get any pay until the problem was fixed. Multiply that by tens of millions and you will see one aspect of the problem. Second, when bank failures have happened in the US, it's been a big bank taking over a smaller bank with the US government eating the bad assets as part of the deal. But, as the Iceland problem shows, it can grow to such a large size that even the government itself isn't big enough to make this type of arrangement. Checks from in-state banks which always cleared overnight took eight days to clear. When we closed on our house, the buyers had to reconfirm that they had the loan the day of the closing Oh, the horrors! No, as before, the measurement. It appears from the pattern of your writing that you don't like measurements inconsistent with your theories. I guess, as an experimental physicist, I have a different bias: towards data when discussing empirical phenomena. I'll go back to another example of this: the fact that the spread between interest on A and AA paper jumped up to almost 5% as the bailout was being passed, and is now dropping as it is being implemented. If it were the actions of someone playing the odds rationally, that would mean that all the companies with A paper have about a 5% higher chance of default than those with AA paper. But, since the default rate over the last 25 years have been a small fraction of a percent, and no one had presented data that indicates a hundred fold increase in short term defaults, one takes this as a measure of general fear: the mirror image of the irrational exuberance of the folks who made loans that would only be rational if housing prices would continue to spiral up with no ceiling. To me, that is a measure of the credit market freezing. So, to go back to my point: if the main European banks have runs on them like the Iceland bank did, the world financial system is in a lot of trouble, with no clear solution on the horizon. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: choice...
it was not my preference to accept the banks terms. my options were limited to signing the loan. or not buying a home. i did what the realtor said because that is the way the system works. Let me jump in here. You know I've been arguing against John a good deal on this subject, but let me now look at things from another perspective, since I think that the sub-prime mess is not just about deregulationthat other fundamental problems are involved. I'm not sure when you bought your house, but I originally bought mine late in '92, and was able to obtain a beautiful 3000 sq. ft. house in a desirable neighborhood with a mortgage payment of about $850/month. I followed the market, including refinancing, and was always able to borrow 80% of appraised value for 7% interest. The terms were always 30 year, with no balloon payment. I did take a variable rate on my last loan, but that was because I knew I would be selling the house by now. This was all in the Houston area. To my surprise, a couple of years ago my daughter was able, in mid-Virginia, able to obtain a 5% down loan for an interest rate that was, IIRC, in the 6%-7% range, fixed with no balloon payments (I asked before she took the loan). So, I'd be interested in exploring why our experience has been different from yours. I have some possible candidates, but I think this exploration would reveal some of the contributing problems to the present housing situation. Finally, now that we are renting, we are paying for 1300 sq. ft. less than the mortgage our buyers are paying for 3000 sq. ft. It doesn't make financial sense to rent here if you plan on staying put. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: choice...
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bruce Bostwick Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2008 12:39 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: choice... On Nov 8, 2008, at 12:24 PM, Dan M wrote: it was not my preference to accept the banks terms. my options were limited to signing the loan. or not buying a home. i did what the realtor said because that is the way the system works. Let me jump in here. You know I've been arguing against John a good deal on this subject, but let me now look at things from another perspective, since I think that the sub-prime mess is not just about deregulationthat other fundamental problems are involved. I'm not sure when you bought your house, but I originally bought mine late in '92, and was able to obtain a beautiful 3000 sq. ft. house in a desirable neighborhood with a mortgage payment of about $850/month. I followed the market, including refinancing, and was always able to borrow 80% of appraised value for 7% interest. The terms were always 30 year, with no balloon payment. I did take a variable rate on my last loan, but that was because I knew I would be selling the house by now. This was all in the Houston area. To my surprise, a couple of years ago my daughter was able, in mid- Virginia, able to obtain a 5% down loan for an interest rate that was, IIRC, in the 6%-7% range, fixed with no balloon payments (I asked before she took the loan). So, I'd be interested in exploring why our experience has been different from yours. I have some possible candidates, but I think this exploration would reveal some of the contributing problems to the present housing situation. Finally, now that we are renting, we are paying for 1300 sq. ft. less than the mortgage our buyers are paying for 3000 sq. ft. It doesn't make financial sense to rent here if you plan on staying put. Dan M. The difference can often be one between a realtor who is genuinely motivated to act as his/her buyer's agent and negotiate aggressively for a good deal for the buyer, and one who is motivated more by a desire to get the commission from the sale and inclined to push the buyer into a fairly adverse deal just to close the sale. First of all, the buyer rarely pays the realtor. Thus, the realtor I have used the most in my life (once to help me find a rental property, twice to buy a house, and once to sell a house) told me explicitly that legally she represented the seller when I was the buyer/renter, so I should not count on her to look after my interest. Further, I didn't go to my realtor to get a loan. The second time, I had a loan guarantee set up before I did my serious house shopping. I followed the interest rates carefully, and knew what was available. Isn't it the job of buyers to shop? I know, when I go to my regular bank location, they have advertisements for their mortgage rates in the lobby. They are the second biggest bank in the nation (Chase), so they certainly fund a lot of mortgages. So, while I think this is part of the problem, something else has to be going on. For a purchase as big as a house, it has to be worth a few hours on the phone or in the car asking banks about their loan terms. Dan M. The population of actively working realtors in this country does include a fairly significant number who are best described as unethical slime (not my words, those of a realtor friend who sees the worst of the business every day), and a fair number of others who are basically honest but largely incompetent, and even a few who are fairly unethical *and* not all that good at navigating the business for themselves, let alone buyers/sellers. I always wonder what's going on when I hear about a buyer or seller who did what the realtor said, because it seems to me that that power balance is exactly backwards if that's how it's really working for them. (And there are realtors who won't talk to you until they have a signed buyer agreement from you, and after that point, feel free to do a least-common-denominator level of work for you because they know they have you contractually bound to them and they literally *can't* be fired at that point.) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: choice...
(That whole business of no zoning laws also leads to some weird stuff, compared to other cities, but Houston is kind of unique that way .. lol) Actually, it wasn't Houston the second time, it was the Woodlands. This is important because it was a planned community that is now at 100k in size and transitioning from being an unincorporated area with a deed covenant to a town. Houses here are cheap for several reasons: 1) There aren't rules/laws that artificially inflate housing prices. 2) Land is plentiful and fairly inexpensive. 3) Labor costs building houses are low (illegal labor is probably involved here) What is really interesting is that there's been tremendous demand for housing here. In the 16 years we were here, the Woodlands grew by a factor of 3. Yet, prices have only gone up slowly. After adjusting for inflation, and the investment I made in the house (by investment I mean something new that improves the house, not maintenance like replacing the roof), I broke even selling the house. And that was after the housing _increased_ in value over the last year by about 5%. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: SL failures
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Williams Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2008 1:02 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: SL failures On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 8:56 AM, Dan M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: free market would solve everything) loosened the regulations on SLs as much as possible, ROTFLMAO! As much as possible. Hahahaha! As much as the Reagan administration could squeeze through by subverting the law, my apologies for not being specific, but I thought I was stating what was well known. If you are allowed to cook the books, (like companies did when Reagan told them it was OK to raid the pension funds of their employees using funny math to justify the theft), Another example of fine government regulation! I see why you have such faith in government control. Ah, the point is that after 50 years of successful government control, it was virtually eliminated, then bad things happened. Your point is that because, technically, the government still regulated, bad things happened. Let me ask again, do you think it is wrong for governments to require that companies follow prudent accounting practices when managing pension plans for their employees? Or that governments enforce their own rules when regulating banks? It appears to me that this is only logical if one assumes a priori that government regulation is bad (as happened in the 80s) and then immunize one's arguments from virtually any empirical falsification by appeal to complications. LOL! You're hilarious. Yes, assuming that government regulation is good and will save us has never been falsified, since we had that stretch of 10 years when government regulation prevented all crises, yes, that was in, uh, wait, when was that again? No, because we had a government that had X regulations and we had few problems of this type for most of the last 75 years. There have been two exceptions to this, and really bad things happened when both exceptions occurred. Both times, the administration in power agreed with you explicitly on the inherent evil government regulationsand reduced them whenever possible. Then bad things happened. If you reduce A and B increases, I'd say that A and B anti-correlate. Correlation doesn't prove causality, but anti-correlation is a counter-indicator for causality. And, when correlations do exist, it's the first place to look for causality. Well, at least that's what I was taught in grad. school. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
