I'd like you to tackle "the game" - the techniques advocated by those who believe women can be manipulated for sexual gain. One blog that exemplifies that outlook would be here: http://roissy.wordpress.com/
When should an entry-level employee (albeit a position that requires an advanced degree) take a job that pays much less than the industry average? Will you ever gain back the 5-10K/year that you might have had by holding out?
Basically, in what circumstances should you work for a start-up? Only if you're young and have nobody counting on you?
Depends. Are we talking about not understanding how to run an economy, or merely not understanding how to correctly interpret and apply statistical anlysis in the service of an argument? Because I know nothing about Mugabe's skills in statistics.
The economics of conserving oil (i.e., not drilling).
Way I see it, conserving reserves in the hope that prices will rise is a fools game.
I think if anything, financial market speculation puts pressure on producers to produce more.
There is a higher value on the option on pumped and stored stocks [versus in the ground storage] because they can be quickly released, but the problem is that increasing pumping capacity drives down the price. The speculating most likely being done would be on the assumption that pumping capacity will not increase. Current backwardization implies that speculators believe demand will fall slightly or production will increase slightly, but apparently they don't expect much change.
But that certainly doesn't mean there isn't a bubble.
Of course, unless people have found a way to borrow on the current value of the oil, it would be irrational to not pump oil because it will drive down the price. Knowing that to get the money you'll have to pump the oil and bring down the price, it just doesn't make sense. But bubbles don't happen because people behave rationally. And countries not pumping oil are not only forgoing the value, they are forgoing the future growth that will be generated on that value.
why not comment on the growing body of Research that is indicating 'Cell-Phone' usage, included beloved gadgets like the iPhone, over long periods, will significantly increase your chance of Cancers, and will kill more people than smoking & asbestos put together...
Which gun you plan on buying once DC residents get the green light. I recommend looking at Glocks. They are affordable, reliable, and all the safeties are automatic, so you don't have to worry about fumbling with levers in the dark.
Sort of 'The Problem With Kansas' from a Republican perspective. It seems to me that, for all its shocks: 9/11, financial bubbles and bursts, the economy has done remarkably well. Unemployment is historcally low. When voters indicate that 'the economy' is their main concern and they want a Democrat, what are they thinkng, what do they want?
How will an Obama presidency coupled with a divided Democratic congressional party guided by hard leftists like Reid and Pelosi weather the potential economic downturn?
I'm guessing the split between organized urbanite hard-left liberals and the remaining disorganized centrist Blue Dog Democrats will cause quite a stir. Obama's first two years will likely be calamitous. And he and his supporters may be tempted to the polemical rear-guard defense that anyone who disagrees with him is a closet racist, as were the Clinton-voting bucolic bumpkins.
Well, Megan, it seems you don't talk a whole lot about the presidential election on this blog (which is nice because it seems that's *all* most blogs discuss right now) but I'd like to know what you think of the potential VP picks for the two candidates...
Bankruptcy relief bill. Hard to find an analysis of specifics int erms of who is eligible, precisely what each eligible party is eligble for etc.
6-8 months ago I was certain that a mortgage bailout was a big political loser. Based on widespread support in Congress for the current bill, however, looks like I was very wrong. Maybe I can go on TV as an independent political strategist.
An offshoot of this week's "existential threat" discussion:
Alexis de Tocqueville said that the American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the the public with the public's money.
Ben Franklin said that when the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.
Plato said (condensing) that in general democracy gives way to tyranny via class faction, when the "drones" in government mobilize the voting power of the masses to redistribute the wealth earned by the most capable.
Can you convince me (please?) that a commitment to a national health care program, on top of Medicare, Medicaid, prescription drug benefits, and Social Security, would not be a big step in advancing just the sort of existential threat foreseen by those authors?
How about talking about interest rates? Wasn't this supposed to be an economic centric blog? The Fed didn't cut rates, wasn't that news? Or maybe stick to your strengths and blog about handbags or tofu or whatever. Its not like they pay you to do this...
scientists are still conducting experiments and measuring results, from cramped basement labs at universities to expansive high-country lakes in the wilderness. The hypotheses generally aren't questions of whether chemicals are pervading and persisting in the environment, but rather how severely they are stunting our development and health. The federal government has investigated these questions with timidity, if not contempt, operating a regulatory system practically beholden to the chemical industry. http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/89453
It'd be amazing, to me, for our beloved Hostess to address this side of her supposed 'veganism'
Aaron: interesting article, but I believe it is mistaken on many things. First:
"Among the reasons: Less efficient fuel mixtures may be being used; People are acting on bad advice. We've known for awhile now that accelerating faster is more fuel efficient (this is even before considering the beneficial effects on traffic), yet people believe the opposite."
However, the article states that this is only true of manual transmissions. I says quite the opposite of automatics "The program takes a dim view of idling, a notorious gasoline waster, and of that staple of New York City taxi drivers, rapid acceleration followed immediately by an equally rapid deceleration."
It also suggests turning cars on and off in traffic, which is really bad for your engine. Ignition is where most of the wear and tear occurs, because without the engine on the oil sinks to the bottom of the engine. It is best for the long term health of your engine to put it in neutral (will save on your transmission) and occassionally goose the engine to keep the oil flowing to the top of the engine. Long idling will cause more wear at the top due to gravity.
The basic assumption is also incorrect. It assumes that mileage and gas usage are directly proportional. They are not. If mileage drops by 4% but that is the most efficient 4% of driving (say people with small cars), then you won't get a 4% decrease in consumption if the road is still filled with big trucks. More evidence is needed.
funny, little will she, ever?, know that microwaving kills her food, and, eventually, hastens her own demise..or, better, has she learned that, since then?
I don't know why automatics would be less efficient accelerating faster. It is plausible that they do not operate in the correct gear for speed/acceleration, but very doubtful. I would think they should be able to determine the correct gear for the amount of power you are asking for even better than a manual by now. Most engines don't lose fuel efficiency until over 4000 RPM, which is very easily avoidable.
I've started doing this in my car, I notice no difference or perhaps a slight inprovement in fuel efficiency (haven't finished the tank yet).
I e-mailed Dr. Dougherty from the NY Times article a couple of days ago, hopefully he will confirm.
As for engine wear, it is cold starts that are hard on your engine. Restarting warm causes neglibible wear. The engine is at a good temperature and fluids are where they need to be. You can buy and install devices that automatically shut the engine off when you've been stopped a few seconds and switch it back on when you take your foot off the brake.
It just doesn't seem plausible that the driving being cut is several times more efficient than normal. There must be a shift to more inefficient driving. But yeah, more investigation is needed.
I've always thought that Libertarianism cannot possibly be the organizing principle of a State. It seems to me that all public interaction would be driven by the most fanatical on a particular issue, e.g., someone who accepts no limits on private property use would have no problem building an industrial pig farm next to a school.
But that doesn't mean I don't like having Libertarians around, they are useful for keeping government in check.
So, here's my proposition:
A government based on Libertarian ideals would fail utterly by falling into a Lord of the Flies dystopia, but a state without Libertarians would devolve into a dictatorship.
You can buy and install devices that automatically shut the engine off when you've been stopped a few seconds and switch it back on when you take your foot off the brake.
I wouldn't recommend it. That will chew up your starter solenoid in a big hurry in any car that wasn't otherwise designed for that kind of cycle (e.g. the Prius). The repair isn't too difficult; buy a starter contact kit from the dealer, disconnect the battery, remove the starter motor assembly with basic garage tools, opening the housing, and swapping out a couple copper terminals. That's assuming the starter motor isn't tucked away in some really awkward place, which it sometimes is, in which case the labor time and intemperate vocabulary increase proportionately.
However, the average car owner who isn't into troubleshooting and garage work at a level beyond routine oil changes will be consulting a mechanic every 12-18 months because the car won't start reliably. Figure an hour or two of billable labor plus general materials and the actual parts, and you've got yourself at least a $115 shop ticket from a trusted private mechanic, or more if you have the dealer do the work, which would buy an awful lot of stoplight gas in that same time period.
it starts with: "A basic hypothesis of natural medicine states that the introduction into the human body of molecules and energies, to which it is not accustomed, is much more likely to cause harm than good. Microwaved food contains both molecules and energies not present in food cooked in the way humans have been cooking food since the discovery of fire. Microwave energy from the sun and other stars is direct current based. Artificially produced microwaves, including those in ovens, are produced from alternating current and force a billion or more polarity reversals per second in every food molecule they hit. Production of unnatural molecules is inevitable. Naturally occurring amino acids have been observed to undergo isomeric changes (changes in shape morphing) as well as transformation into toxic forms, under the impact of microwaves produced in ovens."
and, goes from there...personally, I'd love to see that hypothesis, above, rigorously disproved..
Something I keep wondering, which I have not seen mentioned anywhere, is what is the difference between the current mortgage crisis thingy, and the dot com meltdown 8 or so years ago?
Not being an economist of any sort, I'm not sure why everyone thinks the sky is falling since they did then too and it clearly didn't (unless you worked for a dot com or a supplier of a dot com.)
Is it just because I got bounced out of a career track it took me 20 years to build at the end of the dot com era but have hardly been effected by the mortgage crisis and as a result my perspective is slanted? Is my not being an economist keeping me from realizing how much serious the current crisis is? Or will this financial situation be forgotten in a few years too?
"A government based on Libertarian ideals would fail utterly by falling into a Lord of the Flies dystopia"
TR: Plausible.
"but a state without Libertarians would devolve into a dictatorship."
TR: Unlikely, although it might depend on what is meant by "libertarians." Libertarians are mostly limited to English speaking world, Central Europe, and Eastern Europe. There is a scattering of them in France, Benelux countries, Sweden, and a few other nations.
From what I can tell there are many societies where libertarians are practically non-existent but dictatorship has not exactly arisen. Or it has arisen, but been at bay for a long time. From what I can tell Cyprus, Finland, Japan, Malta, and Portugal don't have much in the way of libertarians. None of them are dictatorships at present. Finland had women in their Parliament before Britain did or before we had them in Congress.
Megan, David Brooks at the NY Times has written an article about "Sam's Club" conservative bloggers - which he describes as "young and unpredictable rightward-leaning writers" - and includes you on the list, as well as Yuval Levin, Daniel Larison, Will Wilkinson, Julian Sanchez, James Poulos, Matt Continetti, Ramesh Ponnuru, and Ross Douthat. I wonder how accurate you feel his opinion is regarding the company you keep and the ideology you embrace...
ummm...the Dow just plunged 3% today. Why this drop? I know you don't want to predict the bottom but can we even see the bottom from here?
Yikes. Anything but Africa. That got way too ugly way too fast.
I'd like you to tackle "the game" - the techniques advocated by those who believe women can be manipulated for sexual gain. One blog that exemplifies that outlook would be here: http://roissy.wordpress.com/
Why fuel efficiency is declining with increasing higher gas prices.
Why fuel efficiency is declining with higher gas prices.
Why pop music got so terrible after illegally downloading became easy and accessible.
Who's worse, Mugabe or Freddie?
How close we are to having a Supreme Court that doesn't believe in an individual right to gun ownership, and how a libertarian should feel about that.
When should an entry-level employee (albeit a position that requires an advanced degree) take a job that pays much less than the industry average? Will you ever gain back the 5-10K/year that you might have had by holding out?
Basically, in what circumstances should you work for a start-up? Only if you're young and have nobody counting on you?
Who's worse, Mugabe or Freddie?
Depends. Are we talking about not understanding how to run an economy, or merely not understanding how to correctly interpret and apply statistical anlysis in the service of an argument? Because I know nothing about Mugabe's skills in statistics.
The economics of conserving oil (i.e., not drilling).
Way I see it, conserving reserves in the hope that prices will rise is a fools game.
I think if anything, financial market speculation puts pressure on producers to produce more.
There is a higher value on the option on pumped and stored stocks [versus in the ground storage] because they can be quickly released, but the problem is that increasing pumping capacity drives down the price. The speculating most likely being done would be on the assumption that pumping capacity will not increase. Current backwardization implies that speculators believe demand will fall slightly or production will increase slightly, but apparently they don't expect much change.
But that certainly doesn't mean there isn't a bubble.
Of course, unless people have found a way to borrow on the current value of the oil, it would be irrational to not pump oil because it will drive down the price. Knowing that to get the money you'll have to pump the oil and bring down the price, it just doesn't make sense. But bubbles don't happen because people behave rationally. And countries not pumping oil are not only forgoing the value, they are forgoing the future growth that will be generated on that value.
FISA bill.
The plunging dollar. Are we nearing the bottom?
Is it possible to not make a lot of money telling Americans that they need to eat meat / shouldn't feel guilty for eating meat?
why not comment on the growing body of Research that is indicating 'Cell-Phone' usage, included beloved gadgets like the iPhone, over long periods, will significantly increase your chance of Cancers, and will kill more people than smoking & asbestos put together...
see: http://clusty.com/search?input-form=clusty-simple&v%3Asources=webplus&query=neurosurgeon+cell+phone+cancer+10+years
for starters..
Who's worse, Mugabe or Freddie?
LOL. Let's ask ClockworkOrange.
Which gun you plan on buying once DC residents get the green light. I recommend looking at Glocks. They are affordable, reliable, and all the safeties are automatic, so you don't have to worry about fumbling with levers in the dark.
I second MikeS. What is causing the falling dollar and how/should we stop it?
Sort of 'The Problem With Kansas' from a Republican perspective. It seems to me that, for all its shocks: 9/11, financial bubbles and bursts, the economy has done remarkably well. Unemployment is historcally low. When voters indicate that 'the economy' is their main concern and they want a Democrat, what are they thinkng, what do they want?
How will an Obama presidency coupled with a divided Democratic congressional party guided by hard leftists like Reid and Pelosi weather the potential economic downturn?
I'm guessing the split between organized urbanite hard-left liberals and the remaining disorganized centrist Blue Dog Democrats will cause quite a stir. Obama's first two years will likely be calamitous. And he and his supporters may be tempted to the polemical rear-guard defense that anyone who disagrees with him is a closet racist, as were the Clinton-voting bucolic bumpkins.
Well, Megan, it seems you don't talk a whole lot about the presidential election on this blog (which is nice because it seems that's *all* most blogs discuss right now) but I'd like to know what you think of the potential VP picks for the two candidates...
Bankruptcy relief bill. Hard to find an analysis of specifics int erms of who is eligible, precisely what each eligible party is eligble for etc.
6-8 months ago I was certain that a mortgage bailout was a big political loser. Based on widespread support in Congress for the current bill, however, looks like I was very wrong. Maybe I can go on TV as an independent political strategist.
1. Bicycling to work
2. What country will be the victim of the next nuclear attack?
3. Will we solve abortion through contraceptive advances?
4. Will President Obama pull back on the War on Drugs?
An offshoot of this week's "existential threat" discussion:
Alexis de Tocqueville said that the American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the the public with the public's money.
Ben Franklin said that when the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.
Plato said (condensing) that in general democracy gives way to tyranny via class faction, when the "drones" in government mobilize the voting power of the masses to redistribute the wealth earned by the most capable.
Can you convince me (please?) that a commitment to a national health care program, on top of Medicare, Medicaid, prescription drug benefits, and Social Security, would not be a big step in advancing just the sort of existential threat foreseen by those authors?
Has anyone done "The Problem with Connecticut"? Examining why a state with a high per capita GDP and a death penalty has gone Democratic since 1992.
Molded plywood furniture, yea or nay?
How about talking about interest rates? Wasn't this supposed to be an economic centric blog? The Fed didn't cut rates, wasn't that news? Or maybe stick to your strengths and blog about handbags or tofu or whatever. Its not like they pay you to do this...
scientists are still conducting experiments and measuring results, from cramped basement labs at universities to expansive high-country lakes in the wilderness. The hypotheses generally aren't questions of whether chemicals are pervading and persisting in the environment, but rather how severely they are stunting our development and health. The federal government has investigated these questions with timidity, if not contempt, operating a regulatory system practically beholden to the chemical industry.
http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/89453
It'd be amazing, to me, for our beloved Hostess to address this side of her supposed 'veganism'
When people say that nobody knows how to correctly value the derivatives backed by home mortgages, what are they really saying? Do they mean:
1) The market lacks necessary information on these things that would allow the right price to be found (like, the odds of default?)
2) The things are too complex for the available information to be processed correctly?
3) Their value is actually undefined in some formal sense?
4) The level of emotion surrounding the market in these things is high enough to overwhelm rational pricing factors?
Or are these not even really different causes in this case?
Aaron: interesting article, but I believe it is mistaken on many things. First:
"Among the reasons: Less efficient fuel mixtures may be being used; People are acting on bad advice. We've known for awhile now that accelerating faster is more fuel efficient (this is even before considering the beneficial effects on traffic), yet people believe the opposite."
However, the article states that this is only true of manual transmissions. I says quite the opposite of automatics "The program takes a dim view of idling, a notorious gasoline waster, and of that staple of New York City taxi drivers, rapid acceleration followed immediately by an equally rapid deceleration."
It also suggests turning cars on and off in traffic, which is really bad for your engine. Ignition is where most of the wear and tear occurs, because without the engine on the oil sinks to the bottom of the engine. It is best for the long term health of your engine to put it in neutral (will save on your transmission) and occassionally goose the engine to keep the oil flowing to the top of the engine. Long idling will cause more wear at the top due to gravity.
The basic assumption is also incorrect. It assumes that mileage and gas usage are directly proportional. They are not. If mileage drops by 4% but that is the most efficient 4% of driving (say people with small cars), then you won't get a 4% decrease in consumption if the road is still filled with big trucks. More evidence is needed.
Meghan,
So, I was making dinner the other night and I googled "microwave broccoli" to try and find out how long to nuke it for.
Turns out, you are - according to google - the worlds #2 authority on how long to microwave broccoli.
http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005222.html
jmo--
funny, little will she, ever?, know that microwaving kills her food, and, eventually, hastens her own demise..or, better, has she learned that, since then?
just to clarify this: "funny, little will she, ever?, know...", that's "funny", as in "Ironic".
Ironic, in light of her veganism...as above, better=hopefully, she's learned, since then, the nature of what 'microwave' ovens do to food..
Freddie,
I don't know why automatics would be less efficient accelerating faster. It is plausible that they do not operate in the correct gear for speed/acceleration, but very doubtful. I would think they should be able to determine the correct gear for the amount of power you are asking for even better than a manual by now. Most engines don't lose fuel efficiency until over 4000 RPM, which is very easily avoidable.
I've started doing this in my car, I notice no difference or perhaps a slight inprovement in fuel efficiency (haven't finished the tank yet).
I e-mailed Dr. Dougherty from the NY Times article a couple of days ago, hopefully he will confirm.
As for engine wear, it is cold starts that are hard on your engine. Restarting warm causes neglibible wear. The engine is at a good temperature and fluids are where they need to be. You can buy and install devices that automatically shut the engine off when you've been stopped a few seconds and switch it back on when you take your foot off the brake.
It just doesn't seem plausible that the driving being cut is several times more efficient than normal. There must be a shift to more inefficient driving. But yeah, more investigation is needed.
I've always thought that Libertarianism cannot possibly be the organizing principle of a State. It seems to me that all public interaction would be driven by the most fanatical on a particular issue, e.g., someone who accepts no limits on private property use would have no problem building an industrial pig farm next to a school.
But that doesn't mean I don't like having Libertarians around, they are useful for keeping government in check.
So, here's my proposition:
A government based on Libertarian ideals would fail utterly by falling into a Lord of the Flies dystopia, but a state without Libertarians would devolve into a dictatorship.
Discuss.
You can buy and install devices that automatically shut the engine off when you've been stopped a few seconds and switch it back on when you take your foot off the brake.
I wouldn't recommend it. That will chew up your starter solenoid in a big hurry in any car that wasn't otherwise designed for that kind of cycle (e.g. the Prius). The repair isn't too difficult; buy a starter contact kit from the dealer, disconnect the battery, remove the starter motor assembly with basic garage tools, opening the housing, and swapping out a couple copper terminals. That's assuming the starter motor isn't tucked away in some really awkward place, which it sometimes is, in which case the labor time and intemperate vocabulary increase proportionately.
However, the average car owner who isn't into troubleshooting and garage work at a level beyond routine oil changes will be consulting a mechanic every 12-18 months because the car won't start reliably. Figure an hour or two of billable labor plus general materials and the actual parts, and you've got yourself at least a $115 shop ticket from a trusted private mechanic, or more if you have the dealer do the work, which would buy an awful lot of stoplight gas in that same time period.
How do you quantify the emotional costs of government policies?
"microwaving kills her food"
As opposed to eating it alive, Mark?
Though I concede that the difference, for a vegan, is minimal.
Bob,
no it isn't a pean to the 'Live Food' movement.
it starts with: "A basic hypothesis of natural medicine states that the introduction into the human body of molecules and energies, to which it is not accustomed, is much more likely to cause harm than good. Microwaved food contains both molecules and energies not present in food cooked in the way humans have been cooking food since the discovery of fire. Microwave energy from the sun and other stars is direct current based. Artificially produced microwaves, including those in ovens, are produced from alternating current and force a billion or more polarity reversals per second in every food molecule they hit. Production of unnatural molecules is inevitable. Naturally occurring amino acids have been observed to undergo isomeric changes (changes in shape morphing) as well as transformation into toxic forms, under the impact of microwaves produced in ovens."
and, goes from there...personally, I'd love to see that hypothesis, above, rigorously disproved..
Something I keep wondering, which I have not seen mentioned anywhere, is what is the difference between the current mortgage crisis thingy, and the dot com meltdown 8 or so years ago?
Not being an economist of any sort, I'm not sure why everyone thinks the sky is falling since they did then too and it clearly didn't (unless you worked for a dot com or a supplier of a dot com.)
Is it just because I got bounced out of a career track it took me 20 years to build at the end of the dot com era but have hardly been effected by the mortgage crisis and as a result my perspective is slanted? Is my not being an economist keeping me from realizing how much serious the current crisis is? Or will this financial situation be forgotten in a few years too?
"A government based on Libertarian ideals would fail utterly by falling into a Lord of the Flies dystopia"
TR: Plausible.
"but a state without Libertarians would devolve into a dictatorship."
TR: Unlikely, although it might depend on what is meant by "libertarians." Libertarians are mostly limited to English speaking world, Central Europe, and Eastern Europe. There is a scattering of them in France, Benelux countries, Sweden, and a few other nations.
From what I can tell there are many societies where libertarians are practically non-existent but dictatorship has not exactly arisen. Or it has arisen, but been at bay for a long time. From what I can tell Cyprus, Finland, Japan, Malta, and Portugal don't have much in the way of libertarians. None of them are dictatorships at present. Finland had women in their Parliament before Britain did or before we had them in Congress.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/opinion/27brooks.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
Megan, David Brooks at the NY Times has written an article about "Sam's Club" conservative bloggers - which he describes as "young and unpredictable rightward-leaning writers" - and includes you on the list, as well as Yuval Levin, Daniel Larison, Will Wilkinson, Julian Sanchez, James Poulos, Matt Continetti, Ramesh Ponnuru, and Ross Douthat. I wonder how accurate you feel his opinion is regarding the company you keep and the ideology you embrace...