I'm not saying I agree with this but a different point of view can be useful when almost everyone else is saying the same things:
http://www.slate.com/id/2226780/?from=rss
This was prompted by the 'special edition' Meet the Press on Sunday which was essentially a tribute to dead Ted Kennedy instead of some debate on the economy or healthcare which I was expecting.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Book Review: A Brief History of Time
TitleA Brief History of Time
Author
Stephen Hawking
Date of Publication
1988 (original version)
1996 (updated version)
Reason for reading
An increased interest in physics lately, partially spurred on by discussion with you guys, and the lack of knowledge I have in comparison, but mostly spurred on just because the little I’ve read of the topic lately has interested me far more than it did while I was in college (unfortunately).
Synopsis
Hawking gives a great introduction to many concepts of physics that are normally beyond the scope of normal people (without spending a significant amount of time investigating it), and makes them easily understandable to the relative layman reading the book, dealing with many topics, including the expanding universe, the arrow of time, Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, scientific determinism, black holes, wormholes, unification theory, and other things.
Review
As I mentioned to Brent, this is one of the best books I’ve ever read, at least in terms of science topics outside the realm of the traditional textbook. I specifically enjoyed the sections on the expanding universe and black holes, as I didn’t know the details of how it’s known that the universe is expanding, nor why it must be, and as for the latter, I only had a vague grasp on what black holes even were. Now I have a fairly solid understanding of both (and hopefully I’ll follow up to reinforce that learning instead of forgetting it). Also, he mentions God fairly regularly throughout the book, and what I liked is that he didn’t really take a side and ridicule the other (as a Dawkins might). Instead, he just brings it up and essentially discusses the options as if it were a regular scientific point to discuss.
Quotes
“The eventual goal of science is to provide a single theory that describes the whole universe. However, the approach most scientists actually follow is to separate the problem into two parts. First, there are the laws that tell us how the universe changes with time. (If we know what the universe is like at any one time, these physical laws tell us how it will look at any later time.) Second, there is the question of the initial state of the universe. Some people feel that science should be concerned with only the first part; they regard the question of the initial situation as a matter of metaphysics or religion. They would say that God, being omnipotent, could have started the universe off any way he wanted. That may be so, but in that case he also could have made it develop in a completely arbitrary way. Yet it appears that he chose to make it evolve in a very regular way according to certain laws. It therefore seems equally reasonable to suppose that there are also laws governing the initial state.” (11)
-this I thought interesting mainly for the 1st part dealing with the eventual goal of science.
“The final result was a joint paper by Penrose and myself in 1970, which at last proved that there must have been a big bang singularity provided only that general relativity is correct and the universe contains as much matter as we observe. There was a lot of opposition to our work, partly from the Russians because of their Marxist belief in scientific determinism, and partly from people who felt that the whole idea of singularities was repugnant and spoiled the beauty of Einstein’s theory. However, one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem. So in the end our work became generally accepted and nowadays nearly everyone assumes that the universe started with a big bang singularity. It is perhaps ironic that, having changed my mind, I am now trying to convince other physicists that there was in fact no singularity at the beginning of the universe-as we shall see later, it can disappear once quantum effects are taken into account.” (53)
-this I found interesting because I’m very curious about both how scientific determinism fits into Marxism, and also because of the second part, with him arguing against his original theory. I just wonder if he has another mathematical theorem that disproves the original one, and if so, why couldn’t that be used as an argument to his original mathematical theorem, as he claims you can’t do.
“In effect, we have redefined the task of science to be the discovery of laws that will enable us to predict events up to the limits set by the uncertainty principle. The question remains, however: how or why were the laws and the initial state of the universe chosen?” (189)
“Up to now, most scientists have been too occupied with the development of new theories that describe what the universe is to ask the question why. On the other hand, the people whose business it is to ask why, the philosophers, have not been able to keep up with the advance of scientific theories. In the eighteenth century, philosophers considered the whole of human knowledge, including science, to be their field and discussed questions such as: did the universe have a beginning? However, in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, science became too technical and mathematical for the philosophers, or anyone else except a few specialists. Philosophers reduced the scope of their inquiries so much that Wittgenstein, the most famous philosopher of this century, said, “The sole remaining task for philosophy is the analysis of language.” What a comedown from the great tradition of philosophy from Aristotle to Kant!” (190-91)
-This I thought interesting due to the fact that Brent loves Noam Chomsky, and he’s a linguist, which according to Wittgenstein is the sole remaining task of philosophy (or was at the time). But another interesting point is that while in a Barnes & Noble in Minnesota, I glanced through a book on the 100 most influential scientists, and on the list saw Noam Chomsky (rather high, I think at ~31). So where does linguistics fit?
Questions
-On page 72, Hawking notes that gravity is unique of the four forces in that it is the only one that acts over large distance, and also is only attractive. What is unique about gravity that makes it only attractive, and is it possible that it could also be repulsive, but that hasn’t been discovered yet? I’m sure there’s a simple answer to this question, I’m just curious what it is. I have a tremendous list of questions I didn’t understand. I just thought this was a decent one to put up since you guys might know and if so, might be able to easily relay the answer.
Further Reading
God Created the Integers
Stephen Hawking
2007
The Elegant Universe
Brian Greene
2000
Friday, August 28, 2009
Tim Geithner doesn't want to audit the Federal Reserve
Tim Geithner questioned about the Ron Paul (R-TX) bill that would require the Federal Reserve to be audited had a most unusual reply.
"I'm sure people understand that you want to keep politics out of monetary policy." When Geithner is again pressed on the issue, he makes the stunning assertion that conducting an audit of the Federal Reserve—something never before done in its 96 year history—is a "line that we don't want to cross," proclaiming that such a move would be "problematic for the country."
http://digg.com/dialogg/Timothy_Geithner_1
On one hand this increases the mystery surrounding the Federal Reserve and on the other it really increases the public’s desire to want to audit the Federal Reserve. What are we being sheltered from? What is so bad that it is better to be ignorant about?
"I'm sure people understand that you want to keep politics out of monetary policy." When Geithner is again pressed on the issue, he makes the stunning assertion that conducting an audit of the Federal Reserve—something never before done in its 96 year history—is a "line that we don't want to cross," proclaiming that such a move would be "problematic for the country."
http://digg.com/dialogg/Timothy_Geithner_1
On one hand this increases the mystery surrounding the Federal Reserve and on the other it really increases the public’s desire to want to audit the Federal Reserve. What are we being sheltered from? What is so bad that it is better to be ignorant about?
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Binaral Rivalry between the Nostrils and in the Cortex
(Wen Zhou and Denise Chen)
I am sure you have heard of left or right eye dominance. I recently I actually found out about left and right ear dominance (apparently the left ear is great at background noise and the right ear is great at conversational noise). Now a new study published in Current Biology (August 20, 2009) shows that our nostrils compete for cortex attention just like our eyes and ears. When opposing scents were applied to the two nostrils the brain did not incorporate them into one smell but rather chose one to recognize.
From now on I will carry some mint leaves or cinnamon in my pocket and if I come across a terrible smell I will just reach for them and hope my brain chooses the right smell to accept.
I am sure you have heard of left or right eye dominance. I recently I actually found out about left and right ear dominance (apparently the left ear is great at background noise and the right ear is great at conversational noise). Now a new study published in Current Biology (August 20, 2009) shows that our nostrils compete for cortex attention just like our eyes and ears. When opposing scents were applied to the two nostrils the brain did not incorporate them into one smell but rather chose one to recognize.
From now on I will carry some mint leaves or cinnamon in my pocket and if I come across a terrible smell I will just reach for them and hope my brain chooses the right smell to accept.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Edward Kennedy: Selected Quotes from Speeches
If you search the annals for moving/timely speeches you will find many of them spoken by Edward Kennedy. This post is for anyone to post one or more of their favorite lines from a speech he gave.
I particularly like this one he gave in 1980. He succinctly draws a line between faith and facts when debating public policy.
“…in applying religious values, we must respect the integrity of public debate.
In that debate, faith is no substitute for facts. Critics may oppose the nuclear freeze for what they regard as moral reasons. They have every right to argue that any negotiation with the Soviets is wrong, or that any accommodation with them sanctions their crimes, or that no agreement can be good enough and therefore all agreements only increase the chance of war. I do not believe that, but it surely does not violate the standard of fair public debate to say it. What does violate that standard, what the opponents of the nuclear freeze have no right to do, is to assume that they are infallible, and so any argument against the freeze will do, whether it is false or true.”
I particularly like this one he gave in 1980. He succinctly draws a line between faith and facts when debating public policy.
“…in applying religious values, we must respect the integrity of public debate.
In that debate, faith is no substitute for facts. Critics may oppose the nuclear freeze for what they regard as moral reasons. They have every right to argue that any negotiation with the Soviets is wrong, or that any accommodation with them sanctions their crimes, or that no agreement can be good enough and therefore all agreements only increase the chance of war. I do not believe that, but it surely does not violate the standard of fair public debate to say it. What does violate that standard, what the opponents of the nuclear freeze have no right to do, is to assume that they are infallible, and so any argument against the freeze will do, whether it is false or true.”
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Healthcare
Let's assess our understanding of the current debate, then I'll recommend an MPR piece featuring a leading expert.
If you look at the history of healthcare reform in this country then the current debate can be put into context. Background reading: http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/24/6/1679). We've been at this for quite a while and never have we come close to a socialized or universal healthcare. We've been left with a series of compromises instead (Medicare, Medicaid, etc.). It actually seems more complicated than I thought when listening to Ted Marmor this morning. I may have to read his book. For now, let's ask what we think we know and what actions we might like to be taken and then what we think Congress/President are doing and how close that is to the reality we'd like to see.
MPR: http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/08/25/midmorning2/
If you look at the history of healthcare reform in this country then the current debate can be put into context. Background reading: http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/24/6/1679). We've been at this for quite a while and never have we come close to a socialized or universal healthcare. We've been left with a series of compromises instead (Medicare, Medicaid, etc.). It actually seems more complicated than I thought when listening to Ted Marmor this morning. I may have to read his book. For now, let's ask what we think we know and what actions we might like to be taken and then what we think Congress/President are doing and how close that is to the reality we'd like to see.
MPR: http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/08/25/midmorning2/
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Let's look at Google
Can we take a look at what Google has done since its creation?
Google's corporate philosophy embodies such casual principles as "you can make money without doing evil," "you can be serious without a suit," and "work should be challenging and the challenge should be fun."[90]
As a motivation technique (usually called Innovation Time Off), all Google engineers are encouraged to spend 20% of their work time (one day per week) on projects that interest them. Some of Google's newer services, such as Gmail, Google News, Orkut, and AdSense originated from these independent endeavors.
I'm going to research this a bit more, but this might be a good company. I need to look more closely at its founders and current leadership (Eric Schmit?) because all I know now is they seem to be behind things that make it easier for the common man to inform himself.
Google's corporate philosophy embodies such casual principles as "you can make money without doing evil," "you can be serious without a suit," and "work should be challenging and the challenge should be fun."[90]
As a motivation technique (usually called Innovation Time Off), all Google engineers are encouraged to spend 20% of their work time (one day per week) on projects that interest them. Some of Google's newer services, such as Gmail, Google News, Orkut, and AdSense originated from these independent endeavors.
I'm going to research this a bit more, but this might be a good company. I need to look more closely at its founders and current leadership (Eric Schmit?) because all I know now is they seem to be behind things that make it easier for the common man to inform himself.
Justice Scalia:Strict Constitutionalist or crazy person?
Recently Supreme Court Justice Scalia wrote in his dissent of the Troy Davis Case:
“This court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ‘actually’ innocent.”
Troy Davis was convicted of murder with no evidence except for 8 witness (incident took place outside of a bar). Now, 7 of the 8 witnesses have legally withdrawn and reversed their testimonies saying they were coerced by police officials to identify Davis as the killer. Davis is on death row and right now the Supreme Court has never heard a case to overturn a proper habeas court ruling without DNA evidence.
Some would argue Scalia is being a “strict Constitutionalist” because there is nothing in the Constitution about overturning this court case.
When Sonia Sotomayor was being confirmed we hear a lot of, “Justices interpret the Constitution, they don’t change it.” And “empathy is not something a judge should have when making decisions.”
I would argue this is an instance where the Justices must change the law and have empathy. How strict of a Constitutionalist are you? Shouldn’t we change something this obvious?
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
The Indispensability of Political Parties
Central Thesis: Political parties are core to functional democratic polities.
Background: Alexis de Tocqueville, perhaps the father or champion of political parties, stressed that, “political associations, by definition, seek to impose their views on the polity, in practice the interplay among them has contributed to the emergence of norms of tolerance and the institutionalization of democratic rights.” Tocqueville argued that political activity by the populist is a key component to a stable democracy and this is achieved best by an institutionalized party system. Tocqueville argued there are two main types of divisions in a society which are products of socio-economical and cultural disparities and are represented by either the party that emphasizes ideology or the party that emphasizes interests. The former “cling to principles rather than to consequences and private interests which is often studiously veiled under the pretext of the public good.” The latter “glow with a fictitious zeal; their language is vehement, but their conduct is timid and irresolute.” Tocqueville argued that the inherent interests of the privileged and the poor, classes which have always been present in free societies, are only represented by party systems because the populist is more centralist.
Argument for Party: Lipset points to Western Hemisphere and the Latin American countries in general to argue for a party system. Latin America has struggled for decades to establish and maintain democracies but have been largely unsuccessful due to a lack of institutionalized party system. The norm is for one “party” or often military interest to be so strong that it crushes any uprising of a smaller, less organized opposition.
Lipset then points to Russia after the fall of communism. The Communist party has been a stable in every election while many other parties come and go. For example, the 1999 elections had 30 parties on the ballot. It is no surprise that the Communist party has never lost an election. He points to this as a reason a stable democracy needs two powerful, institutionalized parties.
Conclusion: Lipset may be biased as he says, although “political elites may heavily influence the nature of the parties” in post revolutionary United States they are “for the good”. His main thesis is supported by the fact that democracies without 2 institutionalized parties are weak and barely discernible as a democracy. The caveat here is his heavy reliance on Tocqueville to set up his argument. There were obviously those opposing Tocqueville’s ideas (George Washington) in the early 1800’s and their ideas should be explored as well. Do two strong political parties assure that no one party controls the direction of the country? Are the political elites really genuine and benevolent in their pursuits? Or is the two party system a false dichotomy and nothing more than a veil masking the citizens eyes to assure the progress of the “state” over the progress of the people?
Background: Alexis de Tocqueville, perhaps the father or champion of political parties, stressed that, “political associations, by definition, seek to impose their views on the polity, in practice the interplay among them has contributed to the emergence of norms of tolerance and the institutionalization of democratic rights.” Tocqueville argued that political activity by the populist is a key component to a stable democracy and this is achieved best by an institutionalized party system. Tocqueville argued there are two main types of divisions in a society which are products of socio-economical and cultural disparities and are represented by either the party that emphasizes ideology or the party that emphasizes interests. The former “cling to principles rather than to consequences and private interests which is often studiously veiled under the pretext of the public good.” The latter “glow with a fictitious zeal; their language is vehement, but their conduct is timid and irresolute.” Tocqueville argued that the inherent interests of the privileged and the poor, classes which have always been present in free societies, are only represented by party systems because the populist is more centralist.
Argument for Party: Lipset points to Western Hemisphere and the Latin American countries in general to argue for a party system. Latin America has struggled for decades to establish and maintain democracies but have been largely unsuccessful due to a lack of institutionalized party system. The norm is for one “party” or often military interest to be so strong that it crushes any uprising of a smaller, less organized opposition.
Lipset then points to Russia after the fall of communism. The Communist party has been a stable in every election while many other parties come and go. For example, the 1999 elections had 30 parties on the ballot. It is no surprise that the Communist party has never lost an election. He points to this as a reason a stable democracy needs two powerful, institutionalized parties.
Conclusion: Lipset may be biased as he says, although “political elites may heavily influence the nature of the parties” in post revolutionary United States they are “for the good”. His main thesis is supported by the fact that democracies without 2 institutionalized parties are weak and barely discernible as a democracy. The caveat here is his heavy reliance on Tocqueville to set up his argument. There were obviously those opposing Tocqueville’s ideas (George Washington) in the early 1800’s and their ideas should be explored as well. Do two strong political parties assure that no one party controls the direction of the country? Are the political elites really genuine and benevolent in their pursuits? Or is the two party system a false dichotomy and nothing more than a veil masking the citizens eyes to assure the progress of the “state” over the progress of the people?
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Chomsky: Insight on Western (U.S.) Democracy
"...in the West, people talk rightly about Iran as a guided democracy. There are some democratic freedoms, but it’s under tight control. The Guardians Councils, for example, selects the candidates. But what happens in the West? In the United States, for example, it's obvious for anyone who studies the system, the candidates are selected by concentrations of private power. Elections are basically bought. So we also have a kind of guided democracy. Well, we should be protesting against that, too. I am not saying that the United States is Iran; of course it’s not. But there are repressive features in every society I know of, which should be protested."
What do you think?
We've talked about campaign finance reform previously on here, but this goes much deeper. It extends to lobbyist and possibly as far back in time to when the frame work for our democracy was first being considered.
What do you think?
We've talked about campaign finance reform previously on here, but this goes much deeper. It extends to lobbyist and possibly as far back in time to when the frame work for our democracy was first being considered.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Prison Populations: What is our societal problem
Rates in general seem to be growing disproportionately for one group. This is rate per 100,000 people so it is not incidence. If our society were in balance I would suspect we would see a flat line for all rates (more people equals more criminals but rate would stay the same). Starting in the 90’s there was the start of the war on drugs but it also seems that violent crimes increased. Is this the influence of 90’s rap (half kidding)? Or is our bi-modal (two Americas) society becoming further separated and leading to increased violence? What is our role as citizens knowing that the rate of criminality is increasing? dispo
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Erik Prince as in Prince of Darkness?
Is this man a Christian zealot who sees himself on some sort of crusade?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_Worldwide#Blackwater_and_allegations_of_links_to_the_Christian_right
We should make sure to watch how this plays out over the next year or so. Iraqi courts probably can't try him or any of the other alleged murderers and there may not be a sufficient chain of evidence to prosecute him here. If he manages to evade the law, what's stopping a person with the kind of mentality he apparently has and his means from finding a way to kill innocents again?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_Worldwide#Blackwater_and_allegations_of_links_to_the_Christian_right
We should make sure to watch how this plays out over the next year or so. Iraqi courts probably can't try him or any of the other alleged murderers and there may not be a sufficient chain of evidence to prosecute him here. If he manages to evade the law, what's stopping a person with the kind of mentality he apparently has and his means from finding a way to kill innocents again?
Monday, August 10, 2009
Memes and Cuttlefish
Cuttlefish are a marine animal with an internal shell (cuttlebone) and are considered the most intelligent invertebrate. They shift color, shape, and texture in the presence of a predator. They hunt mollusks, crabs, shrimp, etc. and they have a unique mating routine.
Consider this. Once males and females mate and lay eggs, both parents die before the offspring hatch. Yet, the new offspring know (learn) which animals are predators, how to hide from them, what to eat and where to find it, and how to mate. Average lifespan is ~1.5 years before mating and dying.
This would be a good place to start studying memes (if you prescribe to evolution), because knowledge (or ideas) appears to intrinsically pass on without environmental (parents mainly) influence. Yet I haven’t found any research here yet.
Consider this. Once males and females mate and lay eggs, both parents die before the offspring hatch. Yet, the new offspring know (learn) which animals are predators, how to hide from them, what to eat and where to find it, and how to mate. Average lifespan is ~1.5 years before mating and dying.
This would be a good place to start studying memes (if you prescribe to evolution), because knowledge (or ideas) appears to intrinsically pass on without environmental (parents mainly) influence. Yet I haven’t found any research here yet.
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Time Magazine Article on Consciousness
By Steven Pinker. I am largely unfamiliar with his work other than to say he refutes Noam Chomsky's universal theory of grammar. Has any of you read his works?
This article is provocative and we should discuss it. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1580394-7,00.html
This article is provocative and we should discuss it. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1580394-7,00.html
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Freedom of speech, or censorship via sales
I was just thinking the other day about artists/celebrities who speak out on controversial issues, and the proper way to respond to statements you may disagree on as a private citizen. The two examples that come to mind are the Dixie Chicks speaking out against George Bush at the beginning of the Iraq war (in retrospect, I think one of the bravest stances I've seen, given their audience), or Tom Cruise railing against psychiatry.
How does one express support for, or voice disagreement with a celebrity who makes a stance on an issue outside of their line of work without doing it through sales? Having lived with depression for a number a years, I couldn't have disagreed more with Tom Cruise's stance that it's all false, and that they're trying to control us, etc. Knowing I'll never have the chance to debate him on it, the only recourse I thought I had was to stop seeing his movies (and I have pretty much done that, with two exceptions - M:I3 when my roommate Jon talked me into going, and Tropic Thunder, which I got from the library). The Dixie Chicks perhaps stand as the best example of this in recent memory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixie_Chicks#Political_controversy
The problem with this angle is that people aren't necessarily going to buy albums/movies/etc of people whose views they support, so it becomes a one-way street in which it's a bad idea for entertainers to speak publicly on anything controversial (or take a controversial stance on a normal issue) . In essence, it becomes censorship of anything you oppose. I don't want to endorse censorship, even though I think ignorance (or since Cruise claims to have done all the research on psychiatry, just drawing incorrect conclusions) broadcast through celebrities often carries too much weight, and is harmful to many people. I don't want entertainers to be afraid or discouraged from taking potentially unpopular stances, because of the power they have to do good things (see George Clooney, Don Cheadle), so what other options are there?
How does one express support for, or voice disagreement with a celebrity who makes a stance on an issue outside of their line of work without doing it through sales? Having lived with depression for a number a years, I couldn't have disagreed more with Tom Cruise's stance that it's all false, and that they're trying to control us, etc. Knowing I'll never have the chance to debate him on it, the only recourse I thought I had was to stop seeing his movies (and I have pretty much done that, with two exceptions - M:I3 when my roommate Jon talked me into going, and Tropic Thunder, which I got from the library). The Dixie Chicks perhaps stand as the best example of this in recent memory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixie_Chicks#Political_controversy
The problem with this angle is that people aren't necessarily going to buy albums/movies/etc of people whose views they support, so it becomes a one-way street in which it's a bad idea for entertainers to speak publicly on anything controversial (or take a controversial stance on a normal issue) . In essence, it becomes censorship of anything you oppose. I don't want to endorse censorship, even though I think ignorance (or since Cruise claims to have done all the research on psychiatry, just drawing incorrect conclusions) broadcast through celebrities often carries too much weight, and is harmful to many people. I don't want entertainers to be afraid or discouraged from taking potentially unpopular stances, because of the power they have to do good things (see George Clooney, Don Cheadle), so what other options are there?
New Newspaper under consideration: The Financial Times
The place where I moved receives the financial times everyday and I need something to read in the morning for the shit. I've been pleasantly surprised by this paper in as much as I've been able to understand:
The Financial Times (FT) is a British international business newspaper. It is a morning daily newspaper published in London and is printed at 24 sites.[2] Its primary rival is the New York City-based Wall Street Journal.
Founded in 1888 by James Sheridan and his brother, the Financial Times competed with four other finance-oriented newspapers, in 1945 absorbing the last, the Financial News (founded in 1884). The FT specialises in business and financial news while maintaining an independent editorial outlook. Printed as a broadsheet on light salmon paper, the FT is the only paper in the UK providing full daily reports on the London Stock Exchange and world markets.
The Financial Times is politically centrist, in contrast to its right-leaning competitor, The Wall Street Journal. It advocates free markets and is in favour of globalisation. During the 1980s it supported Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan's monetarist policies. However, it has aligned itself with Labour in the UK. It also has been supportive of Gordon Brown, the British Prime Minister. FT editorials tend to be pro-European Union, though often critical.
Noam Chomsky said it is "the only paper that tells the truth".[10]
The Financial Times (FT) is a British international business newspaper. It is a morning daily newspaper published in London and is printed at 24 sites.[2] Its primary rival is the New York City-based Wall Street Journal.
Founded in 1888 by James Sheridan and his brother, the Financial Times competed with four other finance-oriented newspapers, in 1945 absorbing the last, the Financial News (founded in 1884). The FT specialises in business and financial news while maintaining an independent editorial outlook. Printed as a broadsheet on light salmon paper, the FT is the only paper in the UK providing full daily reports on the London Stock Exchange and world markets.
The Financial Times is politically centrist, in contrast to its right-leaning competitor, The Wall Street Journal. It advocates free markets and is in favour of globalisation. During the 1980s it supported Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan's monetarist policies. However, it has aligned itself with Labour in the UK. It also has been supportive of Gordon Brown, the British Prime Minister. FT editorials tend to be pro-European Union, though often critical.
Noam Chomsky said it is "the only paper that tells the truth".[10]
Friday, August 7, 2009
Book Review: The Ascent of Money
Title
page 12
-This quote caught my eye looking for a summary of the chapters since I have my doubts about some politicians' knowledge of money.
"The Rothschilds had decided the outcome of the Napoleonic Wars by putting their financial weight behind Britain. Now they would help decide the outcome of the American Civil War - by choosing to sit on the sidelines."
page 91
-This one is more notable to summarize a large section dealing with the Rothschild dynasty, which I had never heard of before this, and to learn what power they had is staggering.
Further reading:
(these aren't books I've read, rather ones I've come across that I think need to be read and I intend to soon)
The House of Rothschild: Volume 1: Money's Prophets: 1798-1848
Niall Ferguson
November, 1999
The House of Rothschild: Volume 2: The World's Banker: 1848-1999
Niall Ferguson
September, 2000
The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money
John Maynard Keynes
1953
Capitalism and Freedom
Milton Friedman1962
The Ascent of Money (book review is reposted from previous blog)
Author
Niall Ferguson
Niall Ferguson
Date of Publication
November, 2008
Reason for reading
I felt I needed a better understanding of finance, and this appeared to be a logical starting point.Synopsis
The book has just six chapters, with each focusing on the origin of different areas of finance - money & credit, bond markets, stock markets, insurance, housing, and international finance.
The book has just six chapters, with each focusing on the origin of different areas of finance - money & credit, bond markets, stock markets, insurance, housing, and international finance.
Review
In the introduction to the book, he cites a few studies that reveal the ignorance of people in regards to money, whether it's the difference between 401(k) and social security or how compound interest works, so the goal is to give people the origin of these things in order that they may be better able to grasp the concepts and terminology in place today.
It doesn't have the most in-depth history of any individual topic, but each of those I'm sure could cover books (or volumes) themselves. A couple things he could have done a little more on are wages/salaries and taxes (the latter especially), but he may have left those out specifically because people are at least a bit knowledgeable about those already.
For his stated objective, I'd give the book an 8 on a 10-point scale.
Quotes (italics are mine)
"Politicians, central bankers and businessmen regularly lament the extent of public ignorance about money, and with good reason."In the introduction to the book, he cites a few studies that reveal the ignorance of people in regards to money, whether it's the difference between 401(k) and social security or how compound interest works, so the goal is to give people the origin of these things in order that they may be better able to grasp the concepts and terminology in place today.
It doesn't have the most in-depth history of any individual topic, but each of those I'm sure could cover books (or volumes) themselves. A couple things he could have done a little more on are wages/salaries and taxes (the latter especially), but he may have left those out specifically because people are at least a bit knowledgeable about those already.
For his stated objective, I'd give the book an 8 on a 10-point scale.
Quotes (italics are mine)
page 12
-This quote caught my eye looking for a summary of the chapters since I have my doubts about some politicians' knowledge of money.
"The Rothschilds had decided the outcome of the Napoleonic Wars by putting their financial weight behind Britain. Now they would help decide the outcome of the American Civil War - by choosing to sit on the sidelines."
page 91
-This one is more notable to summarize a large section dealing with the Rothschild dynasty, which I had never heard of before this, and to learn what power they had is staggering.
Further reading:
(these aren't books I've read, rather ones I've come across that I think need to be read and I intend to soon)
The House of Rothschild: Volume 1: Money's Prophets: 1798-1848
Niall Ferguson
November, 1999
The House of Rothschild: Volume 2: The World's Banker: 1848-1999
Niall Ferguson
September, 2000
The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money
John Maynard Keynes
1953
Capitalism and Freedom
Milton Friedman1962
Book Review: The Return of Depression Economics and the Crisis of 2008
Title
The Return of Depression Economics and the Crisis of 2008
Author
Paul Krugman
Paul Krugman
Date of Publication
2009
Reason for reading
The author is a recent nobel laureate in economics, and the book is an update of an earlier version from ~1998, so I felt it was a good book to read on the topic of the recent financial events in which the author had written on the topic previously, rather than some other books where I get the impression the authors had no foresight of the coming problems, yet somehow feel compelled to write an explanation of what happened within a couple months of it happening.Synopsis
The book doesn't necessarily attempt to explain the current situation, though offers a lot of insight into some of the factors that contributed. Rather, the author starts by saying that many people thought fundamental problems that lead to depressions had been eliminated, and that people/governments had essentially learned their lesson. However, in the 1980's and 1990's, a lot of the significant factors (or symptoms) of depressions had started showing up in other economies (Argentina, Mexico, Japan, Thailand/Asia, etc.). He discusses each country's economic situation individually, as well as the responses made by the respective government. Additionally, he ties these things into the current global crisis.
The book doesn't necessarily attempt to explain the current situation, though offers a lot of insight into some of the factors that contributed. Rather, the author starts by saying that many people thought fundamental problems that lead to depressions had been eliminated, and that people/governments had essentially learned their lesson. However, in the 1980's and 1990's, a lot of the significant factors (or symptoms) of depressions had started showing up in other economies (Argentina, Mexico, Japan, Thailand/Asia, etc.). He discusses each country's economic situation individually, as well as the responses made by the respective government. Additionally, he ties these things into the current global crisis.
Review
I have a tough time reviewing things on a 4 or 5 point scale. I require a 10 point scale. I would give it 7 out of 10. I'm not sure if this should be referred to as points, stars, or anything else (blogos?). I thought it was good background information that didn't try to put the financial crisis into a cookie cutter situation and say it was easily explainable.
Quotes (italics are mine)
"The standard response to a recession is to cut interest rates. . . Japan was slow to cut interest rates after the bubble burst, but it eventually cut them all the way to zero, and it still wasn't enough. Now what?
The classic answer, the one that has been associated with the name of John Maynard Keynes, is that if the private sector won't spend enough to maintain full employment, the public sector must take up the slack. Let the government borrow money and use the funds to finance public investment projects-if possible to good purpose, but that is a secondary consideration-and thereby provide jobs, which will generate still more jobs, and so on. The Great Depression in the United States was brought to an end by a massive deficit-financed public works program, known as World War II. Why not try to jump-start Japanese growth with a more pacific version of the same?"
page 71
"If government spending is one standard response to a stalled economy, pumping up the banks is another. One widely held view about the Great Depression is that it persisted so long because the banking crises of 1930-31 inflicted long term damage to credit markets. According to this view, there were businessmen who would have been willing to spend more if they could have gotten access to credit, and who would in fact have been qualified borrowers. But the bankers who could have made those loans were themselves either out of business or unable to raise funds because the public's confidence in banks had been so shaken."
page 72
This is more of an excerpt than a quote:
"The financial crisis has, inevitably led to a hunt for villians.
Some of the accusations are entirely spurious, like the claim, popular on the right, that all our problems were caused by the Community Reinvestment Act, which supposedly forced banks to lend to minority home buyers who then defaulted on their mortgages; in fact, the act was passed in 1977, which makes it hard to see how it can be blamed for a crisis that didn't happen until three decades later. Anyway, the act applied only to depository banks, which accounted for a small fraction of the bad loans during the housing bubble.
Other accusations have a grain of truth, but are more wrong than right. Conservatives like to blame Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored lenders that pioneered securitization, for the housing bubble and the fragility of the financial system. The grain of truth here is that Fannie and Freddie, which had grown enormously between 1990 and 2003-largely because they were filling the hole left by the collapse of many savings and loans-did make some imprudent loans, and suffered from accounting scandals besides. But the very scrutiny Fannie and Freddie attracted as a result of those scandals kept them mainly out of the picture during the housing bubble's most feverish period, from 2004 to 2006. As a result, the agencies played only a minor role in the epidemic of bad lending.
On the left, it's popular to blame deregulation for the crisis-specifically, the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which allowed commercial banks to get into the investment banking business and thereby take on more risks. In retrospect, this was surely a move in the wrong direction, and it may have contributed in subtle ways to the crisis-for example, some of the risky financial structures created during the boom years were the "off balance sheet" operations of commercial banks. Yet the crisis, for the most part, hasn't involved problems with deregulated institutions that took new risks. Instead, it has involved risks taken by institutions that were never regulated in the first place.
After that, I'd argue, is the core of what happened. As the shadow banking system expanded to rival or even surpass conventional banking in importance, politicians and government officials should have realized that we were re-creating the kind of financial vulnerability that made the Great Depression possible-and they should have responded by extending regulation and the financial safety net to cover these institutions. Influential figures should have proclaimed a simple rule: anything that does what a bank does, anything that has to be rescued in crises the way banks are, should be regulated like a bank.
In fact, the Long Term Capital Management crisis, described in Chapter 6, should have served as an object lesson of the dangers posed by the shadow banking siystem. Certainly many people were aware of just how close the system had come to collapse.
But this warning was ignored, and there was no move to extend regulation. On the contrary, the spirit of the times-and the ideology of the George W. Bush administration-was deeply antiregulation. This attitude was symbolized by a photo-op held in 2003, in which representatives of the various agencies that play roles in bank oversight used pruning shears and a chainsaw to cut up stacks of regulations. More concretely, the Bush administration used federal power, including obscure powers of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, to block state-level efforts to impose some oversight on subprime lending.
Meanwhile, the people who should have been worrying about the fragility of the system were, instead, singing the praises of 'financial innovation.' 'Not only have individual financial institutionsbecome less vulnerable to shocks from underlying risk factors,' declared Alan Greenspan in 2004, ' but also the financial system as a whole has become more resilient.'
So the growing risks of a crisis for the financial system and the economy as a whole were ignored or dismissed. And the crisis came."
Pages 163-4
I have a tough time reviewing things on a 4 or 5 point scale. I require a 10 point scale. I would give it 7 out of 10. I'm not sure if this should be referred to as points, stars, or anything else (blogos?). I thought it was good background information that didn't try to put the financial crisis into a cookie cutter situation and say it was easily explainable.
Quotes (italics are mine)
"The standard response to a recession is to cut interest rates. . . Japan was slow to cut interest rates after the bubble burst, but it eventually cut them all the way to zero, and it still wasn't enough. Now what?
The classic answer, the one that has been associated with the name of John Maynard Keynes, is that if the private sector won't spend enough to maintain full employment, the public sector must take up the slack. Let the government borrow money and use the funds to finance public investment projects-if possible to good purpose, but that is a secondary consideration-and thereby provide jobs, which will generate still more jobs, and so on. The Great Depression in the United States was brought to an end by a massive deficit-financed public works program, known as World War II. Why not try to jump-start Japanese growth with a more pacific version of the same?"
page 71
"If government spending is one standard response to a stalled economy, pumping up the banks is another. One widely held view about the Great Depression is that it persisted so long because the banking crises of 1930-31 inflicted long term damage to credit markets. According to this view, there were businessmen who would have been willing to spend more if they could have gotten access to credit, and who would in fact have been qualified borrowers. But the bankers who could have made those loans were themselves either out of business or unable to raise funds because the public's confidence in banks had been so shaken."
page 72
This is more of an excerpt than a quote:
"The financial crisis has, inevitably led to a hunt for villians.
Some of the accusations are entirely spurious, like the claim, popular on the right, that all our problems were caused by the Community Reinvestment Act, which supposedly forced banks to lend to minority home buyers who then defaulted on their mortgages; in fact, the act was passed in 1977, which makes it hard to see how it can be blamed for a crisis that didn't happen until three decades later. Anyway, the act applied only to depository banks, which accounted for a small fraction of the bad loans during the housing bubble.
Other accusations have a grain of truth, but are more wrong than right. Conservatives like to blame Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored lenders that pioneered securitization, for the housing bubble and the fragility of the financial system. The grain of truth here is that Fannie and Freddie, which had grown enormously between 1990 and 2003-largely because they were filling the hole left by the collapse of many savings and loans-did make some imprudent loans, and suffered from accounting scandals besides. But the very scrutiny Fannie and Freddie attracted as a result of those scandals kept them mainly out of the picture during the housing bubble's most feverish period, from 2004 to 2006. As a result, the agencies played only a minor role in the epidemic of bad lending.
On the left, it's popular to blame deregulation for the crisis-specifically, the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which allowed commercial banks to get into the investment banking business and thereby take on more risks. In retrospect, this was surely a move in the wrong direction, and it may have contributed in subtle ways to the crisis-for example, some of the risky financial structures created during the boom years were the "off balance sheet" operations of commercial banks. Yet the crisis, for the most part, hasn't involved problems with deregulated institutions that took new risks. Instead, it has involved risks taken by institutions that were never regulated in the first place.
After that, I'd argue, is the core of what happened. As the shadow banking system expanded to rival or even surpass conventional banking in importance, politicians and government officials should have realized that we were re-creating the kind of financial vulnerability that made the Great Depression possible-and they should have responded by extending regulation and the financial safety net to cover these institutions. Influential figures should have proclaimed a simple rule: anything that does what a bank does, anything that has to be rescued in crises the way banks are, should be regulated like a bank.
In fact, the Long Term Capital Management crisis, described in Chapter 6, should have served as an object lesson of the dangers posed by the shadow banking siystem. Certainly many people were aware of just how close the system had come to collapse.
But this warning was ignored, and there was no move to extend regulation. On the contrary, the spirit of the times-and the ideology of the George W. Bush administration-was deeply antiregulation. This attitude was symbolized by a photo-op held in 2003, in which representatives of the various agencies that play roles in bank oversight used pruning shears and a chainsaw to cut up stacks of regulations. More concretely, the Bush administration used federal power, including obscure powers of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, to block state-level efforts to impose some oversight on subprime lending.
Meanwhile, the people who should have been worrying about the fragility of the system were, instead, singing the praises of 'financial innovation.' 'Not only have individual financial institutionsbecome less vulnerable to shocks from underlying risk factors,' declared Alan Greenspan in 2004, ' but also the financial system as a whole has become more resilient.'
So the growing risks of a crisis for the financial system and the economy as a whole were ignored or dismissed. And the crisis came."
Pages 163-4
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics
I'd like to discuss Memetics. Of all the things presented in God Delusion, this was the most original to me (but apparently has been a field of study for 30+ yrs now). It's very easy to understand if you think of brains as computers. Some information is easily programmable and thus easily passed on while other information is more difficult to code and thus less likely to evolve on any wide scale. There are broad and important implications to this work in my opinion. I need to read more books by more modern memeticists. But let's discuss this.
I'd like to discuss Memetics. Of all the things presented in God Delusion, this was the most original to me (but apparently has been a field of study for 30+ yrs now). It's very easy to understand if you think of brains as computers. Some information is easily programmable and thus easily passed on while other information is more difficult to code and thus less likely to evolve on any wide scale. There are broad and important implications to this work in my opinion. I need to read more books by more modern memeticists. But let's discuss this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
