Monday, February 28, 2011
Monday, February 21, 2011
Friday, February 18, 2011
The US is toast, Exhibit H
We have one issue that is much, much bigger than all the rest: Health care costs.
Here's a fun little page you can look at to compare the US to much of the rest of the world.
http://www.cepr.net/calculators/hc/hc-calculator.html
Here's a fun little page you can look at to compare the US to much of the rest of the world.
http://www.cepr.net/calculators/hc/hc-calculator.html
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Science? Meh....
http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/02/11/2138207/Science-Programs-Hit-Hard-By-Proposed-Budget
"The House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations has released a list of proposed spending cuts for the US Federal Government. The proposed cuts include reductions in spending on many science organizations and funds such as NASA, NOAA, nuclear energy research, fossil fuel energy research, clean coal research, the CDC, the NIH, and numerous EPA programs. There are also quite a few cuts proposed on domestic services, such as Americorps and high speed rail research. The House Appropriations Chairman, Hal Rogers, acknowledges that the cuts go deep, and would hurt every district across the country. But they are still deemed necessary to rein in Congressional spending. Notoriously absent from the proposed budget cuts are two of the largest spending sinks in the federal budget: the Department of Defense and Social Security."
Also notoriously absent, tax giveaways to gajillionaires.
"The House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations has released a list of proposed spending cuts for the US Federal Government. The proposed cuts include reductions in spending on many science organizations and funds such as NASA, NOAA, nuclear energy research, fossil fuel energy research, clean coal research, the CDC, the NIH, and numerous EPA programs. There are also quite a few cuts proposed on domestic services, such as Americorps and high speed rail research. The House Appropriations Chairman, Hal Rogers, acknowledges that the cuts go deep, and would hurt every district across the country. But they are still deemed necessary to rein in Congressional spending. Notoriously absent from the proposed budget cuts are two of the largest spending sinks in the federal budget: the Department of Defense and Social Security."
Also notoriously absent, tax giveaways to gajillionaires.
What Republicans want to cut.
Nothing important. Just:
WIC 1008 million
Food for Peace 544 million
NOAA 450 million
NASA 579 million
Energy efficiency and renewable energy 899
Science 1111 million
Nuclear nonproliferation 648 million
Federal buildings fund 1653 million
Homeland security administration 489 million
FEMA, various, around 1.2 billion
EPA clean water and drinking water about 1.8 billion
Community health centers 1.3 billion
Centers for disease control 900 million
WIC is nutritional aid for pregnant women and women with young children; let’s cut that, because the damage to the nation from malnourishment is a problem for future politicians. NOAA is weather and climate — hey, what we don’t know can’t hurt us. Nuclear nonproliferation — well, we probably won’t feel the pain of a terrorist nuke assembled from old Soviet fissile material for a couple of years. FEMA — well, how often do hurricanes hit New Orleans? CDC — with luck, by the time plague hits someone else can be blamed.
WIC 1008 million
Food for Peace 544 million
NOAA 450 million
NASA 579 million
Energy efficiency and renewable energy 899
Science 1111 million
Nuclear nonproliferation 648 million
Federal buildings fund 1653 million
Homeland security administration 489 million
FEMA, various, around 1.2 billion
EPA clean water and drinking water about 1.8 billion
Community health centers 1.3 billion
Centers for disease control 900 million
WIC is nutritional aid for pregnant women and women with young children; let’s cut that, because the damage to the nation from malnourishment is a problem for future politicians. NOAA is weather and climate — hey, what we don’t know can’t hurt us. Nuclear nonproliferation — well, we probably won’t feel the pain of a terrorist nuke assembled from old Soviet fissile material for a couple of years. FEMA — well, how often do hurricanes hit New Orleans? CDC — with luck, by the time plague hits someone else can be blamed.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Egypt.
Just wow.
The thought that the youth now feel like they have some say over their destiny, where a week ago they felt none.
No words to describe it.
The thought that the youth now feel like they have some say over their destiny, where a week ago they felt none.
No words to describe it.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
I always wondered if the "if you tax them, rich people will all move away" argument was bogus
Looks like it is:
Quelle Surprise! Tax Increases on Rich Do Not Lead to Exodus
A solid paper by Cristobal Young and Charles Varner, “Millionaire Migration and State Taxation of Top Incomes” (hat tip Matt) helps debunk the idea that high income individuals will pull up stakes if their taxes go up. The case study is an interesting one: New Jersey’s tax increases on top earners. New Jersey made the biggest increase of all US states, and also has the distinction of having a low income tax state (Connecticut) nearby, meaning that tax-sensitive residents had an option of moving not all that far to escape the increase, which presumably would allow them to maintain family ties.
The study results might be labeled “Millionaires are People Too.” Economists and lobbyists love to stress often base their arguments upon economic rationality and contend that everyone is out to maximize his personal bottom line. Butmoving is a hassle and costly, and most people’s social lives are grounded in their community and their workplace. Relocating is likely to result in a longer commute for those still employed, would cause disruption to any children still in school and would weaken many existing social relationships. The study also provides a survey of the literature, noting findings in Switzerland, for instance, of communities in neighboring cantons with even wider taxation differences and little evidence of tax-driven migration.
From the abstract:
This paper examines the migration response to a millionaire tax in New Jersey, which raised the tax rate on top earners by 2.6 percentage points, becoming one of the highest rates in the country. Drawing on complete NJ state tax micro-data, we estimate the migration response of millionaires using a difference-in-difference strategy. The results indicate little responsiveness, with semi-elasticities mostly below 0.1. Tax-induced migration is higher among people of retirement age, people living off investments rather than wages, and potentially those who work (and pay tax) entirely in-state. The tax is estimated to raise $1 billion per year and modestly reduce income inequality.
Now presumably there is a level of tax differentials that might lead more higher income individuals to act. But the very wealthy are already likely to have fairly well developed tax sheltering strategies already at work; the marginal benefit for them of establishing a residence in a tax favored jurisdiction (beyond the methods they already have in place) and spending enough time there for it to be credible may not be great enough for them to change behavior (yes, there are places like Monaco, which has more overtanned middle aged men in nice Italian leather shoes and shapely blonde young women than I recall seeing in combination anywhere else, but the argument is that locales like that are already established and have their residents). The general conclusion of the paper is plausible: that moderate tax increases on the rich, even if no neighboring jurisdictions follow suit, is unlikely to lead to much in the way of emigration and will thus be a net plus in terms of tax receipts.
Quelle Surprise! Tax Increases on Rich Do Not Lead to Exodus
A solid paper by Cristobal Young and Charles Varner, “Millionaire Migration and State Taxation of Top Incomes” (hat tip Matt) helps debunk the idea that high income individuals will pull up stakes if their taxes go up. The case study is an interesting one: New Jersey’s tax increases on top earners. New Jersey made the biggest increase of all US states, and also has the distinction of having a low income tax state (Connecticut) nearby, meaning that tax-sensitive residents had an option of moving not all that far to escape the increase, which presumably would allow them to maintain family ties.
The study results might be labeled “Millionaires are People Too.” Economists and lobbyists love to stress often base their arguments upon economic rationality and contend that everyone is out to maximize his personal bottom line. Butmoving is a hassle and costly, and most people’s social lives are grounded in their community and their workplace. Relocating is likely to result in a longer commute for those still employed, would cause disruption to any children still in school and would weaken many existing social relationships. The study also provides a survey of the literature, noting findings in Switzerland, for instance, of communities in neighboring cantons with even wider taxation differences and little evidence of tax-driven migration.
From the abstract:
This paper examines the migration response to a millionaire tax in New Jersey, which raised the tax rate on top earners by 2.6 percentage points, becoming one of the highest rates in the country. Drawing on complete NJ state tax micro-data, we estimate the migration response of millionaires using a difference-in-difference strategy. The results indicate little responsiveness, with semi-elasticities mostly below 0.1. Tax-induced migration is higher among people of retirement age, people living off investments rather than wages, and potentially those who work (and pay tax) entirely in-state. The tax is estimated to raise $1 billion per year and modestly reduce income inequality.
Now presumably there is a level of tax differentials that might lead more higher income individuals to act. But the very wealthy are already likely to have fairly well developed tax sheltering strategies already at work; the marginal benefit for them of establishing a residence in a tax favored jurisdiction (beyond the methods they already have in place) and spending enough time there for it to be credible may not be great enough for them to change behavior (yes, there are places like Monaco, which has more overtanned middle aged men in nice Italian leather shoes and shapely blonde young women than I recall seeing in combination anywhere else, but the argument is that locales like that are already established and have their residents). The general conclusion of the paper is plausible: that moderate tax increases on the rich, even if no neighboring jurisdictions follow suit, is unlikely to lead to much in the way of emigration and will thus be a net plus in terms of tax receipts.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
How weather events and climate change connect
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/gradual-trends-and-extreme-events/
Gradual Trends and Extreme Events
I’ve spent a lot of the last several days reading about climate change, extreme weather events, food prices, and so on. And one thing that became clear to me is that there’s widespread misunderstanding of the relationship between the gradual trend of rising temperatures and the extreme weather events that have become so much more common. What I’m about to say may seem obvious, because it is obvious, at least if you approach it the right way; but I still think it needs saying.
So, let’s start with an observation: weather varies. (Duh.) Heat waves and other stuff happens. Think of it in terms of a probability distribution for temperatures, with the area under the curve over some range representing the probability of temperatures in that range in a given place over a given period. And define an extreme event as a case in which the temperature exceeds some threshold. The the picture looks like this:
Now suppose that a warming trend shifts the whole probability distribution to the right — which is what we mean when we talk about climate change. Then the result looks like this:
What happens is that the right tail gets fatter: the probability, and hence the frequency, of extreme events goes up.
Two immediate implications. First, there will still be cold stretches: global warming shifts the distribution, it doesn’t eliminate the left side of the distribution. So there will still be cold spells; that proves nothing.
Second, no individual weather event can properly be said to have been “caused” by global warming. Heat waves happened 30 years ago; there’s no way to prove that any individual heat wave now might not have happened even if we hadn’t emitted all that CO2.
But the pattern should have changed: we should be getting lots of record highs, and not as many record lows — which is exactly what we do see. And we should be seeing 100-year heat waves and similar events much more often than history would have suggested likely; again, that’s what we actually do see.
The point is that the usual casual denier arguments — it’s cold outside; you can’t prove that climate change did it — miss the point. What you’re looking for is a pattern. And that pattern is obvious.
Gradual Trends and Extreme Events
I’ve spent a lot of the last several days reading about climate change, extreme weather events, food prices, and so on. And one thing that became clear to me is that there’s widespread misunderstanding of the relationship between the gradual trend of rising temperatures and the extreme weather events that have become so much more common. What I’m about to say may seem obvious, because it is obvious, at least if you approach it the right way; but I still think it needs saying.
So, let’s start with an observation: weather varies. (Duh.) Heat waves and other stuff happens. Think of it in terms of a probability distribution for temperatures, with the area under the curve over some range representing the probability of temperatures in that range in a given place over a given period. And define an extreme event as a case in which the temperature exceeds some threshold. The the picture looks like this:
Now suppose that a warming trend shifts the whole probability distribution to the right — which is what we mean when we talk about climate change. Then the result looks like this:
What happens is that the right tail gets fatter: the probability, and hence the frequency, of extreme events goes up.
Two immediate implications. First, there will still be cold stretches: global warming shifts the distribution, it doesn’t eliminate the left side of the distribution. So there will still be cold spells; that proves nothing.
Second, no individual weather event can properly be said to have been “caused” by global warming. Heat waves happened 30 years ago; there’s no way to prove that any individual heat wave now might not have happened even if we hadn’t emitted all that CO2.
But the pattern should have changed: we should be getting lots of record highs, and not as many record lows — which is exactly what we do see. And we should be seeing 100-year heat waves and similar events much more often than history would have suggested likely; again, that’s what we actually do see.
The point is that the usual casual denier arguments — it’s cold outside; you can’t prove that climate change did it — miss the point. What you’re looking for is a pattern. And that pattern is obvious.
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Mike Huckabee speaks the truth
Mike Huckabee:
"I cannot imagine as an American being told that I could not live in certain places in America because I was Christian, or because I was white, or because I spoke English."
No, I wouldn't think you could. And isn't that...you know...kinda the point?
"I cannot imagine as an American being told that I could not live in certain places in America because I was Christian, or because I was white, or because I spoke English."
No, I wouldn't think you could. And isn't that...you know...kinda the point?
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
The sick joke that is Republican policy
A nation's economic well-being is based on confidence.
People confident in their ability to pay their bills aren't afraid to spend. People confident that their job will be around a while buy things on credit. Companies which are selling things to these people and who are confident it will continue hire more workers and invest in equipment so they can grow. Banks who are confident in a person or a business' ability to repay a loan lend more money, which allows more spending and investment.
Right now this process is going precisely backwards. Who but the wealthy are going to spend if they don't know if they'll have social security when they're retired? Who in their right mind will spend if they don't know if Medicare will be dismantled and they'll have to fund that $100,000 procedure they'll inevitably need when they're old out of their own pocket? Who will spend if they don't know if public schools will be allowed to rot into the ground so the only tolerable option is to send their kids to $25k a year private schools? Who will spend if they don't know if their job will be around, and they'll be denied health insurance if they lose it?
The Republicans are trying as hard as they can to destroy anything and everything government does (except of course paying themselves salaries roughly 5 times the US median wage, giving themselves Grade A health insurance, and pensions for life around $60k annually).
Any fiscal progress they make in saving a few deficit dollars will be dwarfed by the economic effect of the colossal fear they'll instill in people about the future. If Republicans get their way, anyone who can't entirely self-fund their health care, their schooling, their security, and of course their retirement, will have some serious frightening issues to contend with.
People who are scared to death don't spend. If you're not scared to death right now, you're not paying attention.
So even putting aside the moral reprehensibility of all they're doing, the cold economics of it is disastrous too.
People confident in their ability to pay their bills aren't afraid to spend. People confident that their job will be around a while buy things on credit. Companies which are selling things to these people and who are confident it will continue hire more workers and invest in equipment so they can grow. Banks who are confident in a person or a business' ability to repay a loan lend more money, which allows more spending and investment.
Right now this process is going precisely backwards. Who but the wealthy are going to spend if they don't know if they'll have social security when they're retired? Who in their right mind will spend if they don't know if Medicare will be dismantled and they'll have to fund that $100,000 procedure they'll inevitably need when they're old out of their own pocket? Who will spend if they don't know if public schools will be allowed to rot into the ground so the only tolerable option is to send their kids to $25k a year private schools? Who will spend if they don't know if their job will be around, and they'll be denied health insurance if they lose it?
The Republicans are trying as hard as they can to destroy anything and everything government does (except of course paying themselves salaries roughly 5 times the US median wage, giving themselves Grade A health insurance, and pensions for life around $60k annually).
Any fiscal progress they make in saving a few deficit dollars will be dwarfed by the economic effect of the colossal fear they'll instill in people about the future. If Republicans get their way, anyone who can't entirely self-fund their health care, their schooling, their security, and of course their retirement, will have some serious frightening issues to contend with.
People who are scared to death don't spend. If you're not scared to death right now, you're not paying attention.
So even putting aside the moral reprehensibility of all they're doing, the cold economics of it is disastrous too.
It doesn't matter how much dinner costs.
What actually matters is how much of your wallet your dinner eats up.
Food inflation hits the poorest worst, by a long shot.
Food inflation hits the poorest worst, by a long shot.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Gun dealers sell pistols ‘without background check’
Well, of course they do; what could possibly go wrong?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12328493
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12328493
Climate change is not a linear problem
It's not like our problems get 1% worse with every 1% temperature rises or something linear like that.
Rather, it's more like a bathtub in the upstairs bathroom. For years, you've been filling that bathtub up with lots of water without issue. Because you know what it can take, and turn off the spigot just before it tops off.. But one day you leave the water running a few minutes too long, and it spills over the top, rotting the floor, ruining the ceiling downstairs, maybe even getting you sued as your little mistake ruins something priceless in your downstairs neighbor's apartment. With 5% more water, you do a thousand percent, heck infinite percent, more damage.
This is New Orleans in 2005. They could take what they've been taking for decades. But add just a little more and it's a disaster of unfathomable magnitude.
Much of the world is prepared for disasters of n magnitude. But because n is all we're prepared for (because it's all we've ever seen) 5% more than n can cause biblical disaster.
Rather, it's more like a bathtub in the upstairs bathroom. For years, you've been filling that bathtub up with lots of water without issue. Because you know what it can take, and turn off the spigot just before it tops off.. But one day you leave the water running a few minutes too long, and it spills over the top, rotting the floor, ruining the ceiling downstairs, maybe even getting you sued as your little mistake ruins something priceless in your downstairs neighbor's apartment. With 5% more water, you do a thousand percent, heck infinite percent, more damage.
This is New Orleans in 2005. They could take what they've been taking for decades. But add just a little more and it's a disaster of unfathomable magnitude.
Much of the world is prepared for disasters of n magnitude. But because n is all we're prepared for (because it's all we've ever seen) 5% more than n can cause biblical disaster.
Why is there any debate about climate change?
Anyone who's been in a car on a hot summer day with the windows up understands that the process that makes global warming is very real, so real it can make you really unhappy if you don't roll down those windows. Energy enters from sunlight, heat is generated but can't escape because of the thick windows.
The more crap we put into our atmosphere, the thicker our earth's windows become. This traps heat and the temperature rises. The heat warms the atmosphere, and the oceans.
More heat increases evaporation, putting more moisture into the atmosphere. And because heat is energy, there's more meterological energy to push that moisture around. So storms are wetter and meaner.
This isn't rocket science. It's basically 9th grade physics.
The more crap we put into our atmosphere, the thicker our earth's windows become. This traps heat and the temperature rises. The heat warms the atmosphere, and the oceans.
More heat increases evaporation, putting more moisture into the atmosphere. And because heat is energy, there's more meterological energy to push that moisture around. So storms are wetter and meaner.
This isn't rocket science. It's basically 9th grade physics.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)