Suppose we can give each member of congress a score, from 0 to 100 (0 meaning 'extremely left-wing', 100 meaning 'extremely right-wing'), so that for every piece of legislation that comes before them, there exists a threshold wherein the probability that everyone with a score under the threshold votes one way, while everyone with a score over the threshold votes the other way, is very high indeed. Suppose further that there is perfect polarization between the two major parties (every Republican's score is greater than every Democrat's score, every Republican's score is closer to the typical Republican's score than to any Democrat's score, and every Democrat's score is closer to the typical Democrat's score than to any Republican's score).
In the house of representatives, the effective decision rule is majoritarian--that is, a piece of legislation is approved if and only if a majority of representatives vote for it. The fate of a bill, then, stands or falls with the vote of the median representative: if the median representative votes 'yea', then either everyone to his left or everyone to his right, with very high probability, votes 'yea', constituting a majority in favor of the bill. Similarly, if the median representative votes 'nay', then there is, with very a high probability, no majority in favor of the bill. In effect, one representative makes the decisions for the house. The bigger the majority party's majority, the more the favorable approved legislation is to the party's typical member.
In the senate, the effective decision rule (these days) is supermajoritarian--that is, a piece of legislation is approved if and only if 3/5ths of senators vote for it. The fate of a bill, then, stands or falls with the vote of both the 60th most left-wing senator and the 60th most right-wing senator. Unless the majority party enjoys a supermajority, approved legislation is most favorable to the centrists in both parties.
If one party is more polarized than the other, then approved legislation will be biased in favor of the more polarized party, other things being equal.
During 2009-2010, the Democrats enjoyed a large majority in the house, and a bare supermajority in the senate. They also held the white house. Due to polarization, one-party control leads to greater legislative output. The house's output, in light of its large but not extreme majority, was left/center-left. The senate's output, in light of its bare supermajority, was center/center-left. And the president, having to appeal not only to his party's base (extreme left/left), but also to Democratic-leaning independents (center/center-left), was left/center-left. Overall, then, the government was center-left, or slightly left of that, with lots of output.
During 2011-present, the Republicans enjoy a large majority in the house, while the Democrats cling to a bare majority in the senate. Democrats continue to hold the white house. Due to polarization, two-party control leads to lesser legislative output. The house's output, in light of its large majority, has been right/center-right. The senate's output, in light of the Democrat's bare majority, was centrist. Again, the president was left/center-left. Overall, then, the government was roughly centrist, with little output.
Intrade predicts that Republicans will control both houses of congress in 2013, though probably without a supermajority in the senate. Hence, if Obama is re-elected, we will probably see a slight shift to the right, with little output. If, on the other hand, the Republicans take the white house, we should expect a much bigger rightward shift, and much more output.
From a historical perspective, the DW-NOMINATE system, devised by political scientists, shows that this basic model is plausible, and that the Republicans have become more polarized than the Democrats over the last few decades. This biases these results even more in favor of Republicans. The choice, then, is between a center/center-right government, and a right/center-right government. From a global perspective, the US is significantly to the right of most developed countries. Therefore, the choice is, in some ways, between a center-right government and a right-wing government.
Note that none of these terms are defined with respect to issues--purely with respect to patterns in voting behavior. So, if you're someone who thinks anarcho-capitalism is a moderate position, then redefine the terms I used above appropriately. Another way of saying it, then, is that we're likely to be looking at a choice between a moderate Republican government (in the old sense), and a fairly hardcore Republican government (in the current sense). Take your pick.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
What do central banks do?
The central bank (CB) is the monopoly producer of high-powered money (HPM), which makes up the monetary base. HPM comes in two flavors: (1) physical currency--paper notes, coins, etc.; (2) electronic bank reserves. In a typical developed economy, commercial banks must, by law, deposit some fraction of their customers' deposits into electronic vaults supervised by the CB. The funds put towards meeting this mandate constitute a bank's 'required reserves'. Any extra funds the bank deposits constitute its 'excess reserves'. The CB is the monopoly producer of HPM for two reasons: (1) it is the only entity legally permitted to create new physical currency; (2) it is the only entity legally permitted to electronically credit participating banks' reserves.
The CB is typically free to produce however much HPM it chooses, in either form. Additionally, HPM's cost of production is, approximately, zero. Consequently, the CB controls the supply of HPM in the relevant currency zone.
Why does HPM matter? The prices of goods and services are quoted in units of HPM--HPM is therefore the 'unit of account'. HPM is also what consumers use to buy goods and services--HPM is therefore the 'medium of exchange'. In equilibrium, the value of HPM is determined by the supply of, and demand for, HPM. Hence, in the long run the CB, through its management of the supply of HPM (its 'monetary policy'), determines the value of HPM, which is the flipside of the price level--the average price of goods and services. The higher the value of HPM, the fewer the units of HPM necessary to purchase a given bundle of goods and services. The lower the value of HPM, the greater the units of HPM necessary to purchase said bundle. As a result, monetary policy, executed by the CB, determines the price level, and therefore the rate of inflation (the rate of growth in the price level), in the long run.
If prices are perfectly flexible, then the economy equilibrates instantaneously, which means the CB determines the price level and the rate of inflation in the short run, too. Moreover, its policies are otherwise irrelevant to the evolution of the economy. Economists inclined towards a flexible-price view of the economy, therefore, believe that the sole objective of monetary policy ought to be 'price stability', usually defined to be a low and stable rate of inflation. If prices respond to shocks only sluggishly (that is, if prices are 'sticky'), however, then the economy takes time to equilibrate, which means that the CB plays a bigger role in the short-run evolution of the economy. Economists inclined towards a sticky-price view of the economy, therefore, believe that monetary policy ought to concern itself with more than mere price stability.
Suppose, for example, that the demand for HPM jumps (for whatever reason). This puts upward pressure on the value of HPM, meaning downward pressure on the price level. If prices are sticky, however, then many prices will remain too high in the face of this pressure. When the price of a good or service is too high, producers have the capacity to produce more than consumers want to consume. Producers react to this demand shortfall by contracting their output, rendering some of their inputs (e.g., labor) redundant. If wages are sticky, too, then redundant workers will continue to seek employment where there is none. As a consequence, output falls, while unemployment rises. If, in response, the CB expands the supply of HPM, this puts downward pressure on the value of money, meaning upward pressure on the price level. This offsets the downward pressure on prices, restoring the economy to equilibrium. As a consequence, output rises, while unemployment falls. Note that, in the process, the price level more or less stays put--monetary policy is impacting the economy without much impact upon price stability.
Considerations of such possibilities lead sticky-price economists to pin the blame for business cycles on the CB. When the CB does not provide the economy with enough HPM, it causes a recession. When it provides too much HPM, it causes high and/or unstable inflation. Monetary policy, therefore, has as its objective not only price stability in the long run, but also maximum output/employment in the short run.
What, then, do interest rates have to do with monetary policy? Interest is the price of a loan. A higher interest rate causes savers to save more, borrowers to borrow less. Savers make up the difference by building up their HPM reserves, expanding the demand for HPM, which (other things being equal) causes a recession. A lower interest rate causes savers to save less, borrowers to borrow more. Borrowers make up the difference by drawing down their HPM reserves, expanding the supply of HPM, which (other things being equal) stokes inflation. Thus, the stance of monetary policy may be equivalently characterized by either the supply of HPM, or a target for a benchmark interest rate. (The CB usually has no reason to interfere with the pricing of risk, so it typically manages a benchmark interest rate with reference to which financial markets fix other interest rates.) How, though, does the CB move the market rate of interest in line with its target?
An open market operation (OMO) is a transaction wherein the CB buys or sells assets in the marketplace, by drawing down or building up its HPM reserves. Since the CB can, in principle, expand the supply of HPM without limit, it can, in principle, buy or sell whatever quantity of assets is necessary to move the market rate of interest in line with its target. Because it can do this, however, it need not do this. If the CB declares a target for its policy rate (the benchmark interest rate it manages), market participants understand that there is no point doing battle with the CB. The CB always has more HPM than you, by design. Consequently, communication is usually enough to move interest rates towards the target, though the CB often engages in medium-scale OMOs to show its resolve.
The usual business of the CB, therefore, is to publicly set its target for the policy rate in a such a way as to maximize output/employment, while maintaining price stability over the long run. Sometimes, however, managing the policy rate isn't enough for the CB to fulfill its dual mandate. More on this issue to come...
The CB is typically free to produce however much HPM it chooses, in either form. Additionally, HPM's cost of production is, approximately, zero. Consequently, the CB controls the supply of HPM in the relevant currency zone.
Why does HPM matter? The prices of goods and services are quoted in units of HPM--HPM is therefore the 'unit of account'. HPM is also what consumers use to buy goods and services--HPM is therefore the 'medium of exchange'. In equilibrium, the value of HPM is determined by the supply of, and demand for, HPM. Hence, in the long run the CB, through its management of the supply of HPM (its 'monetary policy'), determines the value of HPM, which is the flipside of the price level--the average price of goods and services. The higher the value of HPM, the fewer the units of HPM necessary to purchase a given bundle of goods and services. The lower the value of HPM, the greater the units of HPM necessary to purchase said bundle. As a result, monetary policy, executed by the CB, determines the price level, and therefore the rate of inflation (the rate of growth in the price level), in the long run.
If prices are perfectly flexible, then the economy equilibrates instantaneously, which means the CB determines the price level and the rate of inflation in the short run, too. Moreover, its policies are otherwise irrelevant to the evolution of the economy. Economists inclined towards a flexible-price view of the economy, therefore, believe that the sole objective of monetary policy ought to be 'price stability', usually defined to be a low and stable rate of inflation. If prices respond to shocks only sluggishly (that is, if prices are 'sticky'), however, then the economy takes time to equilibrate, which means that the CB plays a bigger role in the short-run evolution of the economy. Economists inclined towards a sticky-price view of the economy, therefore, believe that monetary policy ought to concern itself with more than mere price stability.
Suppose, for example, that the demand for HPM jumps (for whatever reason). This puts upward pressure on the value of HPM, meaning downward pressure on the price level. If prices are sticky, however, then many prices will remain too high in the face of this pressure. When the price of a good or service is too high, producers have the capacity to produce more than consumers want to consume. Producers react to this demand shortfall by contracting their output, rendering some of their inputs (e.g., labor) redundant. If wages are sticky, too, then redundant workers will continue to seek employment where there is none. As a consequence, output falls, while unemployment rises. If, in response, the CB expands the supply of HPM, this puts downward pressure on the value of money, meaning upward pressure on the price level. This offsets the downward pressure on prices, restoring the economy to equilibrium. As a consequence, output rises, while unemployment falls. Note that, in the process, the price level more or less stays put--monetary policy is impacting the economy without much impact upon price stability.
Considerations of such possibilities lead sticky-price economists to pin the blame for business cycles on the CB. When the CB does not provide the economy with enough HPM, it causes a recession. When it provides too much HPM, it causes high and/or unstable inflation. Monetary policy, therefore, has as its objective not only price stability in the long run, but also maximum output/employment in the short run.
What, then, do interest rates have to do with monetary policy? Interest is the price of a loan. A higher interest rate causes savers to save more, borrowers to borrow less. Savers make up the difference by building up their HPM reserves, expanding the demand for HPM, which (other things being equal) causes a recession. A lower interest rate causes savers to save less, borrowers to borrow more. Borrowers make up the difference by drawing down their HPM reserves, expanding the supply of HPM, which (other things being equal) stokes inflation. Thus, the stance of monetary policy may be equivalently characterized by either the supply of HPM, or a target for a benchmark interest rate. (The CB usually has no reason to interfere with the pricing of risk, so it typically manages a benchmark interest rate with reference to which financial markets fix other interest rates.) How, though, does the CB move the market rate of interest in line with its target?
An open market operation (OMO) is a transaction wherein the CB buys or sells assets in the marketplace, by drawing down or building up its HPM reserves. Since the CB can, in principle, expand the supply of HPM without limit, it can, in principle, buy or sell whatever quantity of assets is necessary to move the market rate of interest in line with its target. Because it can do this, however, it need not do this. If the CB declares a target for its policy rate (the benchmark interest rate it manages), market participants understand that there is no point doing battle with the CB. The CB always has more HPM than you, by design. Consequently, communication is usually enough to move interest rates towards the target, though the CB often engages in medium-scale OMOs to show its resolve.
The usual business of the CB, therefore, is to publicly set its target for the policy rate in a such a way as to maximize output/employment, while maintaining price stability over the long run. Sometimes, however, managing the policy rate isn't enough for the CB to fulfill its dual mandate. More on this issue to come...
Friday, February 10, 2012
Let's Move! to Arkansas
On Feb 9, 2012, the second anniversary of her Let's Move! campaign, First Lady Michelle Obama visited Little Rock Air Force Base (LRAFB), home of the mighty C-130 Hercules, on the second stop of her four city tour. Obama is sojourning across the nation in an effort to promote fitness and nutrition and to unveil a new Department of Defense (DoD) initiative highlighting healthy food on military installations. LRAFB is part of a six base pilot program testing out new, healthier menus heavily featuring vegetables, whole grains, and top grade meats. For years, the DoD has been criticized for serving low quality food in the form of MREs and in the dining halls on military bases. So low quality, in fact, that rumors have circulated suggesting the DoD only purchases and serves "Grade D" meats which are certified for use only on military installations and in prisons. This and similar rumors are false, of course, and the DoD has been striving to upgrade the quality and taste of the food served to the members of our nation's sword and shield for many years. The pilot program being conducted on LRAFB and the other bases is in support of this change.
The First Lady's visit to the base included a tour of the dining facility and a brief talk to the service members trying out the healthy menu. During her speech she noted, "[a]ccording to a recent Army study, more than a quarter of our nation's 17- to 24-year-olds are too overweight to serve in our armed forces today." This is a very weighty (huzzah for wordplay) and depressing statistic. In 2010, a report from the Trust for America's Health and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation found Arkansas to be the 8th fattest state when measuring adult obesity. Well, if LRAFB was included in the statistic, I'm willing to bet Arkansas should be rated somewhere around the 3rd or 4th fattest state without the military population. So, while Little Rock definitely needed her visit to set things straight, she probably would have reached a fatter demographic by giving her talk at a high school or junior college. Haven't you seen Transformers, lady? Military dudes are fit. Most of them can do more than the 18 girl pushups you did on Jimmy Fallon.
[caption id="attachment_280" align="alignright" width="192" caption="Documentation: http://www.af.mil/information/bios/bio.asp?bioID=12815"]
[/caption]
Prior to leaving the dining hall, Brigadier Gen. Eden Murrie, director of Air Force Services (picture) told Obama that "we are working hard to make healthy sexy." Now while I'm sure Gen. Murrie is highly respected and lauded in her career as a navigator (doubtful), she probably has never been consulted for her insight regarding the issue of sexiness.
Recent reviews have claimed the changes to the dining hall and menu are fast, neat, average.
The First Lady's visit to the base included a tour of the dining facility and a brief talk to the service members trying out the healthy menu. During her speech she noted, "[a]ccording to a recent Army study, more than a quarter of our nation's 17- to 24-year-olds are too overweight to serve in our armed forces today." This is a very weighty (huzzah for wordplay) and depressing statistic. In 2010, a report from the Trust for America's Health and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation found Arkansas to be the 8th fattest state when measuring adult obesity. Well, if LRAFB was included in the statistic, I'm willing to bet Arkansas should be rated somewhere around the 3rd or 4th fattest state without the military population. So, while Little Rock definitely needed her visit to set things straight, she probably would have reached a fatter demographic by giving her talk at a high school or junior college. Haven't you seen Transformers, lady? Military dudes are fit. Most of them can do more than the 18 girl pushups you did on Jimmy Fallon.
[caption id="attachment_280" align="alignright" width="192" caption="Documentation: http://www.af.mil/information/bios/bio.asp?bioID=12815"]
[/caption]Prior to leaving the dining hall, Brigadier Gen. Eden Murrie, director of Air Force Services (picture) told Obama that "we are working hard to make healthy sexy." Now while I'm sure Gen. Murrie is highly respected and lauded in her career as a navigator (doubtful), she probably has never been consulted for her insight regarding the issue of sexiness.
Recent reviews have claimed the changes to the dining hall and menu are fast, neat, average.
Everyone waive to all the children left behind
Well BamaBoi just modified the requirements for the "No Child Left Behind" idea by granting 10 states waivers, basically skirting around the law. Let's assume you know nothing about the "No Child Left Behind Act" (NCLBA) and walk you through some of the important bits of the act. The Act was signed into law circa 2002 by a bright-eyed, bushy-tailed individual in an effort to hold educators accountable for the academic performance of their students. The law is pretty simple: that by 2014, all schools receiving federal funding test "at grade level" in math and reading. I don't see any part of that statement being unreasonable - twelve years is one full academic cycle, meaning kids in first grade are now seniors in high school, meaning that you've had more than enough time to change the course of that student's academic career. Secondly, shouldn't students be testing "at grade level" already?
The weird thing is that educators have been up in arms over the repercussions for not meeting the requirements. The slaps-on-the-wrists occur on a graduated scale, summarized below (all actions are cumulative):
The role of educators is the preparation of students to be contributing members of society, each academic year building on the previous. Teaching is still a job and in jobs there are always performance metrics to gauge success. Failure to meet the metrics in your job and you get a pink slip - no asking for do-overs or extensions. The NCLBA sets the bar pretty low already (since schools average out student standardized test scores and that average is all that is needed to pass), why oh why are the educators crying the blues on this Act? Because they are being, for the first time, actually held accountable for their ability to educate students and their performance is being measured and reported on for the world to see.
I've never been a fan of unions as they often protect longevity rather than effectiveness - the teacher's union fits that bill pretty well. How many teachers have you heard about being fired for lack of performance? I haven't heard of any - the law of averages suggests that there has to be at least one bad teacher. How bout, being laid off due to budget cuts? I've heard a lot about those but it's always the newest teachers being the ones cut. Isn't it a little backwards to assume that just because a teacher has been in the union longer that they are a better teacher than a newbie?
I'm just saying, don't leave the kids behind with these stupid waivers - they are the ones being hurt by things like this. If educators couldn't correct a problem over the course of 12 years why are they still teaching?
The weird thing is that educators have been up in arms over the repercussions for not meeting the requirements. The slaps-on-the-wrists occur on a graduated scale, summarized below (all actions are cumulative):
- 2 Consecutive years of missing marks - School is labeled as "needing improvement" while administrators must put together a 2 year corrective actions plan. Parents are given the option to transfer students for free to another school in the district if one exists.
- 3 Years -Free tutoring and supplemental education services to be made available to schools.
- 4 Years - School is labeled as requiring "corrective action" opening the possibility for widespread staff replacement
- 5 Years - School administration is transferred to the state or privatized
The role of educators is the preparation of students to be contributing members of society, each academic year building on the previous. Teaching is still a job and in jobs there are always performance metrics to gauge success. Failure to meet the metrics in your job and you get a pink slip - no asking for do-overs or extensions. The NCLBA sets the bar pretty low already (since schools average out student standardized test scores and that average is all that is needed to pass), why oh why are the educators crying the blues on this Act? Because they are being, for the first time, actually held accountable for their ability to educate students and their performance is being measured and reported on for the world to see.
I've never been a fan of unions as they often protect longevity rather than effectiveness - the teacher's union fits that bill pretty well. How many teachers have you heard about being fired for lack of performance? I haven't heard of any - the law of averages suggests that there has to be at least one bad teacher. How bout, being laid off due to budget cuts? I've heard a lot about those but it's always the newest teachers being the ones cut. Isn't it a little backwards to assume that just because a teacher has been in the union longer that they are a better teacher than a newbie?
I'm just saying, don't leave the kids behind with these stupid waivers - they are the ones being hurt by things like this. If educators couldn't correct a problem over the course of 12 years why are they still teaching?
Must employer-provided health insurance plans cover birth control?
Some people believe they must. Other people disagree. Two questions occur to me in connection with this debate: First, what does birth control have to do with health insurance? Second, what do employers have to do with their employees' health insurance?
Insurance is supposed to prepare the insured for unpredictable, expensive scenarios. Needing to purchase birth control pills is a perfectly routine event. The pill isn't very pricey, either. Why, then, do people buy them with their health insurance instead of just reaching for their purse? It's not like car insurance plans cover fuel expenses.
What's more, your employer has no say over what your car insurance plan covers. Why, then, does it have a say over what your health insurance plan covers? What's so special about health insurance?
Believe it or not, many economists say that we have the tax code to thank for these curiosities of the US health care system. The story begins with World War II. One of the ways in which the US government financed the war effort was by printing a lot of US currency, causing excessive inflation. The government responded with wage controls, among other measures, legally preventing wages from giving way to inflationary pressures. Of course, the laws of supply and demand cannot be legislated away. Employers responded to the inflationary pressures by offering workers benefits besides wages, most commonly health insurance, simply because doing so was legal.
As wage controls were relaxed, however, congress began to recognize employer-provided health insurance as a form of income, thus subjecting it to taxation. By that point, though, labor unions had become staunch defenders of the tax-free status of employer-provided health insurance, discouraging congress from closing the loophole. Ever since, employer-provided health insurance has been tax deductible. Sound like intelligent design to you?
Why does the tax-free status of employer-provided health insurance matter? Suppose you wish to buy birth control pills. If you decide to buy them with your employer-provided health insurance, then you will pay for them with pre-tax dollars, effectively rendering them less expensive. If, on the other hand, you decide to pay for them out of pocket, then you will pay for them with post-tax dollars, effectively rendering them more expensive. Note that this does not work if you purchase your own health insurance plan. Health insurance is only tax deductible if it is provided by your employer. This explains not only why most people receive their health insurance from their employer, but also why cheap, routine medical expenses tend to be covered under health insurance plans.
For these reasons, a perfectly straightforward policy issue (whether every woman should have financial access to birth control) is, in the context of our distorted health care financing system, transformed into a mystifying debate about the complex relationship between your health insurance provider, your employer, your government, and you.
So, what's my proposal to resolve this controversy? Reform the tax code. Only then will we be able to meaningfully debate the proper role of government. Also, everyone needs to take a pill. A chill pill, that is...
Insurance is supposed to prepare the insured for unpredictable, expensive scenarios. Needing to purchase birth control pills is a perfectly routine event. The pill isn't very pricey, either. Why, then, do people buy them with their health insurance instead of just reaching for their purse? It's not like car insurance plans cover fuel expenses.
What's more, your employer has no say over what your car insurance plan covers. Why, then, does it have a say over what your health insurance plan covers? What's so special about health insurance?
Believe it or not, many economists say that we have the tax code to thank for these curiosities of the US health care system. The story begins with World War II. One of the ways in which the US government financed the war effort was by printing a lot of US currency, causing excessive inflation. The government responded with wage controls, among other measures, legally preventing wages from giving way to inflationary pressures. Of course, the laws of supply and demand cannot be legislated away. Employers responded to the inflationary pressures by offering workers benefits besides wages, most commonly health insurance, simply because doing so was legal.
As wage controls were relaxed, however, congress began to recognize employer-provided health insurance as a form of income, thus subjecting it to taxation. By that point, though, labor unions had become staunch defenders of the tax-free status of employer-provided health insurance, discouraging congress from closing the loophole. Ever since, employer-provided health insurance has been tax deductible. Sound like intelligent design to you?
Why does the tax-free status of employer-provided health insurance matter? Suppose you wish to buy birth control pills. If you decide to buy them with your employer-provided health insurance, then you will pay for them with pre-tax dollars, effectively rendering them less expensive. If, on the other hand, you decide to pay for them out of pocket, then you will pay for them with post-tax dollars, effectively rendering them more expensive. Note that this does not work if you purchase your own health insurance plan. Health insurance is only tax deductible if it is provided by your employer. This explains not only why most people receive their health insurance from their employer, but also why cheap, routine medical expenses tend to be covered under health insurance plans.
For these reasons, a perfectly straightforward policy issue (whether every woman should have financial access to birth control) is, in the context of our distorted health care financing system, transformed into a mystifying debate about the complex relationship between your health insurance provider, your employer, your government, and you.
So, what's my proposal to resolve this controversy? Reform the tax code. Only then will we be able to meaningfully debate the proper role of government. Also, everyone needs to take a pill. A chill pill, that is...
The new riddle of induction
Suppose every blueberry you've observed to date has been blue. You take this to be evidence for:
(H1) All blueberries are blue.
As a consequence, you predict:
(P1) The first blueberry I observe on February 11, 2012 will be blue.
Now, define "bleen" to mean "blue until February 10, 2012--green thereafter". By this definition, every blueberry you've observed to date has been bleen. You take this to be evidence for:
(H2) All blueberries are bleen.
As a consequence, you predict:
(P2) The first blueberry I observe on February 11, 2012 will be bleen.
A blueberry that will be bleen on February 11, 2012, though, will be green--not blue. Thus, (P2) flatly contradicts (P1). Is there any evidence that favors (H1) over (H2)? We might complain that (H2) is couched in terms of a derivative property--"bleen" is defined in terms of "blue" and "green". We might take this observation to favor (H1), and therefore (P1).
But define "grue" to mean "green until February 10, 2012--blue thereafter". Imagine a culture that only understands "bleen" and "grue"--not "green" and "blue". To them, "green" means "grue until February 10, 2012--bleen thereafter", while "blue" means "bleen until February 10, 2012--grue thereafter". Their complaint about (H1) is that it is couched in terms of a derivative property--"blue" is defined in terms of "bleen" and "grue". They take this observation to favor (H2), and therefore (P2). Could we really be right, and they really be wrong?
What else could favor (H1) over (H2)? If nothing, isn't this a problem for every hypothesis of the form "All X are Y"? And don't we (implicitly) make predictions founded upon such hypotheses in our everyday reasoning? Doesn't this problem undermine the very way in which we learn from our observations and experiences?
(H1) All blueberries are blue.
As a consequence, you predict:
(P1) The first blueberry I observe on February 11, 2012 will be blue.
Now, define "bleen" to mean "blue until February 10, 2012--green thereafter". By this definition, every blueberry you've observed to date has been bleen. You take this to be evidence for:
(H2) All blueberries are bleen.
As a consequence, you predict:
(P2) The first blueberry I observe on February 11, 2012 will be bleen.
A blueberry that will be bleen on February 11, 2012, though, will be green--not blue. Thus, (P2) flatly contradicts (P1). Is there any evidence that favors (H1) over (H2)? We might complain that (H2) is couched in terms of a derivative property--"bleen" is defined in terms of "blue" and "green". We might take this observation to favor (H1), and therefore (P1).
But define "grue" to mean "green until February 10, 2012--blue thereafter". Imagine a culture that only understands "bleen" and "grue"--not "green" and "blue". To them, "green" means "grue until February 10, 2012--bleen thereafter", while "blue" means "bleen until February 10, 2012--grue thereafter". Their complaint about (H1) is that it is couched in terms of a derivative property--"blue" is defined in terms of "bleen" and "grue". They take this observation to favor (H2), and therefore (P2). Could we really be right, and they really be wrong?
What else could favor (H1) over (H2)? If nothing, isn't this a problem for every hypothesis of the form "All X are Y"? And don't we (implicitly) make predictions founded upon such hypotheses in our everyday reasoning? Doesn't this problem undermine the very way in which we learn from our observations and experiences?
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Nukes for the environment
So the US approved the first nuclear reactors since 1979 with the Three Mile Island boogie. The real question is why this is the first approval since then? Why does this approval come so close to the near catastrophe in Japan? Heck Germany (the ones trying to tell everyone else how to run their balance sheets) has gone as far to say they are going to shut down all of their reactors to avoid the same potential fate as Japan. Now that the approvals are out in the open, I suspect you'll start seeing more sensational news reporting on radiation leaks at existing plants - heck in VT there were reports of radioactive fish being caught right outside the cooling towers sparking mass hysteria. A majority of media outlets are leaving out details, such as testing at the facilities report no radiation leaks and that other fish in the same stream at the other end of the state, 150 miles away, have the same radiation levels - good little tidbit which changes the severity of the situation. Not to mention, in America we don't build reactors on fault lines or earthquake central.
Not all that long ago, I lived 10 miles from an aging plant. Sure it wasn't the greatest landmark the area has known, but I really didn't mind it. Some of my lesser intelligent friends were even concerned for my life, I was moving so close to a reactor after all. These same friends also think that radiation causes three legged frogs and birth defects: lead and fertilizers cause that stuff, all radiation does is kill you or give you cancer. All I have to say is it's about damn time the flukes on capital hill moved along something that is actually beneficial to the prosperity of this great nation. There has never been a better thing for the environment than nuclear power - it's basically steam on steroids. No real waste products, no hazardous green house gases and jigga-what-whats (see what I did there?) of power for the masses. Sure you need to bury the spent fuel rods in barren deserts forever, but is that really all that bad?
All I can say is, mother nature loves nuclear power and I'm sure the tree huggers are loving this. Plus it just might drive the cost of electricity down to where plug-in electric cars are cost effective in a person's lifetime.
Not all that long ago, I lived 10 miles from an aging plant. Sure it wasn't the greatest landmark the area has known, but I really didn't mind it. Some of my lesser intelligent friends were even concerned for my life, I was moving so close to a reactor after all. These same friends also think that radiation causes three legged frogs and birth defects: lead and fertilizers cause that stuff, all radiation does is kill you or give you cancer. All I have to say is it's about damn time the flukes on capital hill moved along something that is actually beneficial to the prosperity of this great nation. There has never been a better thing for the environment than nuclear power - it's basically steam on steroids. No real waste products, no hazardous green house gases and jigga-what-whats (see what I did there?) of power for the masses. Sure you need to bury the spent fuel rods in barren deserts forever, but is that really all that bad?
All I can say is, mother nature loves nuclear power and I'm sure the tree huggers are loving this. Plus it just might drive the cost of electricity down to where plug-in electric cars are cost effective in a person's lifetime.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)