This is David Chase's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following David Chase's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
David Chase
Recent Activity
Charter schools are solving a different, easier education problem, it's not wonder that they look good on paper: http://mikethemadbiologist.com/2013/06/02/lies-damn-lies-and-charter-schools-charter-chicannery-in-the-commonwealth/
1 reply
"If anything, I now regard our letter as too timid" -- further evidence that conservative ideas are usually wrong, including our own conservative ideas. How often do you look back and say "that was too shrill", versus looking back and realizing that you were not shrill enough?
1 reply
$160 is what is imposed on others -- for each trip into Manhattan. http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/07/03/how-driving-a-car-into-manhattan-costs-160/ The safety concerns can be quickly resolved by checking the body count -- in a typical year, cyclists kill about one pedestrian in the US ( http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mor_ped_inj_in_col_wit_ped_cyc-pedestrian-injured-collision-pedal-cycle ) versus thousands killed by cars and trucks (In 2010, 149 in NYC alone: http://dmv.ny.gov/Statistics/2010NYCAccSummary.pdf ). Bicycles are mostly harmless.
1 reply
The last decade has done an awful lot to discredit "moral" reasoning. Nowadays, when I hear someone claiming to make an argument based on "morality", I start trying to figure out what unpleasant real-world arithmetic they are trying to ignore (often, the real-world arithmetic of body counts). However, if I may make a moral argument of my own -- I hear from the VSPs that inflation is a terrible awful thing, but that we have a need for shared sacrifice. Seems to me that the awfulest and most cleansing sacrifice we could all share, is the horror of 4% inflation. Let's suck it up, and do it.
1 reply
I read ( http://grist.org/climate-energy/solar-panels-could-destroy-u-s-utilities-according-to-u-s-utilities/ ) that solar has one unusual property that does make it somewhat problematic for utilities; when the sun is shining, the producer's marginal cost of a kilowatt-hour is ZERO. Pure profit, but he'll also underbid anyone, and the purchasers also know it. It's worth thinking about; who are the distributors, how are they regulated, who is in the storage business, how are they regulated?
1 reply
Did Rogoff show his work? A good friend and colleague once accused me of being too charitable to other people in our field, and doing the hard work of filling in all the holes that they left in their work and assuming that's what they had meant all along. Rogoff is not interested in solving economic problems; he is interested in advancing a particular political agenda through economicky-sounding arguments. I'm not feeling the least bit diplomatic about this; that paper he co-wrote was mendacious trash, not just an Excel error. He's not trustworthy. Look what happened the last time he finally, finally, showed his work.
1 reply
You may be stuck in the same club and find it necessary to make peace, but given that he co-authored that triply-flawed analysis, I don't see why you should trust him even if you think he is smart. An excel error is one thing; that ridiculous equal-weighting of multiple years in England versus one year in New Zealand is stupid, careless, or deceptive. At best, he failed to check his work, ever, and his claims not to promote austerity are disingenuous. Perhaps I am undiplomatic, but I see no reason why you should assume he is writing in good faith (or, that he is subjecting his own work to the scrutiny it now deserves), even if, as a colleague, you cannot say so in public. Why not ask that bright young man from U Mass what HE thinks?
1 reply
Seems high time for someone's TwitterBot to start issuing daily non-apology-apologies for snarky remarks about Kinsley et al.
1 reply
An security update is available (7u11), as of 2013-01-13; that might be easier than installing 6: http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/downloads/index.html
1 reply
Keeping in mind that I am NOT a lawyer, and I have not read the patent... I started a reply, then understood your point. But I think there is still perhaps something here. I recall some other patent susceptible to a similar argument, but there, the novel item was itself dubiously patentable material. If the gene-inserted-in-soybeans is a patentable thing, then it is no surprise if its primary advantage is that it solves pre-existing problem more efficiently and cheaply, and that seems like it could be a dependent claim. Alternately, perhaps they could patent the actual (biomolecular) process by which the gene deactivates glyphosate in soybean plants. Then, the farmer only infringes when he (1) plants the GM soybeans and then (2) supplies them with glyphosate to deactivate. The transformation is applied to the herbicide, in the field, by the genetic machinery invented by Monsanto. Better?
1 reply
Better not tell them about Pabst Blue Ribbon then. And Errol Morris (Cambridge liberal!) did beer commercials for Miller: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beF_gjnwU5E . And Henry Rollins.
1 reply
If the patent is written to cover the use of glyphosate on soybeans containing the particular gene, it gives a neater definition of infringing behavior, and allows Bob free use of the seeds he collects regardless of their genetic content, provided that he does not use glyphosate on them (in a way that would kill the bean crop if it were not GM).
1 reply
Standard shifting of the goalposts -- call the moderates "radicals", keep repeating that until everyone thinks Obama (nominally black, nominally Democrat, policies of a Rockefeller Republican) is a crazy socialist.
Getting the models right is important. Whatever melted that ice ahead of "schedule" might do the same for permafrost, hydrates on the ocean floor, and Greenland (or it might not -- wouldn't you like to know?)
Yeah, Stein is a better match for my preferences, and because I am voting in what appears to be safely Democratic Massachusetts (yes, I'll be watching the polls) I might even vote for her. The hot race here is Brown vs Warren, also Kennedy vs Bielak for Barney Frank's old seat.
1 reply
Bartlett's irrational. You get two choices, and he has not made the case that they are indistinguishable. Therefore he should vote for whichever one he regards as the lesser evil. Obama will continue to not make the economy better fast enough; Romney will take steps to actively worsen the economy and our long-term outlook, and simple arithmetic shows that this is the case. Does Bartlett dispute this? If not, he should vote for Obama. I think, given the huge amount of money we spend on health and its long term effect on our budget and economy, that Bartlett needs to explain why he thinks health care is a distraction from economic issues; looking at other countries and trends, it seems to me that health care is (among many other things) also an economic issue. He didn't make that case, so I really wonder if he is thinking this through. This presumes that Bartlett doesn't care about gay rights or women's rights, or actual favors Romney's position, but since he did not mention these things, I assume that they are not important to him. Obama's record on global warming is fractionally better than Romney's; but again, Bartlett did not mention this. In addition, even if you regard the outcomes as indistinguishable, Romney's scored worse on several measures of campaign behavior (repeated and outrageous lying; vague about exactly what "hard choices" he proposes; claims that are flat contradicted by arithmetic; not revealing his tax returns, which suggests that he has something to hide; dog-whistle racism) and these should not be rewarded because of the effects that would have on future campaigns. Therefore, a vote for Obama is justified, even if you believe the outcomes are indistinguishable otherwise.
1 reply
One possibility is that they are not really economists; they are politicians, and have always been politicians, and they pursued economics because, under certain conditions, its results align with their political beliefs. Another possibility is that they suspect that in some near decade, the constant-growth gravy-train will cease to run because of hard resource and energy constraints (i.e., given a choice between laws of physics and laws of economics, physics wins), and so plans made assuming future growth are guaranteed to fail. But they're not behaving this way in general, so I don't think this is it (I DO think this is a concern, and I do worry about some weird possible analogy to gold-standard macroeconomics -- what if it is not gold, but lithium, or coltan, or copper, or some actually-rare rare earth?)
1 reply
I'm sure that the @DemocratMachine cooked the numbers. That's the only reason we care that unemployment drops, so we can win elections and impose our incompetent yet ruthless godless Sharia-imposing will on the nation. That, and import more teenage immigrant welfare mothers on drugs for our own immoral purposes.
1 reply
We don't even deal with decades very well. A lot of our oil use is devoted to automobiles. People look at automobiles and their alternatives and focus only on crash deaths (a non-trivial 40k/year), while ignoring lifestyle deaths. Lack of exercise is far more deadly than crashes, but because its effects kick in mostly in the uncertain future, people discount it heavily (plausibly, by a factor of 10x -- that is the rough estimate of the per-person ratio for expected years of life lost to bicycle crashes from riding a bike, versus not getting the exercise from riding a bike. Another estimate is a 39% higher mortality rate for non-cyclists). It's a huge number, and might plausibly explain a good fraction of the reduced life expectancy in this country. (Statistically expected benefits from cycling, either moderate or vigorous, both sexes, range from 2 to 5 years of extra life. And that's "expected", not "maximum"). Walking to the subway or bus is another choice, also with relatively strong statistics in its favor. We don't charge for the no-exercise cost either. We collectively think that our decision to drive-drive-drive is a rational one for our very own selves, never mind what it means for future generations.
1 reply
Ah, but "past history is no guarantee of future performance". As if they really believed that disclaimer when they attach it to their own reports.
1 reply
If Blodget's right about their goals, then Romney's incredibly dishonest. Blodget's okay with that?
1 reply
I don't think that's really the case. His math doesn't add up, he will be unable to produce the spending cuts needed to support anything like tax cuts he claims. And if he cuts taxes anyway and screws up the economy, having a bigger share of a shrinking pie is not actually a better return on your investment. The only way this works is if you're motivated by the sort of innumerate greed that merely seeks the largest possible share of the pie, with no regard for the size of the pie.
1 reply
I can't believe I'm linking to this wanker, but he has it right: "Lying isn’t a sin. It’s a business plan." http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mitt-romneys-enviable-ability-to-ignore-the-truth/2012/04/16/gIQACwTUMT_story.html?hpid=z2 Via the much more reliable: http://mikethemadbiologist.com/
1 reply
I think it's neat that I live not too far from the intersection of Agassiz Ave and Moraine St.
1 reply
I'd be damn suspicious of any financial innovation. This may not rule out CDOs, but CDOs are an example of a corruption-enabling financial instrument -- this result https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/appel/intractability-financial-derivatives says that they are dangerous. An example of how you might have a "safe" CDO would be to turn their construction into some form of pie-sharing algorithm (Alice cuts, Bob chooses, thus giving Alice an incentive to cut fairly).
1 reply