Common Sense . . . Almost

I was reading about the California Woman who just gave birth to octuplets. The poor lady had 6 kids already.

It seems like the media has no shortage of advice and criticism for her. Some stories imply that any sane person would have aborted several of the babies, others wonder about a possible breach of medical ethics by the doctor who implanted 8 embryos in the first place.

I'm glad she didn't abort them, I do wonder about the doctor though. Fox news tries to at least be helpful

"Eating, sleeping and bathing are the key areas to get scheduled," he said. "The same goes for mom and dad. Parents need to make sure they're whole or else they won't be valuable to their children."

Good, so far so good, just good common sense, but then common sense seems to go right out the window:

Sophy said the expense of raising 14 children will likely be prohibitive, citing studies that estimate it costs roughly $2.5 million to raise a child to adulthood. Using that math, raising 14 children would cost roughly $35 million.

"And that's basic stuff," he said. "That doesn't include swimming lessons and things like that. It's very costly and hopefully the planning that needs to be done was done upfront."

What the heck? 2.5 million dollars? For one child? Who won't even know how to swim? I don't even have to think to know that that is patently absurd.

If your family makes $100,000 a year and spends every penny on only one child for 20 years that's still only 2 million dollars. Throw in a $100,000 college education, and another $100,000 for law school, and you're still not there.

Common sense should tell you that many people who don't earn 2.5 million dollars in their lifetime successfully raise children to adulthood. For example, the median income in the U.S. is about $50,000. that median earner will need 50 years to make 2.5 million. Obviously it doesn't cost them 2.5 million to raise one child.

The reporter makes matters worse by simply regurgitating the number and then calculating that it will take 35 million dollars to raise the 14 children in the family.

Absolutely ridiculous.

Global Warming Alert! III

Don't you hate it when the world just refuses to cooperate with your political agenda?

NASA has been caught falsifying global temperature data again. Amazingly enough, this error also made it appear that global temperatures are rising. Huh, seems like all the errors are only in one direction. Weird.

On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.

Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China's official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its "worst snowstorm ever". In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.

So it's not like they're arguing over "warmest" vs. "3rd warmest." So, how did this happen?

The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.

So, September was the warmest October ever, amazing! Most disturbingly:

last week's latest episode is far from the first time Dr Hansen's methodology has been called in question. In 2007 he was forced by Mr Watts and Mr McIntyre to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s, as he had claimed, but the 1930s.

Strangely enough:

The figures published by Dr Hansen's institute are not only one of the four data sets that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relies on to promote its case for global warming, but they are the most widely quoted, since they consistently show higher temperatures than the others.

This type of statistical blindness is evidence of either malicious intent, or rank incompetence and lazy fact checking from seeing exactly what you expect to see, and not questioning it.

Here are links to the blogs of the two scientists who are policing Hansen's stats.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

http://www.climateaudit.org/

Global Warming Alert! II

In my previous post I listed several cold weather events which were all no doubt just amazing coincidences, and not any evidence against global warming.

After all, a few incidents do not a climate make. But what if it was more like a whole year of data, and not just from one or two places, but from say the entire continental United States.

BEHOLD:



But, one year does not a climate make. There has to be some kind of trend. Okay, how about 10 years. Surely over ten years, CO2 and temperature would increase together, right?



Ok, so the global average temperature hasn't increased in 10 years, it's decreased. We're talking about a long-term trend here. let's look at the last 600 years. Surely man hasn't been impacting global climate any longer than that:



The correct temperature line, the darker one, shows that it was much warmer 600 years ago than it is today. This is obvious from history. Grapes grew in England during the 12-15th centuries. the Vikings colonized Greenland. They only left because of global cooling. If Greenland is warming today, it isn't the first time.

What's my point?

Global warming advocate always pick their time frame very carefully.

It's usually from the 1940s to 2000. (leaving out the warmer 1930s and the cooler 2000-2008) That temperature graph show an increase. As I've shown above though, pick a different time and you get a different result. You start to see the forest, not just the trees.

Are some areas warming? - YES. Are some areas cooling? - YES. Is the climate changing? - YES. Has the climate ALWAYS changed? - YES. Is today's climate ideal? - no one knows, but it certainly isn't unprecedented, unusual or out of control.

A good resource to counter all the hype is found here.

Change You Can Believe In - Part I: Economics.

(Sorry, this is a little long).

I was glancing through Senator Obama's "Blueprint For Change" which outlines his policies and priorities, when I began to wonder how much spending has been promised. I decided to search to whole document and find out. All quotes are directly from Obama's Blueprint. Keep in mind that these are only the items that Obama has promised that include a specific dollar amount. I've done my best to weed out duplicate spending and to be generally fair. Let's start with a piece of Obama's plan I agree with:

Obama will reinstate pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budget rules, so that new spending or tax cuts are paid for by spending cuts or new revenue (ie tax increases) elsewhere.

Well, it's about time! Keep this in mind. I'll come back to it later. Let's take a look at how much spending Senator Obama will need to offset.

---

First direct spending promises:

reduce a typical family’s premiums by as much as $2,500 per year (through government-funded health care)

Cost: 100 billion dollars/year (400 billion for his first term)

(Guessing conservatively, at an average of $1000 times 100 million families; this jives with Obama's own estimated cost for his health insurance plan).

$10 billion a year over the next five years to move the U.S. health care system to broad adoption of standards-based electronic health information systems.

Cost: 10 billion/year (50 billion total)

Obama will provide a $1.5 billion fund to assist states with start-up costs (of FMLA reform)

Total cost: 1.5 billion total

Create Automatic Workplace Pensions -employers who do not currently offer a retirement plan, will be required to enroll their employees in a direct-deposit IRA account that is compatible to existing direct-deposit payroll systems...His plan will match 50 percent of the first $1,000 of savings for families that earn less than $75,000.

This one is hard to price. Considering the number of families earning less than 75,000 (a large majority) the cost could be enormous. Besides, I thought social security was the answer:

“We … have an obligation to protect Social Security and ensure that it’s a safety net the American people can count on today, tomorrow and forever.
–Barack Obama, Speech in Des Moines, IA, October 27, 2007

So, we won't count that one.

Obama will invest $150 billion over ten years to deploy clean technologies

Cost: 15 billion/year (150 billion total)

Obama will create a Clean Technologies Venture Capital Fund to fill a critical gap in U.S. technology development. Obama will invest $10 billion per year into this fund for five years

Cost: 10 billion/year (50 billion total)

Obama will invest $1 billion over five years in transitional jobs and career pathway programs

Cost: .2 billion/year (1 billion total)

He will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi refugees

cost: 2 billion total

he will double our foreign assistance to $50 billion to achieve that goal (cutting world poverty)

Total cost: 25 billion/year

Total Spending: 679.5 billion dollars.

Total ongoing yearly spending: 160.2 billion dollars.

---

Now let's look at new tax cuts:

Obama will cut income taxes by $1,000 for working families to offset the payroll tax they pay

Cost: 20 billion/year (if 20% of families are "working").

Obama will create a new “Making Work Pay” tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family.

Cost: 20 billion/year (see above assumptions)

Obama will create a 10 percent universal mortgage credit to provide tax relief to homeowners who do not itemize. This credit will provide an average of $500 to 10 million homeowners

Cost: 5 billion dollars

an immediate tax cut averaging $1,400 to 7 million seniors

Cost: 9.8 billion dollars

Obama will create a new  American Opportunity Tax Credit...This $4,000 tax credit will be fully refundable...

Also very hard to value. Potentially huge. We'll ignore this one too.

Total tax cuts per year: 54.8 billion dollars.

---

So, by Obama's own reckoning, every year (for at least 5 years)the federal government will need to come up with a minimum of 215 billion dollars additional tax revenue (54.8 billion + 160.2) if Obama is really going to offset these expenses. Of course this also assumes zero spending growth for every other government agency and program: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Military spending, interest on the debt, Education, etc . . . . or Obama could cut spending . . . (yeah, that's going to happen).

Total federal tax revenue for 2007 was 2568 billion dollars. The needed tax increase will, therefore, be 8.4% on average for every taxpaying entity in America. The reality will be much greater for some taxpayers and corporations than others given the fact that nearly 50% of taxpayers pay no income taxes, and Obama's stated preference for raising taxes only on corporations and "the rich."

This minimum increase excludes onetime spending and several ongoing programs I listed above. It also excludes many other programs, funds, grants, commissions and panels which are promised but not given a dollar value.

It also does not include the "cap and trade" carbon reduction program which amounts to an enormous tax on energy production. It also excludes the "windfall profits tax" on the oil companies. It does not include the cost to business of increasing the minimum wage or of compliance with any of the additional regulations Obama proposes.

Finally, this assumes that nothing goes over-budget - this is the government we're talking about here.

This is the minimum cost of "change you can believe in."

Surprised Economists

I've been struck repeatedly over the last few years by how many stories about the economy contain phrases along the lines of "economists were surprised by..."

It seems like they are surprised by any economic news that comes out. Something is always more or less than predictions, and not by just a little, but by orders of magnitude. For example, economists were surprised again today by job numbers and factory orders. (Incidentally, I wish I'd got to this earlier, the wording earlier today was different, the "news people" softened their description of how surprising the numbers were).

a government report showed the nation’s employers cut far fewer jobs than expected last month, stirring optimism about the buoyancy of the economy. . .

The Labor Department’s report that employers cut 20,000 jobs in April was a relief to Wall Street, which had been expecting payrolls to fall by 75,000 jobs. . .

The Commerce Department said U.S. manufacturers saw orders increase 1.4 percent in March. Economists expected a 0.2 percent increase after declines in January and February.

They were expecting 75000 fewer jobs. They were only off by 275% This one isn't sooooo bad, after all there are a lot of jobs in the nation, and the usual gains are 200-300 thousand. Maybe they had a bad day. But, 0.2 versus 1.4? That's off by 600% and the viable range on those numbers is never more than a few percentage points.

I can only think of 3 explanations for the constant stream of these stories:

• First, the stupid economists are the only ones giving interviews.
• Second, these are the smart ones, and even they don't know what they are talking about.
• Third, and this is my theory: You cannot reduce the countless individual choices of a quarter billion people to a formula with any degree of accuracy.

This may disappoint some of my economist friends, but economics is NOT a hard science, it is a descriptive science. It is valuable when looking retrospectively, but absolutely useless as a tool for precise prediction.

Economics is not the only 'science' with this problem. Political science, sociology, psychology, and even, to some extent biology have the same shortcoming. This is because they are trying to predict the actions of beings with souls and free will. In such cases, the best you can do is averages and general trends.

That doesn't mean they are not worthwhile tools, but their practitioners need to recognize the limits of their science and not advocate more detailed policies than the science can support.

Global Warming Ravages the Planet!

I found the most interesting site the other day. Have you ever wished that someone would just list all the research on global warming so we could all see just what the effects will be?

Well, wait no longer. Courtesy of numberwatch.co.uk, I give you . . . A complete list of things caused by global warming.

It's a long list, with links to every single item.

The site also has other fun lists, such as a list of everything that causes cancer, according to epidemiologists.

Enjoy.

Hit With the Ugly Stick

Another news story with my comments interspersed. . .

The best marriages are those where women marry men who are less attractive than themselves, research has found.

Psychologists who studied newlyweds found men who were better-looking than their wives were more likely to be unhappy and have negative feelings about their marriage.

Whenever a story talks about measuring things like attractiveness, you know it's going to be worthless. Better looking? What units are those again? centilookers, or is it Wayne and Garth's scale, I forget. Must be the ISO beauty standard, revision 2 most likely.

In couples where the wife is more attractive, both partners tended to be very content.

That depends on who's doing the evaluation, both as to attractiveness and as to contentment.

Did the researchers tell the couples which one was more attractive? if not, doesn't that indicate a pre-existing bias in minds of the participating couples? If so, doesn't that bias the sample too? Either way, won't that affect the findings?

If they were evaluated by someone else, what does that tell us? Only that the finding are valid for those people evaluating the beauty of the subjects, nothing more. Change evaluators, and the results change. There is just no way to measure beauty.

The research, published in the Journal of Family Psychology, suggests that, in evolutionary terms, women are less choosy about their man's looks as long as he is able to help them reproduce.

Men, however, are programmed to choose a mate who is most likely to pass on their genes and look for youth, health and physical attractiveness.

Programmed? Doesn't that imply organization, hierarchy and order?

The tests involved 82 couples married within the previous six months.

Six months? They know enough to measure contentment after six months?

This whole article raises the question of why these couples get married in the first place. if the men really found their wives unattractive, why marry? Also, what kind of moron volunteers for a study and brags about being more attractive than his wife. The fact the participants are evaluating others based on physical appearance indicates a certain shallowness among the participants.

My guess is they are not content because they are stuck on themselves. It has nothing to do with their spouse.

Nothing about these articles makes any sense.

Why I Quit the Social Sciences

MSNBC has an encouraging headline today:

Bucking the trend in many other wealthy industrialized nations, the United States seems to be experiencing a baby boomlet, reporting the largest number of children born in 45 years.

The nearly 4.3 million births in 2006 were mostly due to a bigger population, especially a growing number of Hispanics. That group accounted for nearly one-quarter of all U.S. births. But non-Hispanic white women and other racial and ethnic groups were having more babies, too....

The same report also showed births becoming more common in nearly every age and racial or ethnic group. Birth rates increased for women in their 20s, 30s and early 40s, not just teens. They rose for whites, blacks, Hispanics, American Indians and Alaska Natives.

If I were to guess at the reasons, I would say things like: "people are confident in the future" or "people are well-to-do enough that they can support a larger family" or simply "Americans love family and value children."

According to "the experts," however, I would be mistaken. The actual reasons, of course, are:

a decline in contraceptive use, a drop in access to abortion, poor education and poverty.

Huh??? That the stupidest thing I've read in weeks. I must have missed the Supreme Court's over-ruling of Roe v. Wade, and the onset of the current Depression with its widespread poverty. I'm sorry, but poor education does NOT explain an increase in fertility among women in their 30s and 40s.

This is a prime example of social science failing to see the trees for the forest (to turn the metaphor around). They are taking a generalization and applying it to a specific case (the U.S.) which may not fit the generalization. All this "expert" did was think of the generalizations commonly used to explain the decline in fertility which usually accompanies economic development, then... and this is a basic logical fallacy... assumed that since fertility increased, the level of development as measured by the above factors must have declined.

Anyone who has had any logic training at all knows that:

If A (development), then B (lower fertility)
Not B,
ergo not A

is not logically sound.

That is what I hated about the social sciences. They all seem to believe that because the group acts a certain way on average, individuals within the group act the same way. No allowance is made for individual choice or action. Everything is averages, means and standard deviations.

Social Science cannot explain individual cases that deviate from the norm. It cannot account for Ghandi or Hitler, Mother Teresa or Stalin, the Pioneers or the Crusades, Jim Jones or Jesus Christ, and it cannot, apparently, explain why Americans love and value children more than Europeans do.

The Top 1%

We've heard a lot this election cycle about "the top 1%" of income earners. Usually in a context like this:

Mr./Ms. Candidate (D): ". . . and I'll give every American healthcare by making sure the top 1% pay their fair share!"
Audience: (applause)
Newscaster: "A bold new proposal, from a bold new . . . (blah, blah, blah)"

But who are the mysterious "top 1%?" and what is "their fair share" anyway?

One gets the impression that they are watching CNN, poolside at the summer home, champagne in hand, laughing at the audacity of the politicians and vowing: "I will never, NEVER! pay my fair share!"

Or perhaps they are meeting old friends at the upscale "Club Un Percenteaux" in Manhattan (a very exclusive club -- it only admits 1% of those who apply) and plotting to buy off Congress to keep their low tax rates.

Thomas Sowell has a great article on who they are on National Review Online. Turns out the club isn't so exclusive after all:

Who are those top one percent? For those who would like to join them, the question is: How can you do that?

The second question is easy to answer. Virtually anyone who owns a home in San Francisco, no matter how modest that person’s income may be, can join the top one percent instantly just by selling their house.

But that’s only good for one year, you may say. What if they don’t have another house to sell next year?

Well, they won’t be in the top one percent again next year, will they? But that’s not unusual.

Americans in the top one percent, like Americans in most income brackets, are not there permanently, despite being talked about and written about as if they are an enduring “class” — especially by those who have overdosed on the magic formula of “race, class and gender,” which has replaced thought in many intellectual circles.

At the highest income levels, people are especially likely to be transient at that level. Recent data from the Internal Revenue Service show that more than half the people who were in the top one percent in 1996 were no longer there in 2005. . .

These are not permanent classes but mostly people at current income levels reached by spikes in income that don’t last.

More ways to get in the club:

These income spikes can occur for all sorts of reasons. In addition to selling homes in inflated housing markets like San Francisco, people can get sudden increases in income from inheritances, or from a gamble that pays off, whether in the stock market, the real estate market, or Las Vegas. . . corporate CEOs, those who cash in stock options that they have accumulated over the years get a big spike in income the year that they cash them in. . . Some of these incomes are almost as large as those of big-time entertainers — who are never accused of “greed,” by the way.

I might add own a small business to the list. The tax code makes it easy to live very well off your business, and report almost no income (it's been reinvested in the business).

It's not the same people who are rich at any given time. That's the beauty of the American economy. Anyone really can get rich (at least for a while), and no one has to stay poor. The free flow of goods and labor, the flexibility of business to hire (and fire) as necessary, and nearly universal access to education means that:

Most Americans in the top fifth, the bottom fifth, or any of the fifths in between, do not stay there for a whole decade, much less for life. And most certainly do not remain permanently in the top one percent or the top one-hundredth of one percent.

As to what "their fair share" may be, who knows. One might think it would be roughly the same as their percentage of the total income in the country. I do know that (according to the IRS) in 2004 they paid

• 36.89% of all income taxes, and made
  
• 19% of the total income.

Meanwhile, the bottom 50% paid

• 3.3% of all income taxes, and made
• 13.4% of the total income

There's at least an argument that they pay their share already.