the Johnsonville Press » What is Seen and Not Seen

Reflections on Global Warming – Wesley James Young

Alex G — Mon, 04 May 2009 03:50:46 +0000

What is Seen and Not Seen

On Wednesday the 29th, it was my privilege to attend a lecture given by a skeptic of man-made global warming, Lord Christopher Monckton of Brenchley. It is likely your reaction to such a view will be either vehement opposition to the idea that anyone can disagree with the “inconvenient truth” of Al Gore’s movie or of the sudden realization that maybe one is not alone in one’s doubts.

Lord Monckton gave a most detailed discussion of his objections to the idea that the effects of our CO2 emissions will lead to the apocalypse. I shall try as best I can to note those arguments which were brought up in the discussion and those I have formed myself. Before continuing I must note that disagreeing with a theory does not make one a wilderness hating ogre. I enjoy gardens and the plant life that bleed so readily for my gastronomic enjoyment.But I digress…One argument that Lord Monckton gave was to point out where the IPCC–the United Nations official body for reporting official models of CO2 emissions–excessively overestimated the actual levels to the point of being phantasmagorical. A close examination of the IPCC report brings up some further questions of my own. Why are the emissions scenarios of the IPCC listed in increments of 1990, 2000, 2100 anon? If one is going to predict what chaotic systems will do, would the accuracy rise or fall the further away you moved from the day your data was gathered? Fall, I should think–at least, if this were not the case, economic models would be much more accurate. Unfortunately, I do not possess the knowledge necessary to sanguinely claim that Lord Monckton gives an accurate depiction of the distance between reality and the IPCC predictions.

And unfortunately I cannot afford the time to give you a proper walk through of Lord Monckton’s arguments. The sheer volume of information and the time spent checking the facts would leave my exams fallow. I can only recommend that when you have a spare moment, you give his arguments a close read at http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/science_papers.html.

But I must now confess that I am a skeptic of the idea that mankind is the ultimate cause of the falling sky. I know that the earth is theorized to go up by one degree Celsius over some long period of time but I question the impact of such effects when you consider that life on this planet has been through such warm periods before. The Discovery Channel once ran an entire show about this era, known as the medieval warming period, when wine could be grown in the now cold region of southern Britain. Even if the global temperature rises more than one degree, is it going to suddenly happen over-night?–no. Man will simply do as he has always done in such situations: adapt.

My skepticism is also buttressed by the basic premise of trying to predict the effects of our current society in the long run. Thomas Malthus predicted starvation for the future peoples of the world because the phase “be fruitful and multiply” would eventually cause us to consume all of the fruit. Based on historic records, his predictions were reasonable. The one flaw in his work was the failure to take into account the invention of steam engines, the industrial revolution, and the improvements in medical technology culminating in a much wealthier society that would have more time to have fewer children. This principle is best illustrated today by looking at birth rates across the globe [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b4/World_net_birth_rate_2007.png]. Looking at the map, you will notice that the least industrialized countries produce the most children and fall victim to the Malthusian imperative. Another false prophet of doom is William Stanley Jevons. Jevons was a great economist who wrote a book on an impending coal shortage, http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/Jevons/jvnCQ.html. Over a hundred years later and we have found a new shortage to worry about–classically educated students (we have plenty of oil). The models used to predict the value of houses before our current economic troubles were based upon a limited dataset that only went as far back as the start of a rise in prices so they failed to predict the inevitable problem of a fall in prices.

My point is that raising alarms about problems that will solve themselves can be of no benefit to the commonwealth.

Reflections on Turnitin.com – Wesley James Young

Alex G — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 07:43:56 +0000

What is Seen and Not Seen

The law is a very Newtonian concept until the professional quibblers, lawyers and judges are invited to dilute it into a rhetorical baryogenesis. As thesis meets anti-thesis to produce the synthesis of a judicial decision, lines thought well drawn are shown to be variable and ill-fitting to any prediction. For, those of you who are still awake after my pretentious opening, I am trying to justify taking an unexpected position. Mike Stuzynski recently published a piece in the Targum decrying the use of turnitin. His argument has merit, you can tell I am serious by the fact I have dedicated a lot of words to not refuting it. I am unable to obtain a sample of the work produced by this service, so my argument is based on impression of what the service may be.

If I were to take a copy of Joyce’s Ulysses, presumably borrowed from a friend or found outside a dyspeptic English majors room, and create a service that compares your work to Joyce’s in some manner, would I owe the Joyce estate “four shining sovereigns?” Does Anthony Burges have to return the Rheingold because he wrote a novel that was an echo of the same plot as Wagner’s Der Ring des Nibelungen?

My argument is equivocating the act of quotation and imitation with the services of turnitin, but I have already admitted that I am arguing from a the flawed position of not having complete knowledge of the service in question but until more evidence can be shown, I must say nay to Mike’s argument.

On a more tangential point, there is a book that I am reminded of. Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard Law professor, once wrote a book called The Future of Ideas (available gratis at http://www.the-future-of-ideas.com/download/). He argues in the book for a reduction in the constraints of copyright law. Its relevance is more to our times than it is timely for my argument.

What is Seen and Not Seen – Wesley James Young

Alex G — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 05:52:36 +0000

Recent news items have so prodded my nature that I am almost moved to rant in a manner that would make Coriolanus seem temperate. I am referring to the many reactionary remarks on recent acts of violence and a plan for the legislature of Iowa to allow for homosexuals to marry. I suspect some may accuse me of Apophenia, but there is a connection in these events. That connection is property rights.

If your neighbor buys a Jackson Pollack painting and you are of the opinion that your neighbor is damaging the artistic integrity of your Mondrian—bear with me—does that mean that he should be taken to court for harming you. It does make sense if your neighbor builds a pigsty and the smells and filth offend you, but can an idea harm you? If your neighbor owns a knife, does that harm you? “But I’ve read stories about vicious knife-wielding killers!” you may respond. I remember another man who read stories, some fact and some fiction; he decided to fight the evils in those stories. He also had a partner named Sancho Panza to help him…

But what about guns? A knife has many uses, but a gun is designed to kill, some of you may say. That is like saying that a hammer is designed to pound nails while I demonstrate the fragility of a crab shell or bleach is designed to clean while I mix in a bottle of ammonia. Guns have a myriad of uses including sport shooting and scaring animals away. I find it strange that whenever someone kills with a gun, the questions are about restricting a man’s “right to keep and bear arms” and trying to prevent the unpredictable while any other sort of murder invites questions about the murderer. “Should we get him help” and “why did they let him out” are the first questions asked. If I won something and the only way I can harm you is if I decide to harm you, should you worry about what the object is or how much I value your life?

I do not support the government getting involved in marriage. I believe that marriage is an institution in the hands of the Lord. I am not opposed to a contractual agreement on property sharing and the dissolution of the joint body being submitted before the state but any mention of the word wife and husband should be divorced from the matter. In other words the government should only be involved in the enforcement of contracts and the spiritual side should be left to the churches where they belong. Those that do not wish to perform the spiritual service for homosexuals may do so clear in the knowledge that Congress shall make no laws with respect to religious establishments. Thus I advocate for the government to not “marry” anyone.

Property rights are under fire everyday by those who would pretend towards motherhood and priestly vestments. Never mistake legislators for either.

What is Seen and Not Seen – Wesley James Young

gracie — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 06:20:28 +0000

Having spent some of my time criticizing the ideas of others and theorizing about the source of various flaws in our tutoring services, I feel it time to make clear from where my arguments originate.

There are many different labels that one could use to describe me: Liberal, Conservative, Smith-Hayek, and Quixotic. Such labeling fallaciously assumes a system of abstract ideals to describe my way of thinking. My views have a very simple basis: “if I know a man is determined to help me, I run away.” I am not against the idea of having a government but I am against the idea of treating it like Hercules. Rolling our responsibilities onto his semi-divine shoulders while we go apple picking, only to be tricked into having our own burdens plus a few more returned to our shoulders. A more concrete example would be minimum wage laws. If the lowest wage anyone would receive without such laws is $6 and the new law mandates $6.50, then You have made the guy with a job $.50 richer but you have also made the next employee $.50 more expensive which will lower employment and ultimately lower potential future growth (a burden). The increase in wages will translate to higher prices which will nullify that short term gain and translate into having the previous wage problems returned plus a reduction in employment.But I am a firm believer in taking things with a grain of salt, and so I supplement this article with one by Hugh Rockoff, a more learned economist than myself to support my reasoning: http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PriceControls.html. I know there are studies that support the existence of the minimum wage but I have yet to see a reason why that is consistent with the rest of economic theory. If you find a more convincing reason, let me know.

I am to the straw man commonly referred to as a “free market fundamentalist.” The ability for man to satiate his needs through truck, barter, and exchange has led to the wonders of the modern era. If the whaling industry and the protections that are given to ethanol producers and sugar mongers were not so inhibitory, perhaps today we would be driving whale powered cars–who can say? If there were higher taxes on whale oil, would petroleum have been discovered any sooner? Environmentalists claim that the market cannot get us off of oil fast enough, but why should I fuel up with hydrogen, if oil is cheaper? How many of the government advancements which have benefited the general public resulted from the intended purpose of government research? The internet was originally intended for defense department communication and Teflon was first used as a coating for missile nosecones. Companies invest in technologies that may increase their profits, legislators invest in votes and altruism. When a government project fails, a congress man gets another term. When GM fails, the CEO gets the boot. How long can we sustain such hypocrisy?

What is Seen and Not Seen – Wesley James Young

Alex G — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 07:05:12 +0000

I originally began this letter with a desire to take Alexander Draine to task for the economic policies he has advocated in these past few weeks. I had hoped to end with a small quip about his positions being a Draine on our society. As I pondered and searched for evidence to support my claims, I realized something. Neither one of us has the omniscience necessary to argue our points with the absolute certainty that he has cloaked his arguments in.

I have listened and read the words of men of far greater learning than we. They try to explain the current problems of the economy in many ways. Some lay blame on government regulation, some call this an irrational exuberance in spite of evidence to at least suggest the possibility of incentive effects, and other blame government deregulation. If one were to try and summarize the possible causes in an econometric (the application of statistics to economics) equation, there would be at least twenty variables to deal with. To see a sound summary of these variables, look up the work Mark Jickling has done for the congressional budget office on this subject at http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R40173_20090129.pdf. Some of these variables are possibly dependent on other variables in this hypothetical equation so a number of sophisticated statistic tools would be required to parse those out.

With such a complex series of causes, providing a solution is difficult. The proposed stimulus bill may not have the effects desired for a number of reasons. Government spending is slow as molasses on a December morning and may arrive after the problem has passed. It has been suggested, by John Cochrane of the University of Chicago and Allan Meltzer of Carnegie Mellon, that the problem is a fearful credit market weakened by government policy that leaves the future so uncertain that no none wants to lend incase the government impliments some other plan to confuse the market. The financial markets are thus afraid to take on risk in case the powers that be come up with a plan to nationalize an industry or some other idea from the black box of government policy.

A deeper analysis of the proposed stimulus plan does reveal some potential flaws in its “fearful symmetry”. It should, before continuing, be known that I am paraphrasing the analysis Gary Becker administered in the Becker-Posner blog (I double checked his work). The report by Christina Romer (Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors) and Jared Bernstein of the vice-presidents office predict a 3.7% rise in GDP and 3.5 million jobs will come into being. This is a rather generous estimate when one accounts for the assumption that the stimulus package tax cuts will be treated as permanent tax cuts and spent rather than saved as people tend to do with temporary tax cuts. There is also the problem of limiting these make-work programs to the currently unemployed. If areas stimulated by government spending draw workers away from productive areas, this could further negate the impact of the stimulus package. If the private sector work that is reduced is more valuable than government make-work projects, than that is further negation of GDP growth.

Mr. Draine’s endorsement of the nationalization of our nation’s banks has some long term consequences that he has forgotten to consider. If the government keeps chanting the mantra “too big to fail” and rescues banks whenever there is a crisis, this could encourage excess risk taking by banks. All they have to do is make certain that they are too big to fail and then they have no need to worry about their actions because Uncle Sam will make everything better.

The long term is something not often mentioned in the news. Any praise of a stimulus package to solve our current woes must take into account the near and the distant future. The government is not simply printing $800 billion dollars that never existed before, the consequence of which is the creation of a massive amount of inflation. The government is borrowing from future revenue and/or raising future taxes. That is what one has to think about when you see a large amount of new government spending.

The “science” of Economics is limited for predicting the future. One must always remember to remain skeptical about claims of certainty in economic policy.

This story was originally published by The Daily Targum

You can view the original story at the following address: http://www.dailytargum.com/opinions/a_deeper_look_at_the_stimulus_plan-1.1576034

On What is Seen and Not Seen

Alex G — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 01:03:07 +0000

By Wesley James Young

Classes are not always the easiest things to take. The professor imparts his infinite wisdom and knowledge for us academic mendicants to scrape into our alms cups. Understanding what we have learned is not always that easy, so we look for help. Our fellow classmates tend to share our bewilderment so some manner of tutoring is usually sought ought. That is how we arrive at the Rutgers Tutoring Center.

A typical tutoring center consists of a few empty tables with flags naming subjects of low demand and a few tables, like math, that are rather full. The tutors, hired from the ranks of our fellow class mates, run from student to student answering their questions and trying to help them do homework problems. If one begins to press them, their limits show far more quickly than our professors. We end up leaving, our problems half finished and the mysteries of our subject only half solved.

Why does this service seem so unsatisfactory? After much thought, I have arrived at an explanation for this situation. Consider the cost of obtaining the knowledge which so eludes us. After obtaining sufficient knowledge to safely answer all of your questions, a possible tutor would likely have a high GPA. A high student with a high GPA is faced with at the very least, these three choices: continue studying, get a job, or use his intellectual capital to get a better job.

Rutgers is a public university, and as such its policies and leadership are wholly lacking in one key impetus for a healthy relationship with the community it serves: competition. Dining Services is paid whether you eat there or not, especially if you live in the dorms where you are required to have a meal plan. Your tuition is paid for regardless of your attendance. Students compete to give money to this institution and Rutgers has little competition for students already enrolled. These are not circumstances conducive towards offering a high rate of pay.

A skilled student could undoubtedly apply himself to obtaining a well paying job. But he may also find tutoring quite lucrative. I can recall seeing flyers scattered about campus advertising tutoring in various forms of math for ten dollars per hour. Unless Rutgers offers comparable rates of pay, it would be difficult to convince the most skillful students to work for them. Nonetheless, Rutgers offers a service with a marginal price of zero, it is not free since it is likely paid for with student fees but there is no fee to enter or make use of the facilities. How do other tutors compete with that?

Consider what a freelance tutor has to do in order to gain your ten dollars. He has to convince you that his services are worth ten dollars. To do this he might sell himself as more learned in his subject, and thus better able to help you. The Rutgers tutor most likely gets paid by the number of students who make use of his services or by the hour; it is hard to imagine a set of incentives less conducive to quality work.

I do not claim to hold the final word on the subject. I have merely attempted to use economics to explain phenomena that may be of interest to others. If you are unsatisfied with this explanation, find a better one, and please, share it with the rest of us.