Monday, September 29, 2008
Thursday, September 25, 2008
My music was better than your music.
This is the most bizarre chart I think I have seen regarding oil production. Need I remind of the difference between correlation and causation? Theories anyone?
Thursday, September 18, 2008
A liberal tightwad?
WASHINGTON -- Democratic vice presidential nominee Sen. Joe Biden released 10 years of tax returns Friday, in what his campaign said was in part an attempt to pressure his Republican counterpart, Sarah Palin, to do the same.
The returns, posted on running mate Sen. Barack Obama's campaign Web site for the tax years from 1998 through 2007, offered few surprises about the finances of the Delaware senator. Sen. Biden, in his sixth term, has long been viewed as a man of relatively modest means in a governmental body studded with millionaires.
The Bidens' joint gross income hovered between $215,000 and $320,000 a year during this period, and their tax rates, between 16% and 20% of total income, the records showed. They claimed very little investment income. Their biggest deduction was for mortgage interest on their Wilmington, Del., home. That interest totaled $38,000 in 2007.
The returns, posted on running mate Sen. Barack Obama's campaign Web site for the tax years from 1998 through 2007, offered few surprises about the finances of the Delaware senator. Sen. Biden, in his sixth term, has long been viewed as a man of relatively modest means in a governmental body studded with millionaires.
The Bidens' joint gross income hovered between $215,000 and $320,000 a year during this period, and their tax rates, between 16% and 20% of total income, the records showed. They claimed very little investment income. Their biggest deduction was for mortgage interest on their Wilmington, Del., home. That interest totaled $38,000 in 2007.
The amount they gave to charity during this period never exceeded one-half of 1% of their annual income. The Bidens never gave more than $995 to charity in any of the tax years, and usually gave much less.
Since 1975 Americans have given between 1.6 percent and 2.16 percent of their income to charitable concerns. - McKay
Economists Speak About the Election
By Justin Wolfers
Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, is interested in electing the candidate who will be best for the economy. But along the way he has learned the iron law of the political marketplace: there is an excess supply of political blowhards, and there are far too few unbiased experts. Even worse, it is hard to sort out just who is an expert and who is a blowhard.
But Scott had an ingenious insight: an anonymous survey of leading economists might yield an unbiased snapshot of the opinions of professional economists. He paid a survey company to survey over 500 members of the American Economic Association, and he just released the findings.
The headline: Overall, 59 percent of his respondents think Obama would be best for the economy’s long-term prospects, compared to 31 percent for McCain, while 10 percent thought there would be no difference.
Some might argue that these results aren’t too surprising, given that 48 percent of the sample are registered Democrats, compared to the 17 percent registered as Republicans. As such, it might be more interesting to focus on the independents, who chose Obama by a margin of 46 percent to 39 percent.
The most important issues? According to the economists surveyed, the top four issues are education, health care, international trade, and energy. They expect Obama will do a better job on education, health care, and energy, but they give the nod to McCain on international trade. I was surprised to see that “reducing the deficit” ranked so low on the list, but perhaps that reflects the myriad of other concerns currently on the agenda.
There’s another very nice finding in this survey: economists’ views on the candidates are not really shaped by their incomes. Hopefully this suggests that we are able to see beyond pure self interest.
You can read more from Scott Adams here or see his own interpretation here. You can also view the raw data in this PowerPoint deck.
Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, is interested in electing the candidate who will be best for the economy. But along the way he has learned the iron law of the political marketplace: there is an excess supply of political blowhards, and there are far too few unbiased experts. Even worse, it is hard to sort out just who is an expert and who is a blowhard.
But Scott had an ingenious insight: an anonymous survey of leading economists might yield an unbiased snapshot of the opinions of professional economists. He paid a survey company to survey over 500 members of the American Economic Association, and he just released the findings.
The headline: Overall, 59 percent of his respondents think Obama would be best for the economy’s long-term prospects, compared to 31 percent for McCain, while 10 percent thought there would be no difference.
Some might argue that these results aren’t too surprising, given that 48 percent of the sample are registered Democrats, compared to the 17 percent registered as Republicans. As such, it might be more interesting to focus on the independents, who chose Obama by a margin of 46 percent to 39 percent.
The most important issues? According to the economists surveyed, the top four issues are education, health care, international trade, and energy. They expect Obama will do a better job on education, health care, and energy, but they give the nod to McCain on international trade. I was surprised to see that “reducing the deficit” ranked so low on the list, but perhaps that reflects the myriad of other concerns currently on the agenda.
There’s another very nice finding in this survey: economists’ views on the candidates are not really shaped by their incomes. Hopefully this suggests that we are able to see beyond pure self interest.
You can read more from Scott Adams here or see his own interpretation here. You can also view the raw data in this PowerPoint deck.
City uses DNA to fight dog poop
PETAH TIKVA, Israel (Reuters) - An Israeli city is using DNA analysis of dog droppings to reward and punish pet owners.
Under a six-month trial programm launched this week, the city of Petah Tikva, a suburb of Tel Aviv, is asking dog owners to take their animal to a municipal veterinarian, who then swabs its mouth and collects DNA.
The city will use the DNA database it is building to match feces to a registered dog and identify its owner.
Owners who scoop up their dogs' droppings and place them in specially marked bins on Petah Tikva's streets will be eligible for rewards of pet food coupons and dog toys.
But droppings found underfoot in the street and matched through the DNA database to a registered pet could earn its owner a municipal fine.
"My goal is to get the residents involved, and tell them that together, we can make our environment clean," said Tika Bar-On, the city's chief veterinarian who came up with the idea for the DNA experiment.
Under a six-month trial programm launched this week, the city of Petah Tikva, a suburb of Tel Aviv, is asking dog owners to take their animal to a municipal veterinarian, who then swabs its mouth and collects DNA.
The city will use the DNA database it is building to match feces to a registered dog and identify its owner.
Owners who scoop up their dogs' droppings and place them in specially marked bins on Petah Tikva's streets will be eligible for rewards of pet food coupons and dog toys.
But droppings found underfoot in the street and matched through the DNA database to a registered pet could earn its owner a municipal fine.
"My goal is to get the residents involved, and tell them that together, we can make our environment clean," said Tika Bar-On, the city's chief veterinarian who came up with the idea for the DNA experiment.
Incentives work in the strangest ways. -Mr. McKay
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
Poor P Diddy
LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- Fuel prices have grounded an unexpected frequent-flyer: Diddy.
Sean "Diddy" Combs complained about the "... too high" price of gas and pleaded for free oil from his "Saudi Arabia brothers and sisters" in a YouTube video posted Wednesday.
The hip-hop mogul said he is now flying on commercial airlines instead of in private jets, which Combs said had previously cost him $200,000 and up for a roundtrip between New York and Los Angeles.
"I'm actually flying commercial," Diddy said before walking onto an airplane, sitting in a first-class seat and flashing his boarding pass to the camera. "That's how high gas prices are. I'm at the gate right now. This is really happening, proof gas prices are too high. Tell whoever the next president is we need to bring gas prices down."
Sean "Diddy" Combs complained about the "... too high" price of gas and pleaded for free oil from his "Saudi Arabia brothers and sisters" in a YouTube video posted Wednesday.
The hip-hop mogul said he is now flying on commercial airlines instead of in private jets, which Combs said had previously cost him $200,000 and up for a roundtrip between New York and Los Angeles.
"I'm actually flying commercial," Diddy said before walking onto an airplane, sitting in a first-class seat and flashing his boarding pass to the camera. "That's how high gas prices are. I'm at the gate right now. This is really happening, proof gas prices are too high. Tell whoever the next president is we need to bring gas prices down."
How can we call ourselves a civilized nation if a man of Diddy's talents has to fly on a commercial airplane? Such a tragedy.
Mr. McKay
Did Soap Operas Shrink Brazil’s Families?
By Freakonomics
Between 1960 and 2000, Brazil’s fertility rate plummeted from 6.3 to 2.3. The only other country with a comparable decline during that period was China, under its rigid one-child policy. But what was behind the Brazilian fertility plunge?
One major factor may have been the influence of soap operas, according to a fascinating new working paper by Eliana La Ferrara, Alberto Chong, and Suzanne Duryea, issued by the Bureau of Economic Analysis for Development. Brazil’s most popular prime-time soaps have for years revolved around small and stable middle-class families that were much smaller than the traditional Brazilian family. The study found that wherever the soaps aired, the fertility for women dropped significantly, as they adapted to the reality they saw on television.
Imported soap operas, meanwhile, seem to have had no effect on fertility rates.
The study builds on work by the economists Robert Jensen and Emily Oster on the role television plays in the empowerment of women in rural India. But this new study is among the first to focus on the effects of specific programming.
Between 1960 and 2000, Brazil’s fertility rate plummeted from 6.3 to 2.3. The only other country with a comparable decline during that period was China, under its rigid one-child policy. But what was behind the Brazilian fertility plunge?
One major factor may have been the influence of soap operas, according to a fascinating new working paper by Eliana La Ferrara, Alberto Chong, and Suzanne Duryea, issued by the Bureau of Economic Analysis for Development. Brazil’s most popular prime-time soaps have for years revolved around small and stable middle-class families that were much smaller than the traditional Brazilian family. The study found that wherever the soaps aired, the fertility for women dropped significantly, as they adapted to the reality they saw on television.
Imported soap operas, meanwhile, seem to have had no effect on fertility rates.
The study builds on work by the economists Robert Jensen and Emily Oster on the role television plays in the empowerment of women in rural India. But this new study is among the first to focus on the effects of specific programming.
Here is my question. If the Brazillian baby/TV connection is valid what does that say about the future of American families? Ideas? Caveats?
Mr. McKay
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
