HT: Mark Perry

“Air pollution is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone,” Paul Ehrlich in an interview in Mademoiselle magazine, April 1970. Ehrlich also predicted that in 1973, 200,000 Americans would die from air pollution, and that by 1980 the life expectancy of Americans would be 42 years. (Currently we are at 77.8 years)

“By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half...” Life magazine, January 1970.

Most Earth Day predictions turned out to be stunningly wrong. In 1970, environmentalists predicted a new ice age and massive deaths from air pollution. The New York Times foresaw the extinction of the human race. Widely-quoted biologist Paul Ehrlich predicted worldwide starvation by 1975. Consider that since 1970, the U.S. population has increased by 50.25%, miles driven has increased by 159% and real gross domestic product has increased 203%; yet air quality is better than ever.

My friend Malinda blogged about the Backstreet boys the other day:

"Am I the only person who always had a sneaking suspicion that the song, “I want it that way,” by the Backstreet Boys, was about anal sex? I mean, come on; what else could it have been she wanted that he was so nervous about? Where in the living room she wanted the sofa? I think not."


So I read the Lyrics and discovered that there is an original alternate version. It's a simple and unimaginative love song:


I'm yours completely,
I feel so deeply,
You're my first thought everyday,
And I want it that way,

My life is for you,
And I adore you,
And I love you more, everyday,
And I want it that way,

No goodbyes,
Ain't nothin' but a heartache,
No more lies,
Ain't nothin' but a mistake
That is why,
I love it when I hear you say,
I want it that way

My heart is on fire,
Such a strong desire,
Yes I know it's too late
But I want it that way

I gave you my heart,
Baby right from the start,
And that's the way it will always be, yeah
No matter the distance,
I want you to know,
That deep down inside of me,

You are my fire,
The one desire,

You are, you are, you are, you are,
Don't wanna hear you say,

Ain't nothin' but a heartache,
Ain't nothin' but a mistake,
I love it when I hear you say,
I want it that way,
'Cos I want it that way.

Apparently the studio people got their grubby little paws on it and were successful in turning this thing into an epic meditation on intangibility. The new words are completely meaningless, and turned the song into the groups undisputed masterpiece. Here is the current radio edit:

You are my fire
The one desire
Believe when I say
I want it that way

But we are two worlds apart
Can't reach to your heart
When you say
That I want it that way

Tell me why
Ain't nothin' but a heartache
Tell me why
Ain't nothin' but a mistake
Tell me why
I never wanna hear you say
I want it that way

Am I your fire
Your one desire
Yes I know it's too late
But I want it that way

Now I can see that we're falling apart
From the way that it used to be, yeah
No matter the distance
I want you to know
That deep down inside of me...

You are my fire
The one desire
You are
You are, you are, you are

Don't wanna hear you say
Ain't nothin' but a heartache
Ain't nothin' but a mistake
(Don't wanna hear you say)
I never wanna hear you say
I want it that way

Tell me why
Ain't nothin' but a heartache
Tell me why
Ain't nothin but a mistake
Tell me why
I never wanna hear you say
(Don't wanna hear you say it)
I want it that way
I want it that way

So if we could only look at the backstreet boys and listen to the radio edit, we can easily conclude that they are talking to each other about how they want it that way. From each other. If, on the other hand, we read the original lyrics, we easily conclude otherwise; it is the studio executives who wish to keep us in the dark about the true meaning of the song, to keep us listlessly wandering in an emotional vacuum. What is the world coming to?

I just scanned this from "Eat, Drink, and Be Healthy" by Walter C. Willett, MD. Co-Developed with the Harvard School of Public Health.

Interesting to note that "the dose makes the poison" is clear here. A small amount will help, a lot will kill, and failing to drink at all appears to be about as bad as slightly over-drinking. Alcoholics Anonymous and most medical doctors will admit that moderate drinking is healthy, but recommend against it because of it's easy potential for abuse.

This is also correlational data, like most health related studies, this one looked at who lived the longest and drew correlations to their diet. It could be that easy going relaxed and long lived people simply have a habit of drinking moderately.

However, it is likely that alcohol helps in moderation because we know that blood thinning drugs, including aspirin and chemicals in some plants, can help to prevent heart disease. It also appears not to matter if the alcohol is wine, beer, or hard liquor.

In the late 1960s, Stanford University conducted an experiment on young childrens' self-control and ability to delay gratification. Researchers would give young children a choice: the child could either eat one marshmallow right away or, if he or she was willing to wait while the researcher stepped out of the room for a few minutes, the child could have two marshmallows when the researcher returned. If the children rang a bell on the desk the researcher would come running back, and the child could eat one marshmallow but would forfeit the second.

Most of the children struggled to resist the treat and held out for an average of less than three minutes. About 30% of the children successfully delayed gratification until the researcher returned, some fifteen minutes later. These kids wrestled with temptation but found a way to resist.

An analysis of the results showed that the children who rang the bell quickly, seemed more likely to have behavioral problems, both in school and at home. They got lower S.A.T. scores. They struggled in stressful situations, often had trouble paying attention, and found it difficult to maintain friendships. The child who could wait fifteen minutes had an S.A.T. score that was, on average, 210 points higher than that of the kid who could wait only thirty seconds. Read more at the New Yorker

"The "public interest" is regarded as a valid principle to guide legislation... [but] there is no such entity as “the public,” since the public is merely a number of individuals. The idea that the public interest supersedes private interests can have but one meaning: that the interests of some individuals take precedence over the rights of others."
-Ayn Rand

This seems like a brilliant observation, but on second thought, it isn't necessarily true, especially in "Prisoner's Dilemma" situations. For example, imagine you and I are fishermen. We know that over-fishing our lake will harm us and the other man. If we don't agree to fish at a certain acceptable rate, both of us will calculate that the other man will over-fish, and that we may as well over-fish until the lake is harvested to zero. In this case the "public" interest is synonymous with our mutual interestl. This can also be seen in "tragedy of the commons" situations, where public land is abused because no one owns it.

Both situations are solved when someone owns the lake or the land, and both would be solved if all fishermen or land users came to a mutual agreement on fishing or grazing rates, which is an agreement to protect the mutual interests of all parties. The easy solution is private ownership of everything; the problems only arise when ownership is split amongst many people, none of whom hold a strong interest in the property. The harm from each person in a tragedy of the commons is small, but results in a devastated common area. The best solution is to have private ownership of that previously common land, second best would be direct ownership by government (land managed badly at great expense), and worst is to allow it to remain common land (land is destroyed).

Prisoner's dilemmas do not need to involve idiots. All parties can be rational, and that's why they are so interesting. It's a situation where each person thinks "the other guy might confess, so I will confess first." It becomes too high-risk to trust the other person, so confessing is more optimal. In the same way, two rational fishermen will think "he's going to over-fish and take all the fish, so I will harvest fish as fast as possible." It becomes a race to get all the fish out first. Both fishermen know that if they make an agreement that is enforceable, they will both be better off in the long run, and that is why many people feel that enforcing contracts and maintaing courts of law is part of government's legitimate purpose.

However, the Prisoner's Dilemma is not the fundamental game theory problem it appears to be. It is no mystery why two men fail to cooperate even when it is in each man's best interest to do so. It is not paradoxical at all. The men fail to cooperate because they have no ability to make an effective and binding agreement. It is a dilemma only because there is no rule of law (they cannot create an enforceable contract), so the worst possible outcome for each man is the result (both confess). Prisoner's Dilemma situations only occur when parties are forced to negotiate an exchange without mutual trust, and are easily resolved when trust is introduced. Rule of law is one method for encouraging trust.  If both men know they will be arrested for theft or fraud, they trust the other party to avoid theft and fraud.

Prison in Leoben, Austria

Trust can happen naturally, without the threat of force from government, if both men trust each other or have a reputation to uphold in their community. If they value their reputation, they keep agreements to protect it. We can see a great example of this in eBay. It began with a bunch of people who didn't know each other trading small items through the mail. As sellers and buyers gained reputations (through feedback ratings), the volume of trade gradually increased, and the value of items traded increased. Today, eBay merchants with a long history of reliability and trustworthiness are able to sell items worth tens of thousands of dollars to people they have never met on the basis of reputation alone, and this happened without active enforcement of contracts by eBay. In the beginning, if you sent a payment and did not receive your merchandise, your only real option was to leave negative feedback. To this day, eBay is still largely ineffective as an enforcer of contracts, they have no courts, no police and no real power to settle disputes. Trade is facilitated because buyers and sellers have developed reputations they wish to protect. Members new to eBay are regarded with suspicion and are generally limited in their ability to buy or sell because they have no reputation to damage.  Experienced users have long histories that would be dramatically damaged by negative feedback by other users, which is posted publicly and permanently.

This is how merchants were able to trade in the past, even without rule of law in all areas that the merchant might operate. He "enforced" contracts simply by developing relationships with other traders, maintaining his own reputation, and depending on good reputations instead of the courts. He avoided the need for courts by dealing with trustworthy merchants who were able to maintain good reputations in same way as eBay users, and gradually developing relationships (small trades at first) with new merchants.

It is an illusion to think that the men are behaving paradoxically in prisoner's dilemma situations, and it is erroneous to assume that government is necessary to enforce contracts. If anything, government is likely reducing the benefits of trade by implying that they will resolve disputes efficiently. Courts are extremely slow and expensive, and it is likely more efficient for merchants to develop trusted relationships than to wildly trade with anyone and depend on the courts if an agreement is broken.

In school, many were presented with the prisoners dilemma as an example of selfishness leading to bad outcomes for everyone, which is ironic because it's actually a wonderful example of what happens between rational (selfish?) parties when property rights and rule of law are removed, and the hidden benefits of a society that respects private property and has an effective dispute settlement system.

"So you think that global warming is ... a “true planetary emergency” and a “moral and spiritual challenge to all humanity?”

I don’t.

More importantly, I don’t believe you truly believe it either.

After all, if you were really concerned about global warming…

…you’d stop eating beef, milk and all associated dairy products immediately. Livestock are responsible for 18% of greenhouse gases worldwide—more than all planes, trains and automobiles on the entire planet combined. Cows belch and flatulate methane (up to a whopping 130 gallons per cow daily), a gas with 21 times the warming impact of carbon dioxide. So if you talk about the dangers of global warming but had a steak for dinner and milk with your cereal this morning, you're far from convincing.

…you’d push for more nuclear power plants. Only 14% of U.S. energy comes from nuclear power—the rest comes from sources that are major greenhouse gas producers: petroleum (40%), coal (23%) and natural gas (23%). France, on the other hand, generates 78% of its energy needs from nuclear power, and it has the cleanest air (and lowest electricity bills) of any industrialized economy in the world. More nuclear energy would immediately and massively lower greenhouse gas emissions (even a doubling to 28% would be the greenhouse gas equivalent of removing carbon emissions from all U.S. passenger cars). Have you petitioned Congress to allow the building of more nuclear power plants?

…you’d stop using air conditioning in your home and car. Mankind survived several hundred thousand years without A/C, and still does in the vast majority of the world. Maybe you can too. Or is feeling nice and cool today more important to you than the whole world supposedly feeling too hot tomorrow?

…you’d live in a smaller house, closer to work. Everyone else in the world does. Or are you somehow special and exempt? Al Gore, at least, seems to think so: his Tennessee mansion consumes 20 times more energy per year than the average U.S. household, which in turn consumes far more than those in other countries. And in that vein, how about the hypocrisy of the Hollywood set, who give Gore’s movie an Oscar while being chauffered in by limo to the Academy Awards from their energy-guzzling palatial mansions."  Read the rest here

HT: Mark Perry

WASHINGTON POST -- The world's biggest semiconductor maker yesterday was fined a record $1.45 billion by European regulators for allegedly using its dominance to edge out rivals, a decision that has cast a spotlight on similar investigations by U.S. antitrust watchdogs.

After a five-year review of Intel's sales tactics, the European Union's competition commission said the company, with 70% share of the global chip market, gave hidden discounts to computer makers to use its chips and paid the firms not to use those made by competitor Advanced Micro Devices. It also paid a major retailer to stock only computers outfitted with Intel chips, the commission said.

According to Dan Ackerman of CNET News, "Assuming Intel sells the Atom CPU (found in virtually every Netbook) to system makers for around $53, then it would only take 27,169,811 new Netbook sales to make up for the proposed fine."

------------------------------------------------------

This seems a little strange to me. Why is a company being fined for having higher quality lower priced products? The whole purpose of anti-monopoly laws are to stop companies from raising prices because there is no competition, right?

The true anti-competitive behavior of a monopolist that should most concern government officials is when a producer or cartel like DeBeers or OPEC, restricts output and raises price. In the case of Intel, microchip output has been increasing, quality and speed have been improving, and prices have been falling.