Evolution vs. Creation (Part Infinity + 1)

TPI has a sterling example of the fact that theologists are much better trained thinkers than biologists when it comes to philosophy. Usually when biologists try to write articles debunking faith in favor of evolution, they come off as arrogant. Creationists usually come off as bitter.

However, for me, the evolution/creation debate has evolved (forgive me) into a question of the past overshadowing the present. The big thing religion, especially Christianity does, is paint a picture of how things were, are, and could possibly be in the future. Evolutionary biology has no ability to predict the future, in fact, evolutionary models of the rise of modern humans completely break down upon the advent of advanced civilization, where normal human breeding behavior radically changed. Add modern contraception into the mix, and human evolution is completely off the rails. The impact of humans, arguably, has altered the evolution of every other species away from the predicted evolutionary models. Adaption has had to increase at mathematically difficult rates, in order to keep up with how humans are changing the face of the world.

Contrarily, religion becomes an increasingly cloudy subject to take as fact the farther back you go. I am not arguing, however, that evolution explain our past and religion our future.

What I want to emphasize is that the smartest minds in all history are converged on this topic of where we came from. Did we evolve from little amoeba in the deep blue sea or did we come from the clay? Did we form via spontaneous creation of matter or did we evolve from ever-more-complex creatures battling for dietary supremacy? Did the world form 10,004 years ago, or is it billions of years old?
Why are these such important questions? Is it because both the religious and the evolutionary believe by debunking the beginnings of the opposing movement, the whole movement will collapse?

Evolutionary biologists and theologians must stop bickering about how or why the ancient past happened and start concerning themselves with what is going on today. Is there a way an evolutionary biologist can explain this behavior? Is there a way a Creationist can really, believably explain dinosaur fossils being dug up in North Dakota? There isn't. These two things, in their own way, are unreconcilable to the point that evolutionary biologists and Creationists must "agree to disagree" and move on to much, much more important matters, like curing cancer, or the 26,000 babies that died from starvation last night, or AIDS. Why do we put our complex, wonderful minds so hard to explaining an event so far in the past (to a point where it borders on irrelevance) when we instead need, I repeat need more thinking minds to concentrate on how to fix the present, and prepare for the future.

Stop trying to tell me that the world is 10,000 years old! Stop trying to tell me that I evolved from a phytoplankton that lived in acidic seas a thousand millenia ago. These are both so unimportant to the security of my life and health that I just shake my head that people waste their lives arguing them.

I think the reason Richard Dawkins is such an outspoken person is because he was wronged. Something must have happened to him that made him feel he must get even. I can only imagine what it was. His book, "The God Delusion", turns the ire of any religious person just by its title. If Dawkins wasn't an angry, vengeful person, but instead was trying to educate the masses and open the eyes of the close-minded to the possibility that evolution was the driving force for the creation of modern humans, his book would have been titled "Isn't It Possible That Something Other Than God May Have Caused Modern Humans To Arise?"
But books, and lectures, and debates meant only to debunk one side or another are typically angry, vengeful, and a complete waste of sharp human minds and resources.

And it seems awfully sad to think at the end of one's life, their greatest achievement was they wrote a book telling other people how wrong they were.


_

Read More

Job Creation vs. Job Loss Prevention

Something central I see as a point of argument over the stimulus is whether we should concentrate on job creation or if we should try to limit job loss. Obviously the correct answer should be both, but since the partisan line seems to be towards one or the other, let's look at which would help the economy now and which would be a better long term decision.
If you give 50 people $500, you have effectively pumped $25,000 into the economy. Multiplier effects aside, the Bush Rebate has empirically been shown that that money does in fact stimulate the economy within two fiscal quarters of its input. Three quarters and beyond, the stimulus drastically disappeared; it was spent or saved. Similarly, a spending spree typically is seen in the GDP between March and May; people are spending their rebates after they file their income taxes.
So the argument for tax credits and tax rebates goes that by providing these benefits to people who are in the position to spend money will benefit the economy by stopping job loss; if I buy a couch, that might keep one more person employed at Nebraska Furniture Mart. Or if 50 people buy couches with their rebate checks, then we might pay a year's salary for an employee there. And that money is spent immediately.
Conversely, by concentrating not on tax breaks but instead on programs to provide new jobs, one makes a much more responsible decision in the long-term, but does not provide instantaneous impact on the economy. By taxing the people with existing jobs, it logically would seem that they are not able to make any positive effect to the economy beyond what they are doing right now. In fact, by increasing their tax burden, their spending decreases (however slightly). So in simple math terms, you tax 50 people $500, and you create a new job. That person, who was previously unemployed, is now able to spend the income and boost the economy.
However, if you give a tax rebate to 50 people, it seems to me that they get to do what they want with 100% of that $500 rebate (as rebates aren't taxed). But when you create a government job through taxation and program creation, that person will only get to spend whatever percentage of their income isn't used for taxes, health care, paying down debt...etc.

So to me, in simple logical terms, a tax rebate for everyone would benefit the economy (by preventing job loss through economic stimulation) more than taxation and job creation.

In any case, this is all getting way beyond my limited expertise in fiscal policy. Better to let experts duke it out, and I'll stick to what I love best: bioengineering.


_

Read More

The coming Crises

The Newsweek article I linked to below makes a faint mention to "after the stimulus we will instinctively revert to a free state."

Such a comment must strike fear into the hearts of liberals. Which leads me to Machiavelli. Famous for his required high school reading "The Prince," Machiavelli wrote the book hoping to prove his deep understanding of the Sixteenth Century Western world.

One political thought that was expanded from Machiavelli was the idea that generosity towards the populace only breeds in them greed, and pushes resources to the limit. The other idea was that by staying in a constant state of military alertness causes the people to feel they need their leaders for protection.
Soon, and I mean very soon, a new crisis will "appear" that will require the government to take strong action to protect us. The 16th century threat of a foreign invasion has become terrorists, or bankers, or the housing bubble, or Iran.

Just you wait. Call me a crackpot if you wish, but impending doom has become the governmental milieu, the creamy filling in the government's donut of political policy. And the liberals, both in Congress, and the White House, used the Republican's unsavory mishandling of their own "crises" to pole vault into office. So you better believe the liberals are gonna try their own hand at crisis management.

Imagine this:
CNN Anchor: The housing market continued its downward correction back to normal levels today, as home prices moved back towards the 150 year moving average. Here to comment, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Thanks for coming Nancy.
Pelosi: You're so very welcome.
CNN Anchor: Speaker Pelosi, what is Congress prepared to do to stop the housing market from its downward plunge?
Pelosi: Abso-freakin-nothing. The American people built the housing bubble up, now they can figure out for themselves how to cope. Houses are too expensive anyway. We'll keep working here in Washington to make sure the roads are in good shape and that your tax dollars are spent wisely providing short term unemployment benefits to people who have lost their jobs. Oh and we're cutting state aid and Federal taxes, and reducing the overall size of the government, especially the military and "defense" spending. We're cracking down on illegal immigration, because every job being held by an illegal immigrant is a job not being held by a naturalized citizen.
CNN Anchor: What legislation has been passed lately?
Pelosi: We just passed legislation lowering our salaries to save Americans money, and we put a mandatory 2 term limit on Senators and 3 term limit on Representatives. More Americans should get their chance to be in Federal government, to make this democratic process work.

If only...

_

Read More

We are Frenchmen now.

I, for one, am looking forward to storming the Bastille.


_

Read More

Familial Debate, Cont'd

TPI took exception (in the comments) to my last post, where I claimed that tax cuts were the best stimulus.

Tax cuts in general tend to have a lower multiplier effect than well-designed spending, but tax cuts received by the rich have a particularly low economic impact. To my knowledge, no one even disagrees with this.

Well for one, I disagree. So does he, and her, and him. And to clarify my point, I said that I was in favor of tax cuts because they are stimulative...and if there are going to be tax cuts, they might as well benefit those who will bear the most load in repaying the debt incurred by the stimulus.

The thing about tax cuts is that it is "shovel ready." Ponderous government programs, or even infrastructure spending, has the disadvantage of requiring time to spool up to full speed; jobs may be lost before the work can be started. However, with tax breaks, you have a maximum of 12 months before you feel the stimulus from those tax breaks. Let me use an example: my wife and I almost bought a house, last month. We shopped the market, talked to a realtor, a couple banks, found a house we really liked, but the house turned out to be a lemon, and needed substantial repairs before it would have passed inspection. Like, $15,000 in repairs. Which is precisely how much we would have gotten in a tax credit if the stimulus passed. So this time next year, we may have bought a house thanks to the stimulus, whereas our current plan (barring stimulus passage with first-time home buyer tax credit included) is to find a duplex and hope to get a house before our daughter starts elementary school.

Now, I cannot argue that tax breaks for the wealthy may not be the best thing, I do not have a PhD in macroeconomic policy, nor do I have much empirical evidence towards one demographic using money more recklessly than another.

However, TPI suggests that tax breaks have a lower multiplier than well-designed spending. This is most likely true. But I fail to see almost anything in the stimulus that resembles well designed spending.
True, infrastructure spending and mass transit expansion is a great idea, but its not quick work, and it shouldn't require stimulus for that work to be funded by government.

One last thought. TPI went after me because the Republicans slashed the funding that would help buoy the balance sheets for state budgets. I cannot tell if TPI is acknowledging that the nefarious practice of balancing state budgets with Federal dollars is done every year! There is no pressure on state governments to balance their budgets! Gregg Easterbrook:

Here's the update. New York state has a $6.4 billion budget shortfall in the current fiscal year, second only to California's budget problem. Recently, New York Gov. David Paterson asked the state's legislature for $1.2 billion in spending cuts -- meaning the Empire State volunteered to take responsibility for only a fraction of its self-created problem -- then called on Washington to hand Albany the rest of the money: $5.2 billion. Paterson said, "We are going to have to turn to the federal government for help." So New York is not willing to make significant spending cuts and not willing to tax itself; but perfectly happy to demand that voters in other states be taxed to bail out New York! Last week, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said the state would ask the federal government for a $7 billion loan. So California is not willing to tax itself to solve its self-created budget problems, but perfectly happy to demand that voters in other states be taxed to bail out California!
Perhaps this is what should be expected when Washington is so poorly run; the nation's capitol seems like little more than a giveaway machine. Yet numerous states, including Colorado, Oregon and Pennsylvania, have budgets in fine shape because they did not overspend, as New York and California did; or saved during surplus years (all states had a combined $74 billion surplus in fiscal 2006 -- the responsible states saved some of that amount); or are not plagued by official corruption. Why should the people who live in states that spend carefully and pay their own way be compelled to subsidize government waste and kickbacks in California and New York? And why do the mainstream media continue to depict governors as fiscal paladins when so many shift their problems, and their debts, to Washington?
Here is evidence that the fiscal switcheroo favors governors politically. Polling data from the Pew Center shows that only 37 percent of Americans have a positive impression of the federal government, while 59 percent have a positive impression of state government. Remove the bookkeeping gimmicks that send federal money to the states and state taxes would rise while the national debt declined. Favorable-impression rankings surely would improve for Washington, while governors would decline in popularity.

To which, I must add: California's debt problem is largely owed to the services provided for illegal immigrants that are not balanced because illegal immigrants don't pay taxes (or corporate taxes are not paid on their behalf or medical bills go unpaid). Which makes more sense: further debt the U.S. naturalized population to continue supporting free health care for illegal immigrants in California, or (partially) pulling the plug on Federal support for that state's budget, forcing Arnold "Hypocrisy-Is-Cute" Schwarzenegger to make spending cuts or actually do something to enforce immigration laws?


_

Read More

Why MIT is the Garden of Engineering Eden

Watch this video, and then realize how small the backpack is that the guy is wearing.

I am no prophet, but I suggest that the laptop is doomed. In the future I see wearable, or at least non-typical interactive computers taking over the portable PC market, while the desktop lives on and continues to absorb the television into an entertainment/computing complex.


Note: All the stuff in the video is really happening, none of it is computer graphics added later.


_

Read More

On The Contrary

TPI suggests this is not the way to run a democracy. I contend, however, that he is liberally wrong.

As I wrote here, the stimulus package was an engineers dream...spending for infrastructure, renovated buildings, and green design abounded. But all that has been cut. That doesn't make me happy.

Neither does it make me happy that I'll be paying taxes to support avian flu prevention.

But what does make me happy is when one party cannot strong-arm the other through "public opinion" and Presidential fear-mongering. Obama on Friday morning: "A failure to act, and act now will turn crisis into a catastrophe."

Really? I mean, really? What was it Bush (who every liberal loudmouth in history railed on) said about the bank bailout (that had literally no oversight because it was passed too soon)?
Bush: "Failure to act, and act now, would have broad consequences far beyond Wall Street. It would threaten small business owners and homeowners on Main Street."
Neato.

And I love you, TPI, but there was (and is) so much stupid un-stimulative crap in the stimulus that it makes my head spin. I'm not even going to bother listing it, I'm sure there is a wiki entry.
The point of democracy is for there to always be a loyal rebellion, a dissenting vote, a minority who still gets their say. The point of a republic, which this nation was supposed to be modeled after, was a large group of elected representatives whose sole job was to keep all the other representatives from doing anything stupid. Rome, at its best, was when it ran itself and the Senate spent its time talking about how to best spend its time. The more the Senate gained power, and the more power the Triumvirate seized that power from the Senate, the less well off the state of Rome was. Of course, history is always arguable.

But what isn't arguable is that tax breaks do not help lobbyists. The beauty, or silver lining rather, of the infrastructure spending and building renovation spending getting cut is that Halliburton clones will not reap hundreds of millions of tax dollars for subpar work. Yes, it sucks, and I'm sad that "green buildings" will continue to be a pipe-dream. But on the other hand, tax breaks play no favorites, and Republicans and Democrats are handshaking like I've never seen on creating tax breaks all across the economic board. Although tax breaks usually benefit the upper class and higher income brackets the most, so too is the tax burden most strongly felt by the rich. Liberal idealist arguments against a mountain of empirical evidence will fall on deaf ears.
And the argument that tax breaks will push this nation back into consumptionism flies would go against the argument that tax breaks will only benefit the rich: if the rich get the tax breaks, and become consumptionists, and boost the economy, but the lower and middle class are forced to continue their current income strategies in a strengthened economy, then all groups benefit. The rich get the opportunity to spend more money (that they by and large earned). The economy gets the boost in spending from people who have gotten tax breaks. The lower and middle classes benefit by the job growth (in sectors that mainly serve lower and middle classes) to support the spending by the upper class. Like I said, all benefit from tax breaks to the wealthy.

The major problem I see with the anti-tax-break argument is that it assumes a "redistribution of wealth to the wealthy" argument. This is simply fallacy. The majority of taxes are being paid by the wealthy to support programs for the poor. If they get a tax break, and the government eventually will have to repay the loans used to create the tax break, then it will be the wealthy that will pick up the tab for the repayment of the tax credit they received. In essence, they are the ones getting screwed, not the poor; they will have to pay back their own loan, with interest.

So cry me a river about the tax breaks, and the poor and huddled masses who won't get them. Instead, what they'll get is to keep their job.




Disclaimer: I am and always have been against stimulus, and bailouts. Economies fix themselves. But if forced by the Democratic majority to stimulate (immediately), we might as well do it right, and do it bipartisan.
_

Read More