NPR ran a piece on apprenticeships this morning. They talked about the need for more trained workers, and speculated that apprenticeships were the way to train them. Some incredible percent of Germans are apprentices. Sounded good.
They did not talk about the real reason American companies don't do more training, the fear that expensively trained apprentices will then quit and take a better paying job with someone else.
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Regulation. It hits everything
NPR was running a piece on a new website that connected travelers with homeowners renting out rooms. Air B&B they called them selves. It seemed interesting, and apparently successful. One Air B&B user reported she had a waiting list, and was making enough money that she could give up waitressing and do B&B full time. Sounds cool, money can be made. What's not to like?
Then NPR rained on the parade. B&B owners were being required to obtain hotelier licenses, pay a rooms tax, suffer inspection, and generally get regulated to death. Arrg.
Then NPR rained on the parade. B&B owners were being required to obtain hotelier licenses, pay a rooms tax, suffer inspection, and generally get regulated to death. Arrg.
Home refinance to fix Great Depression 2.0
Yesterday's Wall St Journal had a piece on home refinancing. With home mortgage rates in the cellar (4% !!) people could refinance and reduce their monthly mortgage payments. They estimated that refinancing from a 6% mortgage to a 4% mortgage could save the borrower several thousand dollars a year. Not bad.
In the past, consumers have rushed out and spent such savings. The Keynesians see a massive home refinancing creating the demand needed to get the economy growing again. Other, saner, commenters think the consumers would use the windfall savings to pay down credit card debt, or just put it in the bank rather than spending it.
Me, I think American consumers are rational. In these times of layoffs and job losses, the rational thing to do is save the money in case of job loss. Which can happen to anyone, anytime. And the consumers know it.
In the past, consumers have rushed out and spent such savings. The Keynesians see a massive home refinancing creating the demand needed to get the economy growing again. Other, saner, commenters think the consumers would use the windfall savings to pay down credit card debt, or just put it in the bank rather than spending it.
Me, I think American consumers are rational. In these times of layoffs and job losses, the rational thing to do is save the money in case of job loss. Which can happen to anyone, anytime. And the consumers know it.
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
Consumer Confidence
The official US govt index of consumer confidence has been sinking, with the steepest decline coming right after the Washington debt limit kerfuffle of a couple a weeks ago. NPR commented about this on the morning talk show. The gist of the radio piece was "Oh dear, those terrible Republicans, they got the consumers all upset and now they won't spend money and Great Depression 2.0 will never end."
The way I see it, the Republicans made the country, voters, consumers and even a few politicians realize that the US govt is broke and getting more broke every day. A fact the news media had been concealing from the public. There is now a chance to do something before the United States of America gets flushed down the same drain the Greeks are swirling down. Wising up the public is a good thing.
The way I see it, the Republicans made the country, voters, consumers and even a few politicians realize that the US govt is broke and getting more broke every day. A fact the news media had been concealing from the public. There is now a chance to do something before the United States of America gets flushed down the same drain the Greeks are swirling down. Wising up the public is a good thing.
Computer Models.
A computer model is actually a computer program that computes future results. The most famous computer models out there are the ones predicting global warming. There are many of the models and they have been criticized from many angles.
Without going into specific criticisms, remember, a computer model will predict what the programmer wants it to predict. If the model makes undesired predictions, the programmer assumes there is something wrong with the program and makes changes to fix the problem. I used to program for my day job, and I wrote a computer model or two over the years. Neither model produced the desired (right) answers first time I ran the code. One had a bug that I fixed, and the other never did give the "right" answers. That one showed us that a design approach we liked was never gonna work, and we changed the design. Thank goodness we were open minded enough to listen to the model and not waste money going down a blind alley.
But you gotta watch those computer models. Basically models will tell you, what you want to hear. Or what the programmer wanted you to hear. The Hadley CRU climate model, leaked to the web last year, had a single line of code that "scaled" (boosted) recent temperatures to produce the "hockey stick" graph of temperature over time.
Without going into specific criticisms, remember, a computer model will predict what the programmer wants it to predict. If the model makes undesired predictions, the programmer assumes there is something wrong with the program and makes changes to fix the problem. I used to program for my day job, and I wrote a computer model or two over the years. Neither model produced the desired (right) answers first time I ran the code. One had a bug that I fixed, and the other never did give the "right" answers. That one showed us that a design approach we liked was never gonna work, and we changed the design. Thank goodness we were open minded enough to listen to the model and not waste money going down a blind alley.
But you gotta watch those computer models. Basically models will tell you, what you want to hear. Or what the programmer wanted you to hear. The Hadley CRU climate model, leaked to the web last year, had a single line of code that "scaled" (boosted) recent temperatures to produce the "hockey stick" graph of temperature over time.
Monday, September 5, 2011
Nova on "Climate Change"
Watched a three hour rerun of Nova last night, the three shows on human evolution. Actually three one hour shows rebroadcast back to back on Vermont public TV. Not bad stuff, they described some newly discovered human fossils that I had never heard of. They described the rise and 2 million year existence of a human precursor with a chimpanzee size brain, but who walked upright. The famous fossil Lucy was a member of this group.
They glossed over some things. They described the Neanderthal DNA sequencing, including creation of the Neanderthal genotype. Neanderthals are very close to modern man DNA wise. Then they said very few Neanderthal genes exist in modern humans. If Neanderthal and human genotypes are very similar, how can you tell which genes are Neanderthal and which are modern? This was used to support the idea that modern humans "out competed" (wiped out) Neanderthal man, as opposed to the less blood thirsty idea that modern man interbred with Neanderthals and so absorbed them. They made no mention of some fossils that surely look half modern and half Neanderthal. I saw one such fossil on display in the Peabody museum some years ago. I ought to go back and see if it's still on display.
And they seemed obsessed with climate change. Every few minutes they described massive and life threatening climate changes over the last 10 million years. With one exception they didn't connect climate change with human evolutionary progress, but they sure let us know that climate change was out there and to be feared. The one connect that makes sense is walking upright. That seems a perfectly reasonable adaptation for a tree climbing, tree living ape, when the lush tropical jungle dries out to grass lands, where you gotta walk and run to get around, as opposed to Tarzan style swinging thru the treetops on handy vines (brachiation I believe they call it). But other than that one idea, the connection between massive climate changes and human evolution was left unclear. But they sure let you know about all that dreadful climate changing.
They glossed over some things. They described the Neanderthal DNA sequencing, including creation of the Neanderthal genotype. Neanderthals are very close to modern man DNA wise. Then they said very few Neanderthal genes exist in modern humans. If Neanderthal and human genotypes are very similar, how can you tell which genes are Neanderthal and which are modern? This was used to support the idea that modern humans "out competed" (wiped out) Neanderthal man, as opposed to the less blood thirsty idea that modern man interbred with Neanderthals and so absorbed them. They made no mention of some fossils that surely look half modern and half Neanderthal. I saw one such fossil on display in the Peabody museum some years ago. I ought to go back and see if it's still on display.
And they seemed obsessed with climate change. Every few minutes they described massive and life threatening climate changes over the last 10 million years. With one exception they didn't connect climate change with human evolutionary progress, but they sure let us know that climate change was out there and to be feared. The one connect that makes sense is walking upright. That seems a perfectly reasonable adaptation for a tree climbing, tree living ape, when the lush tropical jungle dries out to grass lands, where you gotta walk and run to get around, as opposed to Tarzan style swinging thru the treetops on handy vines (brachiation I believe they call it). But other than that one idea, the connection between massive climate changes and human evolution was left unclear. But they sure let you know about all that dreadful climate changing.
Sunday, September 4, 2011
Missed Confederate opportunity
Been reading John Keegan's Civil War. Keegan spends a good deal of time discussing strategy, as in what strategy would win the war. Keegan points out that Confederate forces in border state Kentucky could have attacked Cincinnati, and pushed north thru Ohio to Lake Eire, cutting the Union in half. It's only 150 miles from Cincinnati on the Ohio River to Toledo on Lake Eire. As far as Keegen can see, the Confederates never thought of this strategy. The closest they came was Lee's invasion of Pennsylvania, which could have threatened both Washington and Baltimore. It resulted in the battle of Gettysburg, a Union victory. Had Lee prevailed at Gettysburg, he would have been in a position to do the Union great harm.
Keegan is making the point that the successful Civil War strategy involved cutting the opponent into pieces. Grant and Sherman's capture of the Mississippi cut Texas off. Sherman's march to the sea cut the remainder of the Confederacy in half.
Keegan is making the point that the successful Civil War strategy involved cutting the opponent into pieces. Grant and Sherman's capture of the Mississippi cut Texas off. Sherman's march to the sea cut the remainder of the Confederacy in half.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)