Modern Polymathism

Thoughts on Racism

My friend was telling me a story the other day about a situation he was in the other day that got him thinking of the true meaning of racism. He was talking to the other guy on a double date and the subject turned to race. My friend thought that, since other guy was black, he'd be willing to engage in a dialog about race that could be beneficial to both of them. I guess it didn't go more than a few minutes without the discussion getting heated. In the end, my friend felt like he'd done nothing wrong (and by his account I would have to agree) - yet he felt that he should explain his intentions to the other guy. The next day he talked to him - just in case he'd mistaken them. This also backfired, and my friend was left further dissatisfied with the outcome.

I can feel my friend's frustration in this case. We're both white and hang out in a mostly white crowd, and I think I can speak for both of us when I say we have little to go on when dealing in such situations. However, I don't think this is really much of our fault. Had I been in the same situation, I bet it would have gone similarly. There seems to be a huge divide in America between white and black cultures that prohibits much mutual understanding of each others' situations.

I'm sure that there is plenty of blame to go around. On the one hand, it's true that whites were the ones to enslave their ancestors as well as impose blatantly racist laws until very recently – some less obvious ones are still around. On the other hand, it does seem like some segments of American blacks need to get past their history and look toward the future.

I think that, before we can talk about racism, we need to define it. This is tough. The word is thrown around a lot. To me, the suffix “-ism” generally refers someone believing in the power of whatever the prefix is – in this case race. This is where it gets dicey. Does it mean someone who believes there are any differences between races (or that there are races at all), or does it mean someone who believes there own race to be somehow superior? Most textbook definitions appear to focus on the latter – a hatred of all other or another race. I believe that the first definition is really closer to how the word is being used today though.

For instance, if you conduct a research study that shows some ability to be better in one race than another you're called a racist in the court of public opinion. To me, I think that all data is useful and that, as long as there is no inherent bias, the researcher should go unpunished for their findings. There are other examples that hit closer to home like a new set of vocabulary to describe any minority (racial or otherwise. I think the invention of the term “African-American” is part of the modern newspeak known as political correctness.

To me, I think we're all racists under this modern definition. Anyone who generally associates specific factors to any race is a racist. I don't buy it. No one can honestly tell you that they don't predict certain behaviors based on how a person looks and carries themselves – yes, that includes race. This is called a “stereotype”, and they are quite taboo – at least in public conversation. Everyone knows though that every stereotype is actually based in some fact. Being a white male, I can honestly say that I'm horrible at dancing, and that I am comparatively uptight / polite. I think everyone uses their past experiences to predict future behavior, and data suggests that different cultures (which are roughly defined by race) have measurably different behaviors. This is something not unique to humans, animals do the same thing. I'm not sure why it's so bad to recognize this natural phenomenon.

In America, there also seems to be a taboo with even discussing race at all. Probably because of situations that my friend was involved in. I'm wondering why they always end poorly. I'm reminded of a South Park episode: “With Apologies to Jesse Jackson”. In this episode, one of the kids is trying to apologize to his one black friend for his father's racist actions, but the friend won't accept his apology or explain himself. In the end, the first kid says “I get it! - I don't get it!”, meaning that whites will never understand how black people feel about racial slurs – they should just accept it. I have to say that I reject this notion completely. Why is it that, in a world so intent on finding a possible explanation for every emotion and feeling, an issue as large as this is unfathomable by those on one side?

I think this must be partly due to some type of enculturation effects on both sides. I grew up with racism as a taboo, but it doesn't mean I wasn't exposed to it. Everyone from strangers to family had a remark now and then, however we were always told it was a very bad to be “prejudiced”. This was the buzz word that we had drilled into us since kindergarten. I think it's funny because it seems you never hear this word outside this context anymore. It's real meaning just means to prejudge, which I'd argue happens every waking moment of everyone's life.

Racism during my high school was really more of a joke than something you actually believed in.When Chappelle's Show came out, everyone was reciting the lines to each other, but I can't think of anyone who actually believed the quotes. On the contrary, I think the show actually is a good conduit for a discussion on race. Jokes usually have some basis in fact, and satire often helps break the ice. For this reason, I applaud their efforts – even if it was just a comedy show.

On the other side, I'm sure that the black community has a whole other view of the issue. I think their youth still feel a passion towards the issue - unlike my own side's which leans towards apathy. I think most white Gen-Yers accept racial equality as given and only have their unconscious biases to deal with. It seems like the black side still feels oppressed. There is good reason. They often live in more dangerous neighborhoods and have tougher lives than the average Gen-Y white kid ever has.

I think the only solution to this mess is changing these biases at the bottom level. I'm sure the mind's biases are able to be changed – meaning that, if our experience tells us something different than our previous beliefs, we will adapt our perceptions and, yes, our prejudices. This means that race education isn't really going to do much if the behavior that creates stereotypes keep reinforcing those old beliefs. It was once a stereotype that blacks were unathletic. The real world showed us plenty of awesome black athletes, and our perceptions changed. If whites don't improve our dancing, I don't see why the generalization that we suck at it should change – improve it or accept it.

The media also plays a critical role in this as well. You always see black people interviews when the talk about welfare reform, and it seems like missing-cute-white-girl stories are far more numerous than ones with black girls. Another common one is how many people think all Middle Easterners are Muslim fanatics. The media has somewhat helped promote this condition. However, most of these people have never seen or even talked with someone from those countries.

The more I travel, the more I find oneness with the human condition. Yes, there are many cultures and some people have harder lives than others, but I think we can all connect with one another by our vast human similarities. Really, cultures need to intermix to truly understand one another. I always make an effort to talk to people from different backgrounds because they will challenge your perspectives. If you're a right wing Christian, talk to a French person about socialism and a Swede on religion if you'd like to have your world view turned on end.

In the end, let's just stop focusing on race at all. We're all beings that share a collective past and future, and we need to stop thinking in these useless groups. Yes, there are cultural differences, and some people will not like all of them. Deal with it – such is life. Get over your little ego and stop taking “offense” to anything. Let's all just pursue our own happiness without regards to whether someone things our race is better or not. I think in the end this will lead to much more understanding than anything the Ad Council comes up with.

Some Views on Stimulus Economics

It's funny to see the leaders of a field keep aware of each other's work and respond in kind. I was reading “Bad Anti-Stimulus Arguments” on Paul Krugman's blog when I noticed exactly what he was responding too: Greg Mankiw's post “How Not to Stimulate the Economy”. I'm not very in line with either one of these guys as they're both Keynesians in their own way, however they are quite respected and hence it would be quite foolish to ignore their views.

Mankiw's post is an analogy to prove that tax cuts are the best way to increase the spending multiplier. This is basically a measure of how much GDP rises for every dollar the government spends, whether in stimulus check, a tax cut, or otherwise. The idea is that the government should take on debt by selling T-Bills to China et al. and spend the money where this multiplier is highest – so as to get the most spending bang per deficit buck.

Mankiw used the example of giving money to “Joe” in three different ways. He comes to the conclusion that the multiplier is higher for tax cuts because they don't, “hire Joe to sit at home and watch Family Feud reruns, which Joe does not enjoy quite as much as Mork and Mindy.” By this, he means that tax cuts give money directly to the people who spend as the wish – as opposed to the government choosing what they spend it on.

Krugman fires back that this is a false example because it's a comparison of two private goods. He agrees that he government wouldn't be able to allocate money efficiently in the case of private good, but he goes on to say that the stimulus he supports is spending on public goods. These goods, he says, are ones which the private sector has a disincentive to invest in such as: “roads, communication networks, sewage systems, and so on.” He is mostly right about this disincentive to invest especially in the case of sewage systems and roads.

Here is where I think Krugman's argument fails to deliver. One he doesn't actually say what the multiplier advantage to this public good spending would be, however neither does Mankiw. Though, Greg did write a post about his tax cut advantage earlier. This aside though, let's see how this infrastructure spending would actually increase GDP – otherwise known as production or output. There are two things we must consider. One, what effect would expenditure have on this productive output. And two, would the expenditure be properly located to not disproportionately affect the economy (think: “Joe likes Mork & Mindy more than Family Feud”).

I can see how the expansion of roads or sewers might lead to productive output in the long term as better access to existing land and hence better resource utilization. However, in all probability this money will mostly be used for infrastructure repairs – not expansion. This means the money will go to construction companies and material suppliers. This in turn will lead to decreased inventories of material suppliers and investment in capital equipment. This will resulting in new loans and perhaps investment in their capital equipment – a stretch.

At first glance, it seems like this might be a good idea then. The issue is whether this expansion can last or whether it's a short term bubble in the construction sector followed by the purging of underused equipment and money into the market. I can't see better sewers really increasing short term GDP much as all. Only in certain areas will this actually be true. To a Keynesian like Krugman though, it's all about the aggregates. To me, I see top-down micromanagement which can never allocate resources better than individual economic agents (people, companies, towns, etc.).

It seems like Krugman is outside his scope of expertise when it comes to actual improvements needed to infrastructure. He's trained to look at aggregate trends – not business / policy decisions. There are plenty of lay people with similar public platforms (NY Times columns) that have similar opinions to his – which are similarly under-thought.

Let's look at Thomas Friedman's “Time to Reboot America” article. He talks about how much better Hong Kong's infrastructure is compared to the United States. Again, he's right on the surface. Wireless internet, high speed rail, etc. is better there then America. The economic question that must be asked is whether upgrading these is good investment to make. Okay, they have less dropped calls and faster trains, but is our system so bad that it actually lowers its value significantly? I think not. There are diminishing returns with infrastructure as with anything else. We have sewers and highways that operate quite well. Are they the best in existence – no, but they don't have to be.

There's a reason that our infrastructure is where it's at and also why it's not better. The answers both lie in the market. Firstly, there are the limits of demand itself. Most people have no problem with their wireless service or with the roads they drive on. Sure, I'd like to drive on smooth roads, however there is no justification for the expenditure unless the roads ability to move people and cargo is significantly diminished – which it generally is not. Secondly, there are regulatory limits imposed which prevent existing demand from being better served. There are many examples that come to mind such as: the FCC over regulating wireless frequencies, the FDA bureaucracy on drug approval, the many US patent system inefficiencies, etc.

If we're going to be doling out money, the real issue seems to be how do we do it so as not manipulate the market. If tax cuts produce the highest multiplier, then the question is which type will affect the market the least, but that's for another day.

Secular Transhumanism

I was talking to a friend yesterday about meaning, the human condition, etc., and a thought popped into my mind that I wanted to explore further. The concept is basically the marriage of secular humanism and transhumanism, which I think have a lot of overlapping interests and followers. Secular humanism is itself a marriage of two complimentary world views. Secularism believes that the government should not have any religious orientation or biases. Humanism

holds up the dignity and worth of the mankind and also its ability to use rationally to determine morals – while rejecting supernatural-based morality. Transhumanism is all about the belief that humans have the right to modify their mental and physical constructs to better their personal human condition – generally by means of technology.

Some hold that we're already seeing humans and machines merging by looking at our society's dependence on technology for most aspect of our daily lives. Advanced prosthetics, artificial implants, BlueTooth earpieces, even cellphones themselves, seem to show the path to human-machine merging to not be a question of if – but of when.

What I found interesting on thinking of this further is that there is actually an element of faith in the transhumanist world. Yes, we can see technology reaching this point (called the Singularity), but we don't know when. I think the best public example of faith in technology would be Ray Kurzweil, a prominent futurist who is trying to maintain his life until the technology has been developed to extend it further – perhaps indefinitely. There is an element of faith in thinking that you can beat death. Yet, I think I can very much agree with Ray that this is a rational pursuit to better the human condition.

To me, it seems like these views are concentrated in atheists and agnostics. Religious people are generally looking forward to a life after death. In fact, most say that they'd never want to life past the “normal” ripe-old-age. The non-religious also make up the majority of the secular humanists as well. This seems like a quite complimentary marriage of concepts.

So if this “religion” of secular transhumanism is to exist – how do we life? What is our purpose? Well, I don't think there is an actual answer to the latter question, but both could be somewhat related to aiding humanity in approaching to singularity. There are many ways to do so, from spreading the “gospel” of rationality and science to actually trying to develop the technology yourself. Many atheist / agnostics are nihilists, but it's not a really satisfactory belief system for many. Perhaps this set of views could be a real mezzanine between rationality and belief? I'm not sure, but I sure would like to hear some debate on these issues.

Education, Vocation and Society

I received the Arduino I ordered in the mail Saturday, and I've been playing with it non-stop. It's basically a circuit board that can be programmed from a computer which can be used for an endless variety of electronics projects. It's the first time I've programmed anything in a while, and I'm having more fun than I ever did before. Last time I was doing this was back in freshman engineering. Back then, I was still on the route to becoming a bioengineer to investigate the intricacies of protein folding. Well, I didn't have a lot of fun with all the details of the foundation material (especially calculus), and I figured that I'd rather pursue technology from the business side.

As I'm working with the Arduino, I was amazed at how fast I could get real results, and that made me much more eagar to learn further. I've always been a fan of hands-on learning, but you rarely see schools implementing it on a wide scale. I remember back to Ken Robinson's TED presentation “Does School Kill Creativity?” My favorite comment was that, if an alien race looked at the purpose of our school system, they'd conclude its purpose was to produce college professors. He hit the nail on the head. The modern engineer, like all professions, comes from humbles roots. The not-so-distant roots lie in the tinkerer-mechanics like Thomas Edison and Henry Ford. They were the epitome of self-taught empirical learners who used their knowledge to do amazing things. They both started very young to experiment and tinker, and thus their knowledge was built.

In the school system, both in our modern times and back through history, rote memory has been the method of choice. We're finding more and more though that for many disciplines, especially in math and science, this method fails horribly. Evidence of such can be easily seen in the 50% dropout rate in our nation's engineering schools. The largest complaint of engineering dropouts (like myself) is that the foundation material was too removed from our ends to actually be relevant to us. This post shows that this problem is mostly avoidable by changing our methods. Schools like MIT, Olin, etc. use novel methods and have dropout rate of only 3%. I'm sure there is something more than just methods. MIT kids must be very competitive to enter the school so it would make sense that there would be less dropout. However, I think their methods are quite interesting to explore.

Take Olin College. Before enrolling, each prospective student must spend a weekend at the school to be interviewed and participate in group engineering projects. Once they're selected, their first courses require reverse engineering existing products and then building their own from scratch – to make engineering more “real”. This sounds like my childhood and many other people on the hands-on persuasion. After that engineering school proceeds from the top-down perspective (as opposed to the bottom-up traditionally used). In this way, foundation material is only introduced as it is needed. At graduation, each student will have designed and produced a product as well as written a business plan for their product. Talk about real world experience.

At Olin, unlike the partitioned classes in most schools, the learning is integrated so that calculus and physics are taught along side each other. Even the humanities are grouped together to holistically learn. It's been suggested that the arts, history, politics, anthropology, etc. should be taught together, and I couldn't agree more. When I read William McNeil's “Rise of the West”, I was fascinated by his interplay between all these subjects – from war to art. I believe it was Beethoven's 9^th Symphony that was a musical history of then-modern Germany whose choral odes celebrated the brotherhood of mankind. There are paintings like Delacriox's “Liberty Leading the People” and Picasso's “Guernica” which tell the story of the passions and terror during the times of revolution and dictatorship. The fact that the arts communicate to the soul so directly is all the more reason to include it as a very relevant part of our historical and cultural education. I learned far more about the times of the French Revolution while reading a "Tale of Two Cities" than I ever did reading Wikipedia.

Perhaps it's hard to test for the interpretation of art. Maybe our society's love of the expert makes us require the compartmentalization of each subject. Really, the very word “subject” implies that these things are quite distinct at all from each other. In reality, they're all just different facets of the same jewel of the human condition. Perhaps I'm biased though because I'm more right-brained and prefer to see the big picture. In fact, I wonder if this compartmentalization and the love of expertise & testing is actually related to society being predominantly left-brained / right handed.

To me it seems the central thesis of the human condition is that we will pursue our own ends if left to our own devices. Of course organizations cause us to alter our behavior so that no one person would ever make the same set of choices, and that those choices often cause people to change their own behavior away from their wanted ends. This means that we're all experiencing coercion. However, taken together I think society progresses toward bettering our individual needs. If this is so, the school system is a product of our collective needs as influenced and permutated through our ad hoc associations. Therefore, it actually must represent us pretty well. If we're influenced by our net left-brain bias, then it'd be natural for us to build our schools that fit our net learning styles.

This is a problem for the other side of society who must struggle to adapt their learning model to society's. The answer isn't to change all schools to this “new” hands-on paradigm. The answer is to let there be choice in schools and a better ability to match your learning type to their teaching style. College needs less improvement than primary and secondary schools – there is much more choice. The lower schools are usually public monopolies which aren't even good at the traditional form of teaching. We must provide this needed information as well as allow school vouchers to let parents and teachers decide which school works best. Going back to the aforementioned “central thesis”, people with less coercion will be able to better pursue their own ends. Hence, their individual collective efforts will improve education and freedom. The human condition will thus be improved in its skills and its freedom - a win / win.

DoubleSpeak

I love listening to right-wing talk radio for entertainment purposes. They're always claiming to be so principled and pro-constitution, but they always end up showing their true colors. This morning, I listened to the always infuriating Quinn & Rose morning show. At First, he was talking about the “fairness doctrine” which is supposed to enforce equal usage of public radio waves of both views - which is funny framing because there are more than two sides, but I digress.

This would really hurt conservative talk radio because it dominates the market. I'm not sure what would happen to broadcast TV under this rule. I'd guess that the Op Ed sections might be the most logical targets for them, and I'd also suspect they'd be more leftist. I'm not sure on that though. However, I am also completely against such rulings. I think the real issue is the FCC role in all of this. They're the implementor of this doctrine, but maybe the real question is whether they should be granting monopoly control to the public airwaves to a corporation at all. I think initiatives like the Free the Airwaves project would actually be better to solve both problems because they make the pie bigger for everyone to speak rather than just slicing it differently.

The second he was talking about is the Employee Fair Choice Act which has the dubious “Card Check” provisions which basically disallow a private ballot is many circumstances from a union vote. This allows coercion of members because they know if the union is bought into their shop and they're known to have voted against the union; they will be at a severe disadvantage.

This is where the doublespeak comes in to the picture. Quinn comes to the topic of a Che Guevara movie that he doesn't like which leads to a rant about all the college kids and professors who have an admiration of Che. He goes on to say that professors who display a pro-Che attitude should be thrown out of the school and prohibited from teaching again. This sounds like free speech a la McCarthy - where you're allowed to speak as much as want... ...the names of your like-minded friends. It's always funny to me when conservatives praise their sacred constitution and then blatantly violate it. We don't even have to mention what Bush & Rove have done to our checks and balances. The scales are all in the executive's favor now, and don't think for a second that the beloved Obama will relinquish this power one iota.

So here we are, both parties praise the constitution like one says “God bless you”. The meaning has all been lost. I'm one who loves the constitution more than most, but I think we're kidding ourselves if we actually think it's being upheld. The government has ballooned to a ridiculous level beyond what any of the articles or amendments allow. Long past are the days when an amendment was required to merely ban or re-legalize a substance. Now we ban them at will, and there is nothing in there that allows this. The Federal Reserve Act was just a law, but it stripped the Congress from controlling our money – against theconstitution, and look at what it's brought: stability? Hardly.

Both of these “sides” are hypocrites, and until the American people actually care to stop taking their soma solve the root problems, we'll be in the same unsustainable mess until it kills the country. Any thoughts on how this can be done? Maybe a good slogan? "I'm feelin' secession."

F#@k Censorship

“Fuck Censorship” - this man tried to change his name to this. That's awesome.

Wow, so I watched O'Reilly's show again, and the material I get from it is always great. I used to send him an email telling him he's wrong & why, but now this blog can be my tool. This round: freedom of speech.

He was of course opposed to a sign that some atheists posted, along side of a nativity scene, saying something along the lines that organized religion is a myth. Whether you agree with this statement or not, the question is that if one group private posts a nativity scene on public property doesn't another group have the right to post their scene. I can't see why not. Christians may be the majority, but we're supposed to protect the minority voice – not repress it.

The arguments against were something along the lines of “when I saw young everybody said Merry Christmas, but now...” Another went on to say that they didn't want to explain atheism to their kids. Having gone to a Christian school, I know that sheltering kids from society can have some bad social consequences during the readjustment phase. Society isn't all Christian – deal with it.

Another segment was about how the Australian's sentenced a man to jail for 15 years for posting a video of child abuse. Bill of course loved the idea – though thought that 15 years was a bit excessive. Ya think Bill? He said that we need similar laws in this country to protect against videos that could “inspire” others to do the same. I can't believe there are actually people who support this. Is it just so they can live in their little government enforced comfort zones? I think living in a pretty heterogeneous society is a lot of fun. I see goths, hipsters, gangsters, preps, punks, and everything in between, and even though I don't think most of it is anything special, I think that it's cool to see people with different takes on how to play this game of life. Maybe federalism could solve this by some state becoming theocratic – like our one secessionist-theocratic commenter.

Bill was also against a kid creating a Facebook hate group about a high school teacher, and the ensuring ACLU protection of the kid. I really don't see how this is any of the school's business. Grow a thick skin - geez. I'm sick of everyone being offended at everything. I'm not really sure what it feels like to be offended. I've never had it happen. If someone says, “no offense, but...”, I always welcome the criticism. Maybe bad feelings from having your views challenged, crash, and burn is what offense really is. It seems like it always happens over some political issue like race, religion, etc. If someone says, “What you believe is wrong...” and you can't refute it – this is sign that you need to crack a book – not get in huff about how they shouldn't have said that. Ignorance is bliss? Give me a break.

A Few Thoughts on the War on Terror

I just saw a segment on the O'Reilly Factor where Bill had Deepak & Gotham Chopra on to talk about the war on terror and the Mumbai killings. As Deepak says we need to stop fighting the symptoms of terrorism Bill comes up to bat with a classic neocon knee jerk: we haven't been attacked therefore Bush's policies are working. This is an appeal to pragmatism in saying that we might not like all the means, but the ends are right. I'm reminded of a Simpson's episode where Lisa tells Homer (sarcastically to make a point) that a rock she has kept away bears; he considers this and says “Lisa, I would like to buy your rock”. They'll tell you Clinton ruined the military, but after the World Trade Center bombing in 1993 there wasn't another attack on American soil until eight years later on 9/11.

Bill then tries to personalize the effects of terrorism to draw Deepak into supporting his policies. Deepak, however, returns that actually his parents were victims of terror violence on the Indian-Pakistan border, and that they always said we must address the real issues – not the violence. The questions that begin with something akin to, “how would you feel if it was your child...” are always going to lead to emotional – and unreasoned – answers. Bill asks, “What do you tell the people who lost love ones on 9/11? They want [rough] interrogation techniques.” It's a completely wrong way to frame it. He brings this up often with torture. I remember some time back he asked if you would torture someone to save your child. Of course many people would, many would murder another person in cold blood to save their family; it doesn't make it right.

After this segment, Ted Turner was on. They eventually got onto the subject of who was to blame for the terrorism. Bill said they bombed us first. Ted says we bombed Vietnam first. I always find these “they started it” arguments to be funny. The West has been invading them since the Crusades, and the Moors invaded Spain in 711AD. We can go back pretty far, but the most relevant starting time to today's analysis is probably either the times of Lawrence of Arabia or the founding of Modern Israel. In both times, we can see that Western geopolitics has interfered in their matters. I think the Arabs are correct in saying we're the “terrorists”. People like O'Reilly prefer to “stay current” as opposed actually delving into these matters. I think the sign of a true fascist is when they put their unabated nationalism (O'Reilly – pay attention) ahead of actually caring about the facts. It reminds me of this Ron Paul video.

Patent Perils - Round II

I was in a great (and heated!) conversation the other night with a friend about the subject of patent reform. I told him that I think that even having a patent system is bad for innovation because the monopoly power it gives the innovator has a lot of bad ramifications for the rest of innovators out there. Problem arise like patent thickets (where an area of research is so patented that no one can conduct legal research or commercial activity), patent trolls (where a group hold patents with the intent of using them to demand ransom from other companies – while producing nothing of their own), and a whole host of other problems.

His argument is from the traditional point of view that says that companies must have a patent to be able to justify research expenditures are covered by the product revenues. This is a good point. His example was from his company, Alcoa, that would pay millions to research a new alloy which anyone could copy with existing equipment. This is actually a great example of his point. It costs next-to-nothing to reverse engineer an alloy, and every aluminum plant could probably produce it. Certainly, we can see why they'd like patents.

The question of whether and how to have a patent system is really one that must be made while looking at the forest and not its trees. This means we need to look at the net effect of such a system, and our area of effect should be focused on total societal benefits. The reason I say this is because, while economic success and standard of living often move together, it's often the case that they don't. Therefore, just because some company is making money doesn't means that its a good end result. We'd all agree that a company with a monopoly on utilities would be able to change huge price premiums and profit greatly, but we'd also say that they've reached a level of cartoonish-supervilliany.

With this is mind, we have to pose a so-what question to any innovation against this standard. Certain innovations classes like industrial materials vary greatly. Some might solve a specific problem like turbine blade wear (Inconel), and others might develop materials that promise substantively change our lives (buckypaper). One category that has a high so-what factor is drug development. We should check out drug companies' output of new drugs. It's an impressive list to look at, but when you get down to it most of them are not breakthrough cures. Most are lifestyle improvement medications like Viagra. Items on this list solve: acne, mouth pain, epilepsy, overactive bladder, etc. While these are all real problems with human benefit most have been solved with other means before.

According to Wikipedia, every year only 26 drugs with “new chemical identities” are brought into the market. These are the drugs that must undergo the costly FDA approval process – one that could be improved to vastly reduce these costs. Of these, they don't all cure cancer or AIDS. In fact, according to this study, only 22% were novel therapeutic treatments – so about 5 or 6. According to the previous study, the R&D costs of a new drug are $127M on average. Interestingly, the same study shows that just the NIH funded research university has produced 55% of all novel drugs – add to this the independent non-profit and university self-funded initiatives, and I'm sure the figure is even more impressive.

I've thought before that if the drug companies didn't participate in the research that mankind would suffer. I'm seriously starting to doubt this is true. I think that non-profits would probably spring up to fill the need, and in perhaps without the extraction of their above average profits (over three times the average business profit margin) the economy could bare to donate towards these institutions.

Even if we assume the drug companies must exist to solve disease, perhaps the implementation of my previous idea of an X-Prize type organization that would have bounties for truly large innovations like curing types of cancers, extending human life, etc. You could also setup the prize, not as a bounty, but as a capped royalty system. Say, $300 for each patient you cure – that's $300M if you cure nonmelanoma skin cancer. There is even an incentive for corporations to contribute to bounties in this research. I'm sure the flu keeps plenty of people non-productive.

Another point we're missing is that patents aren't a panacea for Big Pharma either. Without them, they would find some rather interesting methods to enforce their secret sauces. Perhaps hospitals or healthcare plans would have to sign agreements to only use their source of drugs. Maybe they'd turn into co-ops that were funded by part of your healthcare dollars. I would love to see such a system.

Companies like Alcoa love patents because they can extract wealth from the economy, but I'm not so sure that their products are really adding that much extra value to justify their extra cost to society due to patents. To look further, I did a patent search on their website to see what new technologies they were coming up with. Findings? Methods for making products and corrosion resistance research. I'm sure this is innovation, but I'd bet they'd do it anyway. Their income statement shows that they only spend $249M on research a year while their revenues are $30.7B. This is a paltry sum which amounts to keeping relevant in their industry. We can also see that most of their assets are in the form of plant and equipment and that their cost of goods sold (due to this equipment) is about 79% of revenues which means their value is mainly having good equipment and their sales force – not really big time innovation. I'm betting they really wouldn't feel much of the pain.

My friend's argument concluded on what I think was the most relevant point. This point was one we've visited quite a bit on here: idealism vs. pragmatism. Most of the world still would have patents if we stopped. Our companies, would just take advantage of their laws to profit – though more at their expense. Also, companies are too invested in this system to let it pass, and they're the ones with the money to buy the lobbyists to get what they want. I'm not expecting that patents will vaporize anytime soon, but the market demands less protections. Little by little we're making progress, and I'm excited to see the future of IP.

The Russo Retort: Political Efficacy

Hey guys, this is first in an ongoing feature series guess posts by Anthony Russo who's the most active co-contributer to this blog. The format will be an initial post by Anthony, with a ending response from Nick. Enjoy.

Political Efficacy - A. Russo

Recently, inspired by several posts on this blog, I have been seeking an answer to an essentially ignored question in politics. This question is, why do our elected officials not trust us (the people)? That is, why is it that our government has such little faith in us to get things right? While this might seem like an elementary or unimportant question, I think you will understand why it is important to discuss our faithless government, especially in light of current politics, after reading my considerations below.   

There is a term in political science called political efficacy.   A common definition – this one offered by wikipedia – is “a citizen’s faith and trust in the government.”  It has occurred to me that there is an inherent problem with the very implication of the term itself; the term “political efficacy” implies that the government is not only separate from the people, but worse -- superior to the people.  In other words, the fact that such a term exists implies that the government is a higher institution and is the ultimate problem solver.  As most know, the Framers of our Constitution did not intend for this type of thinking to happen.  A strong federal government was the problem – it was what was to be avoided.  Most people would have shuddered over the words “federal government.”  Now we are at a time when a common question is: “how much faith do you have in your government?”  That question used to be laughable.  The answer would have surely been an emphatic “NONE!”  And this has nothing to do with partisanship.  Surely, under the incompetent administration like GWB, or Johnson, trust in government was low.  What I am talking about is the very idea of a strong federal government, regardless of who is in office.

I’m going to restate this: The question that too few are asking (and should be) is, “why do our elected officials not trust us?”  There are many, many, many examples to explain what I mean.  Anyone who reads this blog can cite several. Whether it’s through the reduction of personal liberties (Patriot Act, etc.), the Federal Reserve’s controlling of interest rates, managed free trade, or nationalized education and health care, the government has made it clear that they are anti-free market and personal liberties. Why has this happened? 

Most would argue that it is the people’s fault.  After all, we are talking about elected officials – it is the people who put them into office.  Therefore, it can be argued that the people must like big government - the ideals and legislation those in government support.

While this is a valid argument, I disagree. While I do blame the people, I don’t necessarily believe that they support these ideals.  My defense of this is best shown through an example.  Say, for instance, you go to the doctor because you are having a strange pain in your legs at night.  The doctor says, “oh well take vitamin C tablets, sounds like you have a lack of it.”  You are thrilled – the doctor gave you a simple and convenient answer.  However, what if it’s neurological?  What if it’s hormonal?  The pain occurs only at night and these things change throughout the day -- could be very possible.  But you believe the doctor because he or she is in an established position – an influential position.  You understand the education and experience that the doctor has and you automatically believe his or her diagnosis.   

This is what has happened with politicians. Too often, people get sucked into the pageantry of eloquent speeches and rhetoric. This is because we view the politician as a superior – a “know it all.”  In my opinion, this type of thinking is what needs to change.  People must understand that politicians are usually not interested in the best policy; rather, they are only interested in popular policy that will help them get re-elected (note: rational vs. responsible models of politicians).  The common person must always have a “healthy” sense of skepticism toward their favorite candidate.  I’m not so sure that’s the case now.  Instead, I think it only occurs in a partisan manor – people are only skeptical of politicians that belong to the opposite party.

Moreover, the ideas of things like “free healthcare”, or “employment for all” are obviously very attractive. These things are quite possible – but not without a very high cost.  In other words, people like the end, but often ignore the means to the end.  I’m not sure what could cause people to become “skeptical” of politicians.  It is a question that needs to be asked and thought about.

I also believe that the politicians are somewhat to blame.  Why do politicians neglect small government platforms? Why are they always trying to create solutions through legislation and government handouts, as opposed to letting the market take care of things? Why are there so few candidates that run on a TRULY limited-government platform? I think the answer points to the struggle between idealism and realism.  It seems that politicians always think they are the exception.  They always think that their ideas are the most enlightened, their solution is the best one, and their policies will be the ones that solve the issues.  It’s almost a narcissistic/ego thing.  I think this is a consequence of the power awarded to politicians, and of their education and experience.  In other words, they become idealists – they believe that they have the single solution that everyone can benefit from.  

Some argue that they are pragmatic – “if it works, do it.”  Here’s another problem.  While something like free government health care might “work” in the short term (people would enjoy free health care), it would have devastating long-term costs.  The politicians do a terrible job of thinking about the long-term (as do the people, though).  I’ve heard Toyota has a “100-year plan”, where is our 100 year plan?   
 

In today’s world, this question is very important.  Slowly, our freedoms are being stripped, and Keynesian economic policy is ruining our economy. It’s not looking good.  Somehow, someway, we, as a society, need to realize that a strong federal government is the problem. Thoughts?

Nick's Response

This is a good topic to post on because of its increasing relevance to our “change” based political society. As you mentioned, the government of a republic isn't supposed to be something to rule over the masses; it's to serve their will. Some problems of direct democracy are: poor scalability (which can be debated because of Switzerland), volatile public opinion produces poor policy, and minority interests are suppressed. This is why the founders decided on the representative form of democracy. The problem with this system is that government starts to move interests away from the people when you introduce a large political class. To counter this, they supported small government Federalism which pushed most political decisions to the lowest possible level of government. However, I don't think that the term “federal” was deemed bad by all. Certainly, there were divisions between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists which can show some supported a comparatively larger central government, but by today's standards they'd all be considered advocates for small government.

I would have to disagree on politicians being idealists though – at least after their first term. It seems like most people go to Washington thinking they're going to change the world – but so does everyone else. They notice the games that must be played to get anything done at all – those games all involve compromise. It would seem they arrive idealists and leave pragmatists. Ron Paul is one of the few to never compromise on his views, but he never gets very much done. Look to the leadership of both houses, and you'll find that they're all very pragmatic – not to mention cut-throat. The question remains: Is it the people's fault they elect bad politicians, or it the politicians themselves? Perhaps it's far more than that. I'd say it's similar to the financial crisis in that it's the sum total of every player in the system. We have the electorate and politicians, but we also have interest groups and the media who have plenty of blame. I think better questions to ask will produce answers that are useful to actually change policy. I would love to see that discussion.

I completely agree with your call for skepticism towards every candidate. I remember hearing people who hated McCain during the primary only to support him as the only option that would avert terrorism and socialism – hardly very critical. I also remember conversations with both my friend from Catalonia and my friend Brian, where they asked what I didn't like about Ron Paul. I was very happy to be able to offer criticism of Ron's Fed-Hammer to every nail that ails the country – as well as his immigration policy. This is definitely something we should all be trying to do more of. Libertarians are oft accused of being too idealistic, and there is a lot of truth to that. I think that Bob Barr actually had a good platform that mixed ideals and reality. This would be a great thing to inject into the Republican party as they try to regain their soul.

In the end, I have to say that in the long term I'm optimistic about politics and the people for every nation. It seems like we're entering into a great age that promises more empowerment of the people in the grassroots – enabled by technology's leveling presence. For policies in the long term, like Medicare, I think that we will come to the proper solution by means of evolution if nothing else. If it's not sustainable in its current form, we'll have to change it. We exist in a buffer solution of ideas that is forever correcting its equilibrium. I'm optimistic that, in time, we'll refine our systems for the better.

Modern Warfare & Non-Intervention

A Brief History of Modern Warfare

A comment on my last post brought up issues that merit a further examination of the topic.

The comment referred to the evolution of modern warfare which are divided into generations back on combat tactics. The difference between tactics and strategy should be noted. Many think that strategy is just tactics on a large scale, but actually the two are quite different. Tactics refers to how you employ your resources – which is very much related to technology. Strategy deals with manipulation of power to exercise your will – which is more related to the human condition itself. Tactics changes all the time, but strategy is rock solid. Cicero would instantly recognize the strategy that states employ today, but he'd think the tactics were all black magic.

The concepts in each category generational warfare are all relating to tactics. Here is the gist of each generation:

1G – Linear combat in which fixed groups of well drilled men in column formations would fight in a relatively static style. Good examples good be Napoleon's wars and the American Civil War, but even the ancient Rome phalanx could fit into the same style. In fact, the first guns were only meant to be fired once at the knights to piece their armor and then (because reloading took too long) a knife would be attached to the end to make a pike – thus the bayonet was born.

2G – Similar to 1G linear combat, expect that fixed fortifications (like trenches, bunkers, pillboxes, etc.) were employed in defense and new technological weapons such as the machine gun, indirect fire, armored vehicles, airplanes, and poison gas were used to break the stalemate. This is best typified by World War One conflict.

3G – This began as the blitzkrieg tactics by the German Wehrmacht in World War Two. It took the immature technologies of WWI to their logical end to form an effective combat force. Movement and

decentralized combat tactics were the order of the day. Speed was achieved by tanks, mechanized infantry & artillery. Also, defensive positions and other important targets could be destroyed using close air support by ground attack aircraft, and protected by fighter aircraft.

A good example of 2G meets 3G was the defeat of the Maginot Line which was a massive French built fortification system that was rendered completely irrelevant to the German forces who simply went around it or parachuted on top of it. Interestingly, the line only pointed in one direction, and couldn't even defend itself from rear attacks. This showed the vast superiority of movement in warfare which is still employed today by today's militaries in state-to-state engagements. These engagements are quite rare today though.

4G – The overwhelming cost of 3G warfare brought about alternative forms of combat tactics which could be used to defeat larger and more advanced enemies. Guerrilla and psychological tactics are mostly employed. Instead of defeating them militarily, they use public opinion as a weapon against their enemies who might decide to disengage rather than maintain a failing and costly war. The Soviet-Afghan War is a great example of how this warfare works to defeat large state enemy combatants.

There is a problem in this new form of warfare though – for the West. We're used to getting our way by using our military and economic might. This these tactics allow small states and non-state groups to wage effective wars against large nation-states – without the need for a massive bankroll. The ball is in the large state's court. All of our technology is mostly worthless against them. We really can only win by winning the war of attrition. There is some evidence that this is working in Iraq.

Commerce and Combat

There is actually an interesting parallel here between commercial and military advancements. In business, almost everything used to be a cottage industry. You mostly traded homemade goods between your friends and neighbors. The people were the means of production. Then there was the Industrial Revolution where technology and specialization created massive improvement in living standards as well as massive growth in the economy. The oligarchs owned the means of production. Now, we see technology making most of these advances so cheap that anyone can do themselves, and the means of production becomes mostly irrelevant. Mass customization is the way of the future where everyone can produce as they wish – with little say from the oligarchs. Hence, the people are empowered.

In the military, it's the same way. At first, people would band together to defend themselves with very simple weaponry. This was a very dangerous time because the cost of entry into war was pretty low, and the gain was pretty high. It was common to raid a village, kill the men, rape the women, and take back the loot. Think of the Vikings. Then large states came about and raise there huge armies that no one, but other large states, can challenge. This encompasses everything from the Napoleonic Wars to WWII. Then we see large scale technology become irrelevant as the tools of war change. Think of Vietnam. We see the modern and relevant tools of war, anything from the internet & media to the sniper rifle & IEDs, are well within the financial range of most people around the world. Hence, the people are empowered.

An Effective Form of a Modern Military

Since it isn't likely that the United States will be fighting a war against a large state like Russia or China, we have to figure out what threats we need to guard against in this modern world. Many believe that our gravest threat is foreign terrorism, and I would agree there are definitely people out there who don't like us. These groups can now be more effective than ever before - empowerment goes both ways. Biological and chemical weapons are within the reach of anyone with the interest and the motivation. It's actually possible to get the full genetic sequence of the Spanish Flu virus, and it's possible to obtain the sequence and form it into a functioning virus.

It's going to be nearly impossible to defend against such attacks should they come, and if it is possible it will surely only be a massive big brother state that will be capable of such enforcement. The real issue we need to treat of the disease of terrorism is the cause – not the symptoms. Terrorism's root lies in the public sentiment against the the United States and the West because of our hegemonic ways. The proponents of fighting 4G wars are on the side of the hegemonies. The only reason to engage in offensive combat with non-state entities is because you're trying to force your will on them. This is de rigor for the powers of the West.

Defense against such groups is logical, and perhaps the best way to prevent terrorist attacks using NBC or conventional weapons is to not antagonize them. By building military bases on their holy lands and trying to control their governments we're making them hate us. I'm sure we'd be doing the same thing if China tried to invade us. Let's pull out of most of these bases and cease our oppression of these peoples.

Instead, we need to adapt our forces for modern military action. The amount of regular troops should come down significantly – while still maintaining technological dominance. We really don't have a use for them if we're not invading all the time. We'll need to maintain, or even increase, the amount and superiority of special forces teams as well as all units that are in direct support of them.

SpecOps troops are not only superior in combat tactics and skills, but are also able to quickly train forces for rapid deployment. The regular military should also have in place the ability to raise an army quickly from volunteers. This means not only training ability, but also contracts with weapons manufacturers to quickly retool to produce the implements of war – from rifles to tanks. Air forces would not be scaled down as much because of their decisive advantage during times of war as well their much increased training times. A missile defense shield would also be a good idea.

Our intelligence assets (CIA, DIA, NSA, NRO, etc.) must be brought under one roof to facilitate better reaction time to impending danger as well as to maintain a consistent mission abroad. Our internal forces (FBI, DHS, ATF, DEA, etc.) should also be brought under one roof to better fight criminal and terrorist threats more effectively. However, these internal agencies should fully obey our constitution and laws at all times – no matter if you're a simple drug dealer or a Osama Bin Laden.

This system is a vast change from our current one, but I believe it will enable us to move away from hegemony and into a more defensive mode – which is really what non-intervention is all about. The tactics of war will always change, but our strategy, as derived from our principles, doesn't have to.