The Greek Tragedy Has Many Acts

February 2, 2012

   Do not think about, write about or deal with  human behavior without determining the effects of incentives.

     Europe is suffering from one of its coldest winters. the lines are burning up to make trades in the carbon trading exchanges–oh wait, they’re aren’t any of those anymore. Not quite true–the price has gone from .62 to .08 in whatever bizarre units these things trade for. The volume for some days is zero. Trading carbon credits is like trading for the rights to name leprechauns.

    One of the Greek problems is that its bloated government bureaucracy was what supported more government expansion, spending and special privileges for government employees. Apparently, only a few people a crash coming from this.

¶ ATHENS — For nearly two years, as the debt crisis worsened, Diomidis Spinellis led a team that devised innovative software to help Greece crack down on tax cheats. He sent daily reports to his superiors showing which regional tax offices lagged in closing cases and collecting tax revenue.

¶ But last September, Mr. Spinellis, who interrupted a brilliant career as a computer science professor in 2009 to work for the Greek Finance Ministry, resigned, frustrated that officials did little or nothing with the data he generated.

¶ “I cannot remember getting an enthusiastic response,” Mr. Spinellis, 45, said with characteristic understatement in an interview in his tiny, book-filled office at Athens University of Economics and Business, where he has returned to teaching.

¶ In exchange for the bailout money that Greece needs by March to avoid what could be a catastrophic default, the country’s foreign lenders have demanded radical changes to make the state more efficient and bring in more tax revenue. But as Mr. Spinellis’s experience showed, good intentions and directives can easily be evaded or sabotaged by the political class, if its members have not signed on.

¶ In Greece, the government of the technocratic prime minister, Lucas Papademos, is proving powerless to transform an inefficient public administration that has long served as a power base for the same political leaders — including most of the current government’s ministers — who are now being asked to dismantle it.

¶ It is a formula for gridlock that virtually guarantees, political and financial experts say, that the Greek government will never carry out the kind of basic changes that are being demanded of it.

¶ “In Greece, the real power is the power of resistance, the power of inertia,” said Giorgos Floridis, a former member of Parliament from the Socialist Party who recently founded a reform-minded civic movement. Today, he said, the main power centers in Greece — political parties, business leaders, professional guilds, public sector unions and the media — are fighting to preserve their privileges, blocking structural changes that could make the economy more functional.

¶ The slow pace of change is one reason the government and its so-called troika of foreign lenders — the European Union, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund — have relied more heavily on swifter measures, like hard-to-evade tax increases and across-the-board wage cuts, that have helped push the economy deeper into recession.

¶ Change is all the more difficult when corruption appears to be woven into the fabric of the Greek state. Last month, Yiannis Kapeleris, the Finance Ministry’s general secretary for tax and customs affairs — and Mr. Spinellis’s former boss — was forced to resign after being placed under criminal investigation in a complex case involving failure to collect fines imposed on fuel companies. He denies the charges.

¶ Also last month, the man in charge of the Finance Ministry’s Financial Crimes Unit in the northern city of Salonika, Christos Papachatzis, was among 53 people arrested on charges of extortion and leading a protection racket that lent money at usurious rates. According to a wiretapped telephone conversation reported in the Greek news media, he reassured the leader of the gang, Markos Karaberis, that he would not act on a complaint against him.

¶ Asked about the arrest in an interview, Pantelis Economou, a Finance Ministry official who is also a high-ranking member of the Socialist Party, said: “He’s alleged to be a member of a gang, and it seems it’s true. He was the chief there. He was also my party’s member. I sacked him the next day.”

¶ Mr. Papachatzis denied the charges through his lawyer, who said his client was the target of politically motivated prosecutors intent on demonizing the finance minister, Evangelos Venizelos, who is widely seen to be vying to become the leader of the Socialist Party.

¶ In another sign of the nexus between the criminal underworld and Greek politics, all those arrested in the Salonika investigation had ties to the three parties supporting Mr. Papademos’s coalition: the Socialists, the center-right New Democracy party and the hard-right Popular Orthodox Rally, known as L.A.O.S. (Mr. Karaberis ran for a regional office last year with L.A.O.S., using the campaign motto “Clean hands, clear ideas.”)

¶ Mr. Spinellis was supposed to be part of a new generation. He was hired through an open government initiative started by the Socialist Party to promote meritocracy over cronyism, but which critics now say was largely cronyism under another guise.

<insert>

   Cronyism in government. What’s next, corruption and inefficiency?

Things started out well for Mr. Spinellis. He led a team of 800 people in creating databases to crosscheck property ownership or large money transfers abroad against declared income and to help digitize a tax collection system that still relies on paper. Unable to hire, fire or give performance-based bonuses — that sort of thing is simply not done in the Greek government — he rewarded productive workers informally, with better parking spots.

<insert>

     Can’t fire and hire. How can that go wrong?

But as time went on, he felt thwarted. His reports clearly indicated which regional tax offices were performing poorly, but no action was taken.

He recalled a meeting in May when he and George Papaconstantinou, then the finance minister, and another ministry official were working to set tax rates that would balance the budget. “I remember wondering why we were doing the work that was the responsibility of the secretary general for taxation and customs,” he said, referring to Mr. Kapeleris and his deputy. “I then realized that we were on our own, and that the cards were stacked against us.”

Mr. Kapeleris did not respond to a request for comment.

Last September, Mr. Spinellis decided to resign, citing personal reasons.

But in a speech in December he stirred up controversy when he spoke openly about corruption, describing a “4-4-2” system in which Greek tax collectors would traditionally lop off 40 percent of a taxpayer’s outstanding tax fine, ask for 40 percent under the table and send the remaining 20 percent to the state.

Mr. Economou, who oversaw Mr. Spinellis’s department, said it was easy for Mr. Spinellis to talk after leaving. “If I quit, I’d be a hero tomorrow, too,” Mr. Economou said. “Sure, there’s bribery, there are moral offenses,” he added. “But our job is to face them, to oppose them and face them.”

<insert>

    Coercion and corruption–the daily double of government.

Mr. Economou said that it was difficult for the ministry to act on Mr. Spinellis’s data because the ministry’s infrastructure was simply not up to the task. “It’s correct he was generating reports every afternoon,” Mr. Economou said. “These reports came to my office” and to others’, he added, “but there’s no system to manage this phenomenon.”

He said that the ministry was doing its best to create such a system, but that radical administrative change took time.

According to one database that Mr. Spinellis helped create, the tax office in the Athens neighborhood of Zografou closes only 13 percent of its outstanding tax cases. But on a recent afternoon, the challenges there were clear. A few taxpayers came in, confused about which forms to fill out. Boxes of paper files were piled up around the office. An unused dot-matrix printer sat gathering dust.

“We’re supposed to be a country in Europe, but the way things work it’s like a third world country,” said Jenny Sakka, an employee. Her computer was powered by the outdated Windows 2000 operating system, she said, and austerity-induced reductions in office staffing had created a larger backlog of cases.

Making matters worse, she said, wage cuts imposed by Greece in agreement with its foreign lenders meant that some people simply were not able to pay their tax bills. She said she believed that wilier people could use connections to help reduce what they owed. “We have a punishment system only for the poor and the honest,” Ms. Sakka said.

There is one note of optimism, experts say: the whole system under which politicians used state money to dole out favors and hire supporters is collapsing under the pressure of the economic crisis.

“When the money stops flowing, things change,” Mr. Spinellis said.

<end>

    If you don’t plan for the collapse–the collapse will plan for you.


Cheerio and ttfn,
Grant Coulson
Cui Bono–Cherchez les Contingencies

Managing Economies For Social Justice

February 2, 2012

    Do not think about, write about or deal with  human behavior without determining the effects of incentives.

Thanks to marginalrevolution.com for the graph.

    One of the reasons for the European Union was that social engineering would bring more opportunities for youth. Here’s how that worked out. Better luck the next hundred interventions.

image

    State intervention in economic matters produces the opposite of what it’s designed to do, yet, state intervention is neither discredited nor discouraged. Why is that?—There is no end to hope that the next one will get it right.

    The EU elite are talking about spending money for “programs for youth employment”.

Cheerio and ttfn,
Grant Coulson
Cui Bono–Cherchez les Contingencies

Green Energy Is Dying—As Predicted Here

February 1, 2012

    Do not think about, write about or deal with  human behavior without determining the effects of incentives.

    The only benefit I’ve ever been able to derive from the taxes sucked away from me is the comedy inherent in watching governments trying to save face by explaining that the “green energy” revolution was such a good idea.

    However, as a wise movie character once said, “Stupid is as stupid does.”

image

image

    Abandoned wind farm.

News yesterday that Google was completely abandoning its Green Energy program was yet another coffin nail in the global renewables industry which has universally failed to deliver reliable and affordable energy and no lasting Green jobs.

All around the world renewable energy projects are being abandoned as costs rise and voters get wise to just how much this so called Green Revolution is costing, not only in hard cash but also the jobs that pointless and futile emissions legislation are  causing to be lost as companies relocate to more favourable locations.

     Better luck next fad.

Cheerio and ttfn,
Grant Coulson
Cui Bono–Cherchez les Contingencies

The Only Way To Stop Them Wasting Money Is To Give Them Less

January 30, 2012

     Do not think about, write about or deal with  human behavior without determining the effects of incentives.

Labor Dept. Targets the Family Farm

    Bob Beauprez

I  was seven when my Dad put me on the seat of an Oliver 77 tractor and sent me to the field to rake hay by myself.  My Dad said he was about the same age when his father first assigned him to a pair of horses and a mower to cut hay on his own.  My mom was just five when her dad took her to the barn to hand milk cows.  When Claudia and I had our own four children, they all helped out on our dairy farm at pretty young ages, too.

To those unfamiliar with life on a farm, this might seem inappropriate, dangerous, or even abusive.  It’s not.  It is a way of life that has existed for as long as there have been farms and families.  In many cases it was necessary to support the survival of the family.  That was the case for my parents who were farm kids during the Great Depression.  Family work on a farm or ranch is also a way of life that instills values and principles that seem to be increasingly more difficult to pass from one generation to the next in today’s America.

Yes, sometimes the work is dangerous and accidents do happen.  They can be serious, even fatal.  But, the rewards of the culture of the family farm have long been believed to far outweigh the risks, and government historically left parenting and farm family life alone.  That’s about to change.

<insert>

    These “laws” will be universally ignored, so that’s not the problem. The problem is that these nitwits believe in the capability of governments to make things better. There will be the cost of enforcement, the distortion of incentives and the further ridicule of government as consequences for this pointless  exercise in government power.

The Obama Administration is proposing to use the force of federal law to usurp the judgment of farm parents and replace it with government regulations.  Led by big labor, union advocate Hilda Solis, Secretary of Labor, the Administration is proposing a sweeping set of new rules that would do the following:

    Prohibit children under 16 who are being paid from operating most power-driven equipment, including tractors and combines. Some student-learners would be exempted from the ban on operating tractors and other farm implements, but only if the equipment has rollover protection and seat belts.

    Bar those under 18 from working at grain elevators, silos, feedlots and livestock auctions and from transporting raw farm materials.


    Prevent youths 15 and younger from cultivating, curing and harvesting tobacco to prevent exposure to green tobacco sickness, which is caused by exposure to wet tobacco plants.

    Prohibit youths from using electronic devices such as cellphones while operating power-driven equipment.

Solis believes that some farm work is "too hazardous for children to be engaged in."  How she knows this is anyone’s guess since she apparently has never lived or worked on a farm, nor do we find any evidence that she has children of her own.

Solis’s parents were both labor union members and activists.  She is a life-long government employee and proponent of “environmental justice.”  As Labor Secretary she has been a chief operative enacting Big Labor’s agenda by the Obama Administration.

The Labor Department says the proposed regulations would not apply to children working on farms owned by their parents, but the new regulations would prevent youngsters from doing some jobs for pay at the farms of neighbors and relatives – a tradition as old as our nation.  It would also prevent scores of farm kids from getting summer or part-time jobs which historically have aided family incomes and helped a send countless numbers to college.

But, the biggest problem with Solis’s proposal is that she’s sticking government’s nose squarely where it doesn’t belong.   And, as is always the case, once government’s nose is under the tent, you can bet that more regulation and control is right around the corner.

America began as a nation of farmers, and throughout our history the family farm has embodied the best of our national culture and family life.  There is no big movement in America to adopt these new regulations; there’s been no vote in Congress.  The Obama Administration is doing this just because they can; to grab more power for the government; to exert ever more control over our lives.  And, they are doing it because as the “enlightened Central Planners” they believe that they are smarter than all the rest of us – including parents of farm children.  They are wrong. 

<end>

     Perhaps only those of us who have experience with farm work at a very young age can appreciate the nonsense that this involves. I was given the steering wheel of a Cockshutt tractor at age 5. Working on the farm was brutally tiring work and I don’t recommend it to anyone, but we had a choice.

Cheerio and ttfn,
Grant Coulson
Cui Bono–Cherchez les Contingencies

Ritalin Not Effective In The Long-Term

January 30, 2012

 

    Do not think about, write about or deal with  human behavior without determining the effects of incentives.

    Almost all the psychoactive drugs  given to children are prescribed in North America.

   “We’ve tried Adderall, Zooloft, Prozac and Ritalin. None of them worked, so now he’s turned to drugs.”

   Of the several hundred children I’ve seen who are on psychoactive drugs, I’ve observed positive effects in two. One was a “typical” child whose behavior improved with Ritalin. Another was an autistic child who responded to the off-label use of Prozac.

Ritalin Gone Wrong
By L. ALAN SROUFE

THREE million children in this country take drugs for problems in focusing. Toward the end of last year, many of their parents were deeply alarmed because there was a shortage of drugs like Ritalin and Adderall that they considered absolutely essential to their children’s functioning.

But are these drugs really helping children? Should we really keep expanding the number of prescriptions filled?

In 30 years there has been a twentyfold increase in the consumption of drugs for attention-deficit disorder.

As a psychologist who has been studying the development of troubled children for more than 40 years, I believe we should be asking why we rely so heavily on these drugs.

Attention-deficit drugs increase concentration in the short term, which is why they work so well for college students cramming for exams. But when given to children over long periods of time, they neither improve school achievement nor reduce behavior problems. The drugs can also have serious side effects, including stunting growth.

<insert>

   Just because they aren’t working doesn’t mean we should stop using them.

Sadly, few physicians and parents seem to be aware of what we have been learning about the lack of effectiveness of these drugs.

What gets publicized are short-term results and studies on brain differences among children. Indeed, there are a number of incontrovertible facts that seem at first glance to support medication. It is because of this partial foundation in reality that the problem with the current approach to treating children has been so difficult to see.

Back in the 1960s I, like most psychologists, believed that children with difficulty concentrating were suffering from a brain problem of genetic or otherwise inborn origin. Just as Type I diabetics need insulin to correct problems with their inborn biochemistry, these children were believed to require attention-deficit drugs to correct theirs. It turns out, however, that there is little to no evidence to support this theory.

<insert>

     Ah yes, the medical metaphor.

In 1973, I reviewed the literature on drug treatment of children for The New England Journal of Medicine. Dozens of well-controlled studies showed that these drugs immediately improved children’s performance on repetitive tasks requiring concentration and diligence. I had conducted one of these studies myself. Teachers and parents also reported improved behavior in almost every short-term study. This spurred an increase in drug treatment and led many to conclude that the “brain deficit” hypothesis had been confirmed.

But questions continued to be raised, especially concerning the drugs’ mechanism of action and the durability of effects. Ritalin and Adderall, a combination of dextroamphetamine and amphetamine, are stimulants. So why do they appear to calm children down? Some experts argued that because the brains of children with attention problems were different, the drugs had a mysterious paradoxical effect on them.

However, there really was no paradox. Versions of these drugs had been given to World War II radar operators to help them stay awake and focus on boring, repetitive tasks. And when we reviewed the literature on attention-deficit drugs again in 1990 we found that all children, whether they had attention problems or not, responded to stimulant drugs the same way. Moreover, while the drugs helped children settle down in class, they actually increased activity in the playground. Stimulants generally have the same effects for all children and adults. They enhance the ability to concentrate, especially on tasks that are not inherently interesting or when one is fatigued or bored, but they don’t improve broader learning abilities.

And just as in the many dieters who have used and abandoned similar drugs to lose weight, the effects of stimulants on children with attention problems fade after prolonged use. Some experts have argued that children with A.D.D. wouldn’t develop such tolerance because their brains were somehow different. But in fact, the loss of appetite and sleeplessness in children first prescribed attention-deficit drugs do fade, and, as we now know, so do the effects on behavior. They apparently develop a tolerance to the drug, and thus its efficacy disappears. Many parents who take their children off the drugs find that behavior worsens, which most likely confirms their belief that the drugs work. But the behavior worsens because the children’s bodies have become adapted to the drug. Adults may have similar reactions if they suddenly cut back on coffee, or stop smoking.

TO date, no study has found any long-term benefit of attention-deficit medication on academic performance, peer relationships or behavior problems, the very things we would most want to improve. Until recently, most studies of these drugs had not been properly randomized, and some of them had other methodological flaws.

But in 2009, findings were published from a well-controlled study that had been going on for more than a decade, and the results were very clear. The study randomly assigned almost 600 children with attention problems to four treatment conditions. Some received medication alone, some cognitive-behavior therapy alone, some medication plus therapy, and some were in a community-care control group that received no systematic treatment. At first this study suggested that medication, or medication plus therapy, produced the best results. However, after three years, these effects had faded, and by eight years there was no evidence that medication produced any academic or behavioral benefits.

Indeed, all of the treatment successes faded over time, although the study is continuing. Clearly, these children need a broader base of support than was offered in this medication study, support that begins earlier and lasts longer.

Nevertheless, findings in neuroscience are being used to prop up the argument for drugs to treat the hypothesized “inborn defect.” These studies show that children who receive an A.D.D. diagnosis have different patterns of neurotransmitters in their brains and other anomalies. While the technological sophistication of these studies may impress parents and nonprofessionals, they can be misleading. Of course the brains of children with behavior problems will show anomalies on brain scans. It could not be otherwise. Behavior and the brain are intertwined. Depression also waxes and wanes in many people, and as it does so, parallel changes in brain functioning occur, regardless of medication.

Many of the brain studies of children with A.D.D. involve examining participants while they are engaged in an attention task. If these children are not paying attention because of lack of motivation or an underdeveloped capacity to regulate their behavior, their brain scans are certain to be anomalous.

However brain functioning is measured, these studies tell us nothing about whether the observed anomalies were present at birth or whether they resulted from trauma, chronic stress or other early-childhood experiences. One of the most profound findings in behavioral neuroscience in recent years has been the clear evidence that the developing brain is shaped by experience.

It is certainly true that large numbers of children have problems with attention, self-regulation and behavior. But are these problems because of some aspect present at birth? Or are they caused by experiences in early childhood? These questions can be answered only by studying children and their surroundings from before birth through childhood and adolescence, as my colleagues at the University of Minnesota and I have been doing for decades.

Since 1975, we have followed 200 children who were born into poverty and were therefore more vulnerable to behavior problems. We enrolled their mothers during pregnancy, and over the course of their lives, we studied their relationships with their caregivers, teachers and peers. We followed their progress through school and their experiences in early adulthood. At regular intervals we measured their health, behavior, performance on intelligence tests and other characteristics.

By late adolescence, 50 percent of our sample qualified for some psychiatric diagnosis. Almost half displayed behavior problems at school on at least one occasion, and 24 percent dropped out by 12th grade; 14 percent met criteria for A.D.D. in either first or sixth grade.

Other large-scale epidemiological studies confirm such trends in the general population of disadvantaged children. Among all children, including all socioeconomic groups, the incidence of A.D.D. is estimated at 8 percent. What we found was that the environment of the child predicted development of A.D.D. problems. In stark contrast, measures of neurological anomalies at birth, I.Q. and infant temperament — including infant activity level — did not predict A.D.D.

Plenty of affluent children are also diagnosed with A.D.D. Behavior problems in children have many possible sources. Among them are family stresses like domestic violence, lack of social support from friends or relatives, chaotic living situations, including frequent moves, and, especially, patterns of parental intrusiveness that involve stimulation for which the baby is not prepared. For example, a 6-month-old baby is playing, and the parent picks it up quickly from behind and plunges it in the bath. Or a 3-year-old is becoming frustrated in solving a problem, and a parent taunts or ridicules. Such practices excessively stimulate and also compromise the child’s developing capacity for self-regulation.

Putting children on drugs does nothing to change the conditions that derail their development in the first place. Yet those conditions are receiving scant attention. Policy makers are so convinced that children with attention deficits have an organic disease that they have all but called off the search for a comprehensive understanding of the condition. The National Institute of Mental Health finances research aimed largely at physiological and brain components of A.D.D. While there is some research on other treatment approaches, very little is studied regarding the role of experience. Scientists, aware of this orientation, tend to submit only grants aimed at elucidating the biochemistry.

Thus, only one question is asked: are there aspects of brain functioning associated with childhood attention problems? The answer is always yes. Overlooked is the very real possibility that both the brain anomalies and the A.D.D. result from experience.

Our present course poses numerous risks. First, there will never be a single solution for all children with learning and behavior problems. While some smaller number may benefit from short-term drug treatment, large-scale, long-term treatment for millions of children is not the answer.

Second, the large-scale medication of children feeds into a societal view that all of life’s problems can be solved with a pill and gives millions of children the impression that there is something inherently defective in them.

Finally, the illusion that children’s behavior problems can be cured with drugs prevents us as a society from seeking the more complex solutions that will be necessary. Drugs get everyone — politicians, scientists, teachers and parents — off the hook. Everyone except the children, that is.

If drugs, which studies show work for four to eight weeks, are not the answer, what is? Many of these children have anxiety or depression; others are showing family stresses. We need to treat them as individuals.

As for shortages, they will continue to wax and wane. Because these drugs are habit forming, Congress decides how much can be produced. The number approved doesn’t keep pace with the tidal wave of prescriptions. By the end of this year, there will in all likelihood be another shortage, as we continue to rely on drugs that are not doing what so many well-meaning parents, therapists and teachers believe they are doing.

<end>

Cheerio and ttfn,
Grant Coulson
Cui Bono–Cherchez les Contingencies

Against Anti-Depressants

January 29, 2012

     Do not think about, write about or deal with  human behavior without determining the effects of incentives.

     Another diatribe against anti-depressants–a little rhetoric heavy, but the facts are correct.

Would you pay $12 billion for this?

Why antidepressants just don’t work

The 30 million Americans who take antidepressants are facing a serious mental disorder, that’s for sure — but it’s not depression.

It’s the mass delusion that causes them to waste $12 billion a year on meds scientifically proven time and again NOT to work. The latest research confirms that these drugs are nothing more than a lie with side effects.

Some of the most commonly used antidepressants of all — the SSRIs given out like candy at Halloween — can actually make the depression far WORSE for a huge number of patients.

<insert>

     SSRIs are selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors–fancy name, but drugs which decrease serotonin are no more effective than those which increase it or leave it alone. This is a fad, spiked by relentless PR work.

You may as well flush that $12 billion right down the toilet.

In the first study, sertraline (you know this junk better as Zoloft) was pitted against a placebo and psychotherapy — and after 16 weeks, there was virtually no difference between the three groups.

None!

But at least placebos never hurt anyone — and the only risk of talk therapy is an hour of mind-numbing psychobabble.

SSRIs like Zoloft, on the other hand, come with enough risks to fill a book: sexual dysfunction, bizarre behavior, suicide, and sleeping problems — not to mention the dizzies, shakes, and sweats.

Think that’s enough? I’m just getting started! SSRIs have been linked to osteoporosis in men and women alike as well as a higher risk of stroke and an early death in women.

And now, you can add one more serious side effect to that ever-growing list: worsening depression. Because yet another new study finds that up to a fifth of all patients on Cymbalta or similar medications may actually feel even lousier than they did before they started taking meds.

Talk about adding insult to injury!

<snip>

    Chronic ingestion of artificial substances of dubious value can never be a good idea.


Cheerio and ttfn,
Grant Coulson
Cui Bono–Cherchez les Contingencies

Innovation Blocked By Regulation—Innovation Delayed Is Innovation Denied

January 28, 2012

     Do not think about, write about or deal with  human behavior without determining the effects of incentives.

    Innovation can have many forms, new ideas, theories, products, projects, etc. Having to get permission cannot help the process.

  excerpt from an article by Alex Taborrok

<start>

“THE RED-TAPE MENACE

Regulation is another area in which we lack an innovation vision. There are good regulations and bad regulations and lots of debate over which is which. From an innovation perspective, however, this debate misses a key point. Let’s assume that all regulations are good. The problem is that even if each regulation is good, the net effect of all the regulations combined may be bad. A single pebble in a big stream doesn’t do much, but throw enough pebbles and the stream of innovation is dammed.

Building in the United States today, for example, requires navigating a thicket of environmental, zoning and aesthetic regulations that vary not only state by state but county by county. If building a house is difficult, try building an airport. Passenger travel has more than tripled since deregulation in 1978, but in that time only one major new airport has been built: Denver’s. That airport is now the fourth busiest in the world. Indeed the top seven busiest airports are all in the United States, not so much because we are big but because without new construction we are forced to overcrowd our existing infrastructure. The result is delays and inefficiency. Meanwhile, China is building 50 to 100 new airports over the next 10 years.

Regulatory thickets are also strangling energy innovation. The U.S. Department of Energy, for example, estimates that small and environmentally friendly hydro-electric projects could generate at least 30,000 MWs of power annually. That’s equivalent to the generating capacity of about 30 nuclear power plants. Moreover, since 97% of U.S. dams are generating zero power today, these projects would not require building any new dams. So what’s the problem? The problem is that building even a small hydro-electric project requires the approval of numerous agencies, including the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Army Corps of Engineers, State Environmental Departments and State Historic Preservation Departments. It’s simply too expensive, time-consuming and risky to build these projects when any of these agencies could veto it at any time. The net result is that we generate more electricity than necessary by leveling mountains, burning coal, and filling our air with dangerous particulates and climate-changing CO2.

<insert>

    Uncertainty, uncertain time frames, delays, impertinent obstructions by those whose salaries are guaranteed–all are guaranteed by regulation.

BUILDING THE NEXT HOOVER DAM

Our ancestors were bold and industrious. They built a significant portion of our energy and road infrastructure more than half a century ago. It would be almost impossible to build that system today. Could we build the Hoover Dam today? We have the technology. We seem to lack the will. Unfortunately, we cannot rely on the infrastructure of our past to travel to our future. Airports, an electricity smart grid that doesn’t throw millions into the dark every few years, and ubiquitous Wi-Fi are among the important infrastructures of the 21st century, and they are caught in the regulatory thicket.

Our economy is stagnant and for the first time in a long time, and the national mood is deeply pessimistic. To restore our economy and our spirits we need to become an innovation nation. An innovative nation would improve the prospects for economic growth but could do much more. The warfare-welfare state divides the pie and also divides Americans. Americans, however, are an innovative, forward-thinking people and the prospects are good for uniting them on a pro-growth, pro-innovation agenda.”

<end>

     Giving people stuff without effort makes them lazy. You can look it up.  Probably also makes them complacent—to wit, non-innovative.

Cheerio and ttfn,
Grant Coulson
Cui Bono–Cherchez les Contingencies

Another Government Supported Bankruptcy

January 26, 2012

    Do not think about, write about or deal with  human behavior without determining the effects of incentives.

Battery maker Ener1—DOE recipient—Goes Bankrupt

By Steve Hargreaves @CNNMoneyTech January 26, 2012

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) — Electric car battery maker Ener1 filed for bankruptcy Thursday, three years after receiving a $118.5 million grant from the U.S. government.

Ener1 (HEVV), which makes a variety of energy storage devices under different subsidiaries, is the parent company of EnerDel, the car battery division that received the government grant to help build a manufacturing plant in Indianapolis.

Unlike bankrupt Solyndra, the advanced solar panel maker that became a lightning rod for critics of Obama’s stimulus spending when it closed its factory and liquidated, Ener1 promised its business will proceed as usual.

The company said the "voluntarily initiated" bankruptcy filing won’t impact any of its subsidiaries, including EnerDel.

"The restructuring will not adversely impact their employees, customers and suppliers," the company said in a press release, noting there will be no layoffs as a result of the action.

The company blamed the bankruptcy on a slower than expected demand for electric vehicles.
Making a battery to replace oil

Analysts have also said any electric car battery maker faces stiff competition from Asian firms, which are largely considered to be well ahead of the curve due to their long experience making batteries for electronics. Ener1 was thought to offer one of the best chances for an American company to compete in this field.

The company said that’s still the case, and that the restructuring will allow it to reduce its debt and free up $81 million for capital spending.

<insert>

    The future always looks good for government-supported enterprises until the really embarrassing final closing.

"Our business partners have an appreciation for our future business opportunities," CEO Alex Sorokin said in a statement. "We expect the new funding to provide ample liquidity for our subsidiaries to meet their ongoing obligations to employees, customers and suppliers."

The Department of Energy, which awarded the grant, agreed.

"While it’s unfortunate that Ener1, the parent company, has entered a restructuring process, the new infusion of $80 million in private capital demonstrates that the technology has merit," DOE said in a statement.

<insert>

    Government employees talking about enterprise is like cows mooing about making apple pies.

Ener1 received the grant in 2009 as part of a $2.4 billion stimulus effort to jump start the electric car industry.

The program was different from the Energy Department program that funded now-bankrupt solar panel maker Solyndra and Beacon Power, a maker of energy storage devices. Nonetheless, critics jumped at the chance to highlight another government grant gone bad.

"Sadly, the Department of Energy’s jobs record seems to grow worse by the day," Florida Representative Cliff Stearns, a Republican, said in a statement. "It is American taxpayers who are paying the price."

But during his State of the Union speech, President Obama struck a defiant tone, refusing to apologize for the decisions his administration has made, which includes the funding of hundreds of clean energy companies or companies engaged in clean technology research.

"Some technologies don’t pan out; some companies fail," said Obama. "But I will not walk away from the promise of clean energy."

<end>

      The promise, always the promise. This circus will just continue. The only way to stop them wasting money is to give them less of it.


Cheerio and ttfn,
Grant Coulson
Cui Bono–Cherchez les Contingencies

Psychiatry’s Grand Illusions

January 26, 2012

     Do not think about, write about or deal with  human behavior without determining the effects of incentives.

Psychiatry’s Grand Confession
Posted on January 23, 2012 by Jonathan Leo, Ph.D. / Jeffrey Lacasse, Ph.D. RSS

The psychiatry profession has finally come clean and confessed on a national media outlet that there is no evidence to support the Serotonin Theory of Depression. Today, on NPR’s Morning Edition there is a segment about the chemical imbalance theory, and virtually all the psychiatrists who are interviewed acknowledge that the there was never any evidence in support of the idea that low serotonin causes depression. But then, amazingly, they go on to say that it is perfectly fine to tell patients that serotonin imbalance causes depression even though they know this isn’t the case.

<insert>

   Since the “effectiveness” of anti-depressant drugs is limited and is not dependent of whether serotonin increases, decreases or stays the same, this theory never has had any explanatory power.

Several years ago in PLoS Medicine we wrote a long piece about the serotonin theory and the disconnect between what research psychiatrists say in professional journals and textbooks and what the advertisements say. While the advertisements presented the theory as scientific fact, the scientific sources clearly did not. Given the enormous marketing programs that pushed this theory combined with the media’s lack of skepticism, we were sympathetic to the general public who could hardly be faulted for thinking that theory had some foundation in fact. Following the publication of our piece a reporter contacted us and suggested that we were attacking a well accepted theory. We pointed out to the reporter that we weren’t attacking a sacred cow but that instead we were pointing out the mainstream psychiatry didn’t even accept this theory. We urged the reporter to contact the FDA, NIMH, APA, etc and ask them about the science behind the advertisements. He did, and as expected, an expert from the FDA explained that the theory was really just a metaphor. The problem is that patients who heard their physician explain the serotonin theory thought they were hearing real science. They weren’t told it was a metaphor and hence thought it was a fact. When a doctor talks about high cholesterol, diabetes, or hypothyroidism, they are talking about scientific measurement, not a metaphor. How is a patient with high cholesterol and depression who listens to their doctor’s explanation of their conditions supposed to know when the doctor has moved from science to metaphor?

Several months ago Ronald Pies published an interesting article in Psychiatric Times entitled, “Psychiatry’s New Brain-Mind and the Legend of the Chemical Imbalance.” Pies, just like the experts on NPR, acknowledges that the Chemical Imbalance theory is not true. However, according to Pies, it was the pharmaceutical companies who espoused the theory, and not well-informed, practicing clinicians, because the psychiatry community has known all along that the theory is not true.

But if the Psychiatry Community knew all along that the theory was not true, then why did they not clarify this issue for the general public? Shouldn’t they have pointed out to the general public and patients that what the pharmaceutical companies were saying about psychological stress was not true? Why did the professional societies not publicly set the record straight?

There are many angry comments on the NPR website. These comments are interesting, because apparently many patients who were told that depression is caused by a chemical imbalance never understood that were hearing a metaphor and not science. Since the chemical imbalance theory is often presented as a rationale for taking SSRIs, such patients now understandably feel lied to by their clinicians.

Perhaps the most interesting part about the NPR piece is that the reporter seems to not understand that the idea of telling a falsehood to patients because you think it is good for them is a serious violation of informed consent. Shouldn’t the reporter have asked the obvious questions, such as:

1) Do you feel it is acceptable to present a scientific theory as fact even though you know it is false?
2) Is it okay for psychiatrists to tell patients stories about their conditions that psychiatrists know are false?
3) Is there not an ethical issue when a psychiatrist informs their patient that they have a serotonin imbalance, when the medical textbooks on the shelf clearly say this is a falsified theory?

In general, we are fans of NPR, but hopefully the next news outlet that covers this topic will be more investigative in their approach.

<end>

      Psychopharmaceuticals are like political programs, the product is shoddy, but the marketing  world-class.

Cheerio and ttfn,
Grant Coulson
Cui Bono–Cherchez les Contingencies

Teachers Who Teach Teachers

January 25, 2012

      Do not think about, write about or deal with  human behavior without determining the effects of incentives.

    The State of the Union emphasized, not spending cuts, but ways to get the government more money. This is not a good sign.

Schools of Education

Walter E. Williams

Larry Sand’s article "No Wonder Johnny (Still) Can’t Read" — written for The John William Pope Center for Higher Education Policy, based in Raleigh, N.C. — blames schools of education for the decline in America’s education. Education professors drum into students that they should not "drill and kill" or be the "sage on the stage" but instead be the "guide on the side" who "facilitates student discovery." This kind of harebrained thinking, coupled with multicultural nonsense, explains today’s education. During his teacher education, Sand says, "teachers-to-be were forced to learn about this ethnic group, that impoverished group, this sexually anomalous group, that under-represented group, etc. — all under the rubric of ‘Culturally Responsive Education.’"

<insert>

    The shibboleths guiding schools of education are so strange that the opposites are correct.

Education majors are woefully lacking in academic skills. Here are some sample test questions for you to answer. Question 1: Which of the following is equal to a quarter-million? a) 40,000, b) 250,000, c) 2,500,000, d) 1/4,000,000 or e) 4/1,000,000. Question 2: Martin Luther King Jr. (insert the correct choice) for the poor of all races. a) spoke out passionately, b) spoke out passionate, c) did spoke out passionately, d) has spoke out passionately or e) had spoken out passionate. Question 3: What would you do if your student sprained an ankle? a) Put a Band-Aid on it, b) Ice it or c) Rinse it with water.

Guess whether these questions were on a sixth-grade, ninth-grade or 12th-grade test. I bet the average reader would guess that it’s a sixth-grade test. Wrong. How about ninth-grade? Wrong again. You say, "OK, Williams, so they’re 12th-grade test questions!" Still wrong. According to a Heartland Institute-published School Reform News (September 2001) article titled "Who Tells Teachers They Can Teach?", those test questions came from prospective teacher tests. The first two questions are samples from the Praxis I test for teachers, and the third is from the 1999 teacher certification test in Illinois. According to the Chicago Sun-Times (9/6/01), 5,243 Illinois teachers failed their teacher certification tests. The Chicago Sun-Times also reported, "One teacher failed 24 of 25 teacher tests — including 11 of 12 Basic Skills tests and all 12 tests on teaching learning-disabled children." Yet that teacher was assigned to teach learning-disabled children in Chicago. Departments of education have solved the problem of teacher test failure. According to a New York Post story (11/14/11) titled "City teacher tests turn into E-ZPass," more than 99 percent of teachers pass.

Textbooks used in schools of education advocate sheer nonsense. A passage in Enid Lee et al.’s "Beyond Heroes and Holidays" reads: "We cannot afford to become so bogged down in grammar and spelling that we forget the whole story. … The onslaught of antihuman practices that this nation and other nations are facing today: racism, and sexism, and the greed for money and human labor that disguises itself as ‘globalization.’" Marilyn Burns’ text "About Teaching Mathematics" reads, "There is no place for requiring students to practice tedious calculations that are more efficiently and accurately done by using calculators." "New Designs for Teaching and Learning," by Dennis Adams and Mary Hamm, says: "Content knowledge is not seen to be as important as possessing teaching skills and knowledge about the students being taught. … Successful teachers understand the outside context of community, personal abilities, and feelings, while they establish an inside context or environment conducive to learning." That means it’s no problem if a teacher can’t figure out that a quarter-million is the same as 250,000. Harvey Daniels and Marilyn Bizar’s text "Methods that Matter" reads, "Students can no longer be viewed as cognitive living rooms into which the furniture of knowledge is moved in and arranged by teachers, and teachers cannot invariably act as subject-matter experts." The authors add, "The main use of standardized tests in America is to justify the distribution of certain goodies to certain people."

Schools of education represent the academic slums of most any college. American education can benefit from slum removal.

<end>

    This has been true for decades. The only way to stop them wasting money is to give them less. The only way to stop them abusing power is to give them less. The cult only stops when the money stops.

Cheerio and ttfn,
Grant Coulson
Cui Bono–Cherchez les Contingencies


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.