If nothing else, I don't call a projected 130 mph "high speed." Amtrak crews have told me that their current equipment could do 120 mph on decent rails and roadbeds that weren't beat to shit (and obstructed) by freight trains.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;349961]Now, don't let me keep you from your one-man scientific revolution. Time to crack open the differential geometry texts and try to figure out what is this mysterious "stress-energy tensor" of which Paul speaks over in the "A theism" thread.[/QUOTE]I heartily recommend Misner, Thorne & Wheeler's [i]Gravitation[/i] which was first published 40 years ago and has been in print ever since. It may not cover recent work, such as attempts to find a quantum field theory, but for classical GR it's unsurpassed IMO. There are two tracks through the book, each being indicated by a different annotation on the corner of the page; the fast track is very accessible and presumes only a relatively basic undergraduate student knowledge of special relativity, vector calculus and Maxwellian electrodynamics. The other track is really aimed at graduate students and researchers who are not (yet) GR specialists.

The Late Great Student Loan Bubble
 

My daughter is struggling with student loans. Fortunately, not a lot, $16k so she can work her way out. I contributed about $30,000 toward her expenses over 4 years and she worked at a minimum wage job the entire time she was in class. Still, she had to take out some loans to make the tuition and cost of books. So for me, this article strikes pretty close to home.

[URL]http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/ripping-off-young-america-the-college-loan-scandal-20130815[/URL]

The most telling part of the article is that students have no way to go to college without taking out student loans, have no way to pay them back once they graduate because the job market is so futzed, have no way to relieve the debt through bankruptcy, and can't get a decent job without a college degree. Full circle.


On the stress tensor and gravity subject, isn't anyone going to discuss this paper? [URL]http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909087[/URL]

DarJones

Debt peonage at its finest! Get 'em while they're young! They have time to pay LOTS of interest before they die. Better still, unlike debtors' prison, they have to pay their own upkeep. Bonus!:yucky:

Taibbi is probably the best commentator on and investigator of the cesspit of banking and investment. :sick:

[QUOTE=Fusion_power;350039]On the stress tensor and gravity subject, isn't anyone going to discuss this paper? [url]http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909087[/url][/QUOTE]Thanks for drawing my attention to it. I'll download it and study it, though I can't promise to be able to understand it well enough to be able to paraphrase in non-mathematical language. I'm very much an amateur at GR.

Paul

/begin OT/

The summary of the paper is proof that:
1. gravity propagates at the speed of light.
2. Any system with one body in orbit around another such as the sun and earth proves that the (earth) always points toward where the (sun) will be, not where it is and not where it was.
3. The effect of this is to cancel out the positional lagging that might be inferred from an analysis of the 8 minute delay caused by earth-sun distance of separation.
4. In a system where one body is presumed stationary and another is accelerating relative to the stationary gravity source, the lagging propagation due to Cg is canceled out entirely by the frame leading effects where the accelerating body vector is toward the future position of the stationary object.
5. If the accelerating object suddenly stops, then the vectors cancel out and the gravitational direction is toward the stationary object.

By extension and this is my own reasoning, this shows how a gravitational slingshot must work in a 3 star system where one of the stars is accelerated above escape velocity by interaction with the other two stars. Two of the stars must be robbed of orbital energy and two of the stars must move closer together as a result of the energy loss. One of the stars must gain the energy displaced from the other two stars. The vectors should prove that one of the possible results is that the star that gains energy must leave the system. There are plenty of trinary systems to study, maybe we should analyze them to see if any are close to ejecting one of their members?

/end OT/

[OT]
 

OT

[QUOTE=Fusion_power;350039]

On the stress tensor and gravity subject, isn't anyone going to discuss this paper? [URL]http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909087[/URL]

[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=xilman;350050]Thanks for drawing my attention to it. I'll download it and study it, though I can't promise to be able to understand it well enough to be able to paraphrase in non-mathematical language. I'm very much an amateur at GR.

Paul[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Fusion_power;350068]/begin OT/

The summary of the paper is proof that:

< snip >

/end OT/[/QUOTE]

I've started a new thread ("Aberation and the Speed of Gravity") for this discussion in the Science & Technology subforum at [url]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=350087#post350087[/url][URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=350087"][/URL]

[QUOTE=Fusion_power;350039]My daughter is struggling with student loans. Fortunately, not a lot, $16k so she can work her way out. I contributed about $30,000 toward her expenses over 4 years and she worked at a minimum wage job the entire time she was in class. Still, she had to take out some loans to make the tuition and cost of books. So for me, this article strikes pretty close to home.

[URL]http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/ripping-off-young-america-the-college-loan-scandal-20130815[/URL]

The most telling part of the article is that students have no way to go to college without taking out student loans, have no way to pay them back once they graduate because the job market is so futzed, have no way to relieve the debt through bankruptcy, and can't get a decent job without a college degree. Full circle.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=kladner;350047]Debt peonage at its finest! Get 'em while they're young! They have time to pay LOTS of interest before they die. Better still, unlike debtors' prison, they have to pay their own upkeep. Bonus!:yucky:

Taibbi is probably the best commentator on and investigator of the cesspit of banking and investment. :sick:[/QUOTE]Also let's not forget that for-profit schools might play fast-and-loose with a manufactured illusion of jobs: [URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/19/career-education-corp-settlement_n_3782418.html"]Career Education Corp. Reaches $10 Million Settlement In Investigation Of Bogus Job Placements[/URL][QUOTE]The settlement is one of the largest restitution funds created for students [B]allegedly[/B] defrauded by a for-profit college. The California Attorney General's Office reached a settlement with Corinthian Colleges Inc. in 2007 that resulted in a $5.8 million restitution fund.[/QUOTE]My bolding on "allegedly" because I am a crusty crab with a peeve or twenty-two. In other news, the SEC has [B]finally[/B] achieved a settlement that includes an admission of wrongdoing. Prosecutions may still be a bridge too far, but lowly peons may take some small satisfaction anyway: [URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/19/philip-falcone-banned_n_3781381.html"]Philip Falcone Barred From Securities Industry For 5 Years In $18 Million Settlement[/URL][QUOTE]The $18 million-plus settlement forces Falcone and Harbinger Capital to admit wrongdoing and bars Falcone from working in the securities industry for a minimum of 5 years, according to the SEC.

Falcone, who was worth an estimated $1.2 billion as of March, will pay around $11.5 million of the settlement, and Harbinger Capital will pay $6.5 million. From Reuters:[QUOTE]Falcone will be banned from associating with brokers, dealers, investment advisors and other types of financial firms for five years, after which he will be able to reapply for a license to operate. During that period he will be allowed to help with the liquidation of Harbinger under the supervision of an independent monitor, the announcement said.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

Larry Summers and the Secret "End-Game" Memo -Greg Palast
 

[B][URL="http://us4.campaign-archive2.com/?u=33e4ec877eed6a43863a4a92e&id=78d25d8b46&e=b33afe435c"]More dirt[/URL][/B] from one of my favorite muckrakers.

[URL="http://it.slashdot.org/story/13/08/22/1733207/nasdaq-trading-halted-due-to-technical-issue"]NASDAQ Trading Halted Due To "Technical Issue"[/URL]....

[QUOTE=chalsall;350537][URL="http://it.slashdot.org/story/13/08/22/1733207/nasdaq-trading-halted-due-to-technical-issue"]NASDAQ Trading Halted Due To "Technical Issue"[/URL]....[/QUOTE]There was another program trading problem Tuesday: [URL="http://dealbreaker.com/2013/08/goldmans-h-through-l-option-trading-computer-had-a-rough-day-yesterday/"]Goldman’s H-Through-L Option Trading Computer Had A Rough Day Yesterday[/URL]. I almost mentioned it but, by itself, it seemed too much like grousing; now with the other stuff happening it's worth mentioning too. Goldman Sachs got a nice do-over on trades for $1 when the market was $3. How would that type of trade error pass the simplest sanity filter anyway?

Greece is back in the news today after talks to get another 10 billion euros followup to their already huge 250 billion euro tab. A BOTN (back of the napkin) evaluation says they will need another 50 billion euros over the next 4 years. Meanwhile, Spain is in a slow burn, Portugal is on life support, and Cyprus is recovering from a bank crash (not to be confused with a plane crash, a bank crash is far more devastating). The news says that most of the rest of the ECM is officially out of recession as of last year.

On a different note, I purchased a car today for $7000. It is a 2003 Chevrolet Impala with 13,870 miles on the odometer. The car has leather interior, keyless entry, and power windows and seats. This is literally someone's grandma's car that was used to go to the grocery store and the doctor. My last car purchase was 4 years ago for a nice buick lesabre with 89,000 miles at $3000. Since this is thread is all about economy, I thought I would say that my personal economy is much improved from 2007. I'm still a chintz when it comes to purchasing cars, only buying when I get a very good deal and can pay with cash. It helps that I can sell the buick lesabre for nearly as much as I paid 4 years and 35,000 miles ago.

DarJones

[URL="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-27/currency-spikes-at-4-p-m-in-london-provide-rigging-clues.html"]Currency Spikes at 4 P.M. in London Provide Rigging Clues[/URL][QUOTE]The same pattern -- a sudden surge minutes before 4 p.m. in London on the last trading day of the month, followed by a quick reversal -- occurred 31 percent of the time across 14 currency pairs over two years, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. For the most frequently traded pairs, such as euro-dollar, it happened about half the time, the data show.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=ewmayer;351441]o Continuing our "India watch" theme from last week, Mish has a very sobering perspective ...[/QUOTE]You know, I really can't decide whether Mish is a re-incarnation of Cassandra or a member of the Latter Day Club of Rome.

Each tragic in their own way.

Love the cartoon!

[QUOTE=ewmayer;351753][URL="http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/03/us-usa-california-bridge-idUSBRE98201X20130903?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews"]Record-breaking San Francisco Bay bridge to open after delays[/URL][/QUOTE]Is there a convenient example of a comparable-size-and-complexity project that came in on schedule and under budget, so that we might study what the relevant differences were?

For instance, we need to consider and rule out the possibility that the original schedule and budget for this project were both simply unrealistic, in comparison with original schedules and budgets of comparable projects.

Oh -- I should add that projects during the Great Depression (such as the original bridge, Boulder Dam and the Empire State Building) are ineligible for this comparison because the national economic conditions then allowed getting the most talented people to work for peanuts.

If we can't find any comparable on-time under-budget project outside the Great Depression era, then that might suggest something.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;351815]Is there a convenient example of a comparable-size-and-complexity project that came in on schedule and under budget...?[/QUOTE]

Just curious, why do you want that? Any project that is 6 years late and 5 times over budget deserves to be mocked.

[QUOTE=Prime95;351817]Just curious, why do you want that?[/QUOTE]For the reason I stated: that we might study, and learn from, the relevant differences. I'm interested in what we might find out about how to keep projects on-time and under-budget.

[quote]Any project that is 6 years late and 5 times over budget deserves to be mocked.[/quote]Okay, but I'm also interested in learning how such results might be avoided, rather than mere mockery without lessons learned.

For example, as I noted, might it be merely (or partly) a matter of unrealistic original schedule and budget? If so, how might planners make more realistic schedules and budgets for future projects? We have building codes that are the result of studying mistakes made in buildings in the past. Might there be some kind of planning codes?

Surely there've already been folks who've done such comparisons and published what they learned. How shall we gather that knowledge so that it's accessible "required" reading for planners?

[QUOTE=ewmayer;351820]Are you claiming that between the great recession and outsourcing-of-much-work-to-China, construction workers willing to work on the cheap have been in short supply these past 6 years?[/QUOTE]No, I'm not.

What I seek are comparable projects that came in on-time and under-budget, [I]in contrast to[/I] the new eastern span. IIRC, Hoover Dam and the ESB were such, but I want to eliminate macroeconomic factors if possible, so as to see what noneconomic factors differed between on-time, under-budget projects and those with gross overruns.

I happen to recall from reading and watching documentaries of Hoover Dam and Empire State Building that it was said that they each were able to attract the best planners and workers because there was little competition for such top folks' talents during the Great Depression. But what, exactly, differed between (a) what such folks did for those projects and what was done for other on-time under-budget projects, and (b) what was done on the new eastern span project?

So, I'll retract my ruling-out of Great-Depression projects -- they could well have had non-economic factors that contributed to their on-time-and-under-budgetness. What were those?

[QUOTE=cheesehead;351823]No, I'm not.

What I seek are comparable projects that came in on-time and under-budget, [I]in contrast to[/I] the new eastern span. IIRC, Hoover Dam and the ESB were such, but I want to eliminate macroeconomic factors if possible, so as to see what noneconomic factors differed between on-time, under-budget projects and those with gross overruns.[/QUOTE]Well this project came in very early. There were no cost overruns but a very large performance bonus for early completion; I recall politicians harrumphing about the bonus and wanting to know if they could renege. This is a much smaller project but it was very big to commuters here.
[URL="http://articles.latimes.com/1994-04-06/news/mn-42778_1_santa-monica-freeway"]Santa Monica Freeway to Reopen on Tuesday : Recovery: The contractor will get a $14.5-million bonus for finishing earthquake repairs 74 days early.[/URL]
April 06, 1994[QUOTE]Less than three months after the Northridge earthquake knocked down two sections of the world's busiest thoroughfare, Gov. Pete Wilson announced Tuesday that the Santa Monica Freeway will reopen next week, ending frustrating delays and bottlenecks for thousands of commuters.[/QUOTE]I remember driving past the construction. The lights were always on and they were busting their keisters 24/7.
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5petm88AC4[/url]
[YOUTUBE]d5petm88AC4[/YOUTUBE]

[QUOTE=ewmayer;351936]I find a microeconomic analogy such as the following to be useful in terms of thinking about this issue: Imagine you were able to transport back in time to the mid-1930s, and compare the experience of buying a new-model car in both eras for a given identical fraction of the median wage at the time. "How much car" would you expect to get 80 years later, in terms of the various key features, efficiency, comfort, safety, reliability, etc?

Then, would you expect a similar argument to apply to big-infrastructure and public-works projects? If not, why not?[/QUOTE]
No, for large infrastructure I would not expect such vastly improved value-for-money in the 2010s compared with the 1930s as I would expect for quality of motor vehicles. But I [I]would[/I] expect a huge improvement between the quality of infrastructure in the 1890s compared with the 1810s. Different types of technology experience their rapid improvement in different eras.

Good response, Brian. I would have to think that our 13-year-old, 100,000+ mile Honda Accord would be better than luxury cars of the 1930s, if only for air conditioning and fuel economy.

Being the General Manager of a company having worked on the new San Francisco Bay Bridge for over the past ten years, I can point out one reason for the increased cost. The State of California sets prevailing wages for workers on any State funded project that are much higher than the usual Union wage rates. (I believe this is payback for political support by the Unions for politicians.)

For example, here are some rough comparisons of straight-time hourly wages for three different categories of our workers:

Union Wage vs. State Prevailing Wage
$40 vs. $55
$25 vs. $50
$18 vs. $45

The State spent a lot more on labor than necessary.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;352944]Perhaps inspired by a glass of sherry I was enjoying just then, I lobbied hard to add decant (sherry for one) and codecant (sherry for 2 or more) to the curriculum, alas unsuccessfully.[/QUOTE]Under Category Theory, I would expect codecant to put the wine back in the bottle. e.g. [URL="https://plus.google.com/102162264382073173725/posts/hNtEQVqrxkS"]Happy Co-valentines day[/URL]

[QUOTE=ewmayer;352958]Perhaps the issue is nomenclatural confusion, but I believe you are referring not to the complementary function implied by the co- prefix, but rather to simple neg-decant , written -dec(x), and sometimes referred to wishfully by hangover sufferers as the 'recant' function.[/QUOTE]I do not believe those functions exist; drinking is a trapdoor function.

In other news, yet another article suggesting a Financial Transaction Tax: [URL="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/businessdesk/2013/09/a-new-tax-to-raise-money-for-t.html"]A New Tax to Raise Money for the US and Slow High-Frequency Trading[/URL][QUOTE]What Does It Get Us?

According to the projections of an admittedly optimistic study, up to $350 billion a year might be raised by an ambitious tax on stock and bond trades, options, swaps, futures trading, etc. This FTT would not apply to the day-to-day financial transactions of individuals and business, such as banking, loans and initial capitalization (raising money from investors).

To generate so large a sum, stock transactions would remain at or above their present volume and be taxed at a 0.5 percent rate. In financial parlance, that would be 50 "basis points" or hundredths of one percent. Fifty basis points or bps (pronounced "bips") is equivalent to $5 on each $1,000 traded.

Yes, taxing a good or activity tends to discourage buyers and result in less demand. But how much less would you buy -- of anything -- if the price went up by half-a-percent? Moreover, for bonds and other speculative transactions, the rate would be only a tiny fraction of even that amount (1 basis point; that's 10 cents on each $1,000. Existing FTTs in other countries vary from 10-50 bps on stocks.)

But, as calculated several years ago by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, even allowing for a 50 percent decline in trading volume, 50 bps of extra revenue on trading would still generate more than $175 billion annually.[/QUOTE]

I think a 50bp stock transaction cost will cause a 90-95% drop in US stock volumes, not 50%. Take the UK as an example. They have a 50bp transaction tax on stock purchases. So people buy CFDs instead.

Summers withdrawal is the best news I've heard in several weeks. Now if they can just avoid putting in some other boneheaded bozo, we might see some sustainable economic improvements. Note that purchasing 80 billion dollars a month of housing related securities is NOT sustainable.

Yes I think keeping all orders live for a certain minimum is a much better idea. I don't think you even need 1 sec. 100ms should be sufficient. That and a severe restriction on the number of fill or kill orders. Note that I am not against a transaction tax. Just that 50bps is way too high. 1bp is enough to kill most HFT strategies. And won't have an impact on most other players. Now you just need to stop GS from getting an exemption.

If any Wall Street entities had become more conscious of their image on Main Street, it would only have induced them to crank up the PR obfuscation. Whatever the Murdoch rag says about change, I'll wager my left 'nad that W.S. has not gone back a percent of where it leapt after the repeal of Glass-Steagall.

[QUOTE=Fusion_power;353109]Summers withdrawal is the best news I've heard in several weeks. Now if they can just avoid putting in some other boneheaded bozo, we might see some sustainable economic improvements. Note that purchasing 80 billion dollars a month of housing related securities is NOT sustainable.[/QUOTE]But that is less than $9 a day for every man, woman and child in the USA. Surely we can give up food or gasoline if throwing money into a hole becomes necessary.

My experience with throwing money into holes is that holes never fill up. My ex-wife could be used as an example of eternal economic neediness so I have a good example to consider.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;353269]My experience with giving up food or gasoline for long stretches at a time is that it's harder than it sounds.[/QUOTE]But you'd be helping Job Creators[SUP]®[/SUP]

Speaking of job creators, [URL="http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/americas-outsourcers-be-reclassified-manufacturers-5342"]America's Outsourcers to be Reclassified as Manufacturers[/URL].
[QUOTE]Yet if the government statistical agencies have their way, that iPhone will be an American manufactured good, despite the fact that 1 million Chinese made the thing while Apple does not provide Americans jobs of scale and maintains their strong profit margins.

The target date for this statistical fraud is 2017. There is a Factoryless Production Group, involving all of the statistical agencies, working out the incorporation to count offshore outsourcing as U.S. manufacturing.[/QUOTE]There are several articles about the Congressional Budget Office warning that short term budget cuts do not address long term problems:
[URL="http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/17/us-usa-debt-cbo-idUSBRE98G0PA20130917"]U.S. must cut $2 trillion over 10 yrs to stabilize debt: CBO[/URL]. There are a lot of articles on this. I picked the Reuters one above merely because it provided actual information in the headline rather than the usual clickbait. This is obviously going to be a political football. The New York TImes tries to point out that repealing Obamacare does not solve the problem: [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/18/us/congressional-budget-office-predicts-unsustainable-debt.html"]Congressional Budget Office Predicts Unsustainable Debt[/URL][QUOTE]In the current budget debate, Republicans propose to repeal or delay Mr. Obama’s health insurance program. Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, a Republican who leads the House Budget Committee, responded to the budget office’s report with a statement suggesting that eliminating or delaying the program, called the Affordable Care Act, would address the nation’s fiscal woes.

But the Congressional Budget Office has reported that the Affordable Care Act would reduce deficits and that repealing it would increase them, largely because its costs would be offset by taxes and savings from care providers who benefit from an increase in insured patients.[/QUOTE]No easy solutions in sight but the ball is in play - plenty of play time for politicians.
[QUOTE=ewmayer;353278][QUOTE]Originally Posted by only_human View Post
But you'd be helping Job Creators®[/QUOTE]More than I would be by cosuming recklessly and making 5 last-minute car trips [plus the legally mandated minimum of at least 1 visit to a food court per 2 shopping events] for minor purchases in place of 1 well-planned one? What are you, some kinda commie subversive?[/QUOTE]But that is what Bush the Younger told us to do. Isn't sacrificing our brains and self-control enough?

[QUOTE]Surely we can give up food or gasoline if throwing money into a hole becomes necessary. [/QUOTE]

The last time I looked, both food and gasoline represent cases where money is used to purchase something that is thrown into a hole.

It helps that I get roughly 1/3 of my food from my garden, it takes labor and some gasoline (for the tiller and tractor) to grow the garden.

"It's 2PM... do you know where your kids are?"

As Ernst seems to have abandoned this thread* I will post some Economic tit-bits.

The rest of the world continues to be amazed at the shutdown. The two links below require registration so apologies in advance.
[B]Martin Wolf[/B], “In a democracy, people overturn laws by winning elections, not by threatening the closure of government or even an outright default. It is impossible to run the government of a serious country under blackmail threats of this kind.” ([URL="http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/bca4c114-29d8-11e3-bbb8-00144feab7de.html"][I]FT[/I][/URL])

[URL]http://blogs.ft.com/gavyndavies/2013/10/02/why-have-markets-ignored-washington-risk/[/URL]

[URL="http://www.thereformedbroker.com/2013/10/02/why-most-traders-fail/"]Why most traders fail. [/URL]
[QUOTE]Since I started in the business, I have seen a number of traders who ended up committing suicide or being homeless. The one trait they all shared was that they had a gambler's mentality. When they were losing, they were always looking for that one trade that would make it all back. I learned early on that you can't do that.[/QUOTE]Excellent practical advice:
[URL="http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=613292"]Cheapest ETFs to build long-term portfolio.[/URL]
[QUOTE]If you're the kind of investor who goes three blocks out of your way to save a dollar on groceries, or who insists on cutting your own hair over your spouse's loud objections, you've probably asked yourself a time or two [URL="http://socialize.morningstar.com/NewSocialize/forums/100000093.aspx"]whether you're a cheapskate[/URL]. Well, even if others do ridicule your sense of frugality, in the world of investing you've got nothing to be ashamed of, not to mention plenty of company.[/QUOTE]

[B]Why does value investing work[/B]? ([URL="http://turnkeyanalyst.com/2013/10/02/mean-regression-and-the-value-anomaly/"][I]Turnkey Analyst[/I][/URL])

Excellent presentation by Barry Ritholtz.
[URL="http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2013/10/brain-on-stocks-toronto/"]Your brain on stocks[/URL]

This is an old presentation. I saw a version of it about 5 years ago, not even sure if Barry is the original author. But if you haven't seen it before, it is a must!

*Actually it is about time that other contributed to the daily roundup of news.

[QUOTE=garo;354978]As Ernst seems to have abandoned this thread*[/QUOTE]Bothh he and I were suspended for a week. We're back now.

[quote]The rest of the world continues to be amazed at the shutdown.[/quote]I saw an article which explained that

(1) such amazement would arise naturally in countries with parliamentary systems, where it doesn't happen that the executive and legislative branches can often be controlled by opposing political parties. (Is this true?)

(2) it may not be appreciated abroad that an internal Republican party rule (not law), the [URL="http://Hastert Rule"]Hastert Rule[/URL], has allowed the Republican-controlled House of Representatives to currently be under the thumb of just one faction ("Tea Party") of GOP House members, numbering far less than a majority of the whole House by themselves.

That minority of the whole House is able to blackmail the majority-ruling-party Speaker of the House (Boehner), not of that faction, by threatening to vote him out of his Speakership post if he doesn't abide by the Hastert Rule. Thus, the Republican Party itself has enabled its "Tea Party" faction to currently set the agenda.

See explanations of the consequences:

[URL]http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/09/27/the-absurdity-of-the-hastert-rule/[/URL]

[URL]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/06/17/what-the-hastert-rule-fight-tells-us-about-house-republicans/[/URL]

[URL]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/07/11/the-hastert-rule-the-nuclear-option-and-the-filibuster-oh-my/[/URL]

[URL]http://www.nationalreview.com/article/352631/immigration-and-hastert-rule-jonathan-strong[/URL]

- - -

Overall, this is yet another consequence of the Supreme Court's ruling in the [I]Citizens United[/I] case a few years ago, which enabled a small number of right-wing multi-billionaires to strengthen their control of the political course of the Republican Party. It was those Top 0.01% who have financed the elections of so many "Tea Party" candidates over more moderate Republican candidates.

Yes I was aware of the ban.

There are many countries with a presidential system that have not had a shutdown or have systems in place to prevent it from happening. If you can read the articles I linked that would explain the cause for amazement.

But I agree with your sentiments over a small minority of a single party holding the entire country hostage. Something is seriously broken in Washington and the Supreme Court ain't helping.

Okay, I've had the time to think about it, and I think I know what's going on, "in general."

Conservatives are, obviously, conservative in their views, they don't like to take chances. Obamacare claims to be a solution, but it's a major, unproven change. It might work, but it might also be a major problem that didn't need to happen.

Democrats and liberals are more risk takers, they like to branch out into new territory and reject commonly held norms. They love to quote scientific studies, except of course when it contradicts their opinions. They're stubborn like conservatives, but in different things.

Republicans want to destroy Obamacare, but not because they're "holding the country hostage." They believe things could easily be made worse if Obamacare starts up.

I oppose Obamacare, but not because I'm a conservative. I oppose Obamacare because knowledge, in general, is exploding. We are at a moment in history when consolidating power in a group, any group, can easily be someone's downfall. We are discovering new things every day, and capitalism has never been in a better position to improve things than it is now, and capitalism is what will cause us to discover the things we haven't discovered yet.

We will discover ways of doing things that we aren't aware of yet, and a small amount of these things will trickle down to people who don't have a lot of money. But Obamacare is a consolidating of resources, people being taken care of by the huge beast known as the government. It will slow down the adoption of innovative ideas and ultimately hurt everyone, especially the lower class.

Edit:reading back I see that I used a bit of circlular logic, but hopefully you guys can see past that to what I'm saying. Even non-Kurzweil fans should see the truth in what I say. If Obama wants to spend money on healthcare, he should give people a stipend(right word?) to put towards the insurance that they, personally, choose for themselves.

[QUOTE=garo;355052]If you can read the articles I linked that would explain the cause for amazement.[/QUOTE]To which articles do you refer? Only one link (to the FT blog) in post #352 is about the shutdown, and it doesn't seem to "explain the cause for amazement".

[quote]Something is seriously broken in Washington [/quote]... and, as I've been explaining for several years now, it's the result of propaganda and other influences of a small number of right-wing multi-billionaires who've been working ever since Watergate to re-make the Republican party by playing on the psychological tendencies of conservatives and by pouring billions of dollars into campaigns to discredit mainstream science (wherever that was inconvenient for business). Their think-tank analysis provided the tools for more-effectively-than-ever-before swaying conservative opinion toward their goals and "framing" public debate in terms favorable to them.

One achievement of their decades-long work was to finally get enough of their type of conservative Supreme Court justices so that the [I]Citizens United[/I] case (or whichever other case was handy for the same purpose) could be used to let them pour even more money openly into political campaigns. We're now seeing the result.

The link to the Martin Wolf article.

[QUOTE=garo;355088]The link to the Martin Wolf article.[/QUOTE]Oops; overlooked that. (memo-to-self: bump up magnification here)

Re the Tea Party: a commenter to a different FT article reminded us of "the Mad Hatter's tea party in Alice in Wonderland". Wish I'd thought of that first.

Wolf has some sensible and interesting things to say, but overlooks a few details.
[quote=Martin Wolf]This week legislators decided to [URL="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/26bd6fb2-29d7-11e3-9bc6-00144feab7de.html"]shut down a swath of the federal government[/URL] rather than allow an enacted health law go into operation at the agreed moment.[/quote]Wolf fails to note that the idea of stopping the PPACA from going into operation by shutting down the government [U]is only a fantasy in Tea Partiers' minds[/U]. In fact, [I]the shutdown has no effect on implementing the PPACA[/I], which opened exchanges on the Internet on Oct. 1, just as scheduled. (There were some website software glitches, but just typical opening-inning bugs, nothing to do with the "shutdown" or any unsoundness of the law.)

[quote=Martin Wolf]The idea that one should close the government – or risk a default – to stop universal insurance, which other high-income countries take for granted, seems mad.[/quote]It not only seems mad; it is.

[quote]Maybe this shows how much some Republicans loath Barack Obama.[/quote]Oh, yes, Wolf is right on target there. The Tea Partiers try to disguise the racism many of them have, and Wolf says only that many [quote]come from the old south[/quote], but the unprecedented rate of death threats against this president (as counted by the Secret Service), audience calls to "kill Obama" at Tea Party rallies during the 2012 election campaign, and the high level of nastiness in anti-Obama comments from the right wing all are indicative of disgust at "the nigger in the White House".

[quote]Republicans might fear not that the programme will fail, but that it will work, cementing the credibility of government.[/quote]Oh, yes, Wolf is definitely on-target there. That's why the GOP now so vehemently opposes a program which in large part was originally a Republican proposal a couple of decades ago. They really, really, really don't want Obama to get credit for a successful program that turns out to be popular in the long run, no matter how many conservative ideas are implemented in it.

But though the article was updated as recently as Tuesday, Wolf seems not to have noticed that [I]Obama has already been doing what he recommends, i.e. not giving in to blackmail[/I].

[quote=Wolf]It is impossible to run the government of a serious country under blackmail threats of this kind. Every time the administration gives in, it stores up more difficulty for itself. It has to stop doing so.[/quote][I]It already has stopped doing so[/I], but Wolf seems not to have paid attention. Obama has consistently and repeatedly stated that he will not give up anything in exchange for either ending the shutdown or extending the debt ceiling.

[quote]Some argue that the 14th amendment of the constitution, which states that “the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law ... shall not be questioned”, gives the president the power he needs to borrow, in order to redeem debt.[/quote]I predict that Obama will do just that, if/when necessary.

[quote]But such a presidential action would be risky. The Supreme Court might side with the president, but a constitutional crisis could itself impair US ability to borrow on favourable terms.[/quote]... and most people will see that the Tea Party (and John Boehner's reluctance to risk his speakership) will have been at fault.

But I need to give Boehner some room here; it's possible that he's cowtowing to the Tea Party only temporarily in regard to the lesser evil of shutdown, in order to remain Speaker long enough to introduce, in a couple of weeks, a Senate-passed bill to raise the debt ceiling. Such a bill would almost certainly get enough moderate Republican votes in the House to pass. Tea Partiers might throw Boehner out of his speakership for that, but not until after he'd saved the country.

[quote]Playing chicken with credibly reckless people is always scary. But the administration cannot give in.[/quote]Mr. Wolf, the administration has already stopped giving in; please give Obama credit for that.

[QUOTE=jasong;355056]Okay, I've had the time to think about it, and I think I know what's going on, "in general."[/QUOTE]But you've ignored some history.

[quote]Obamacare claims to be a solution, but it's a major, unproven change.[/quote][U]The major features of the PPACA, insurance exchanges and the individual mandate, were originally proposed by [I]Republicans[/I] two decades ago.[/U]

Please explain to us why [U]Republicans[/U] proposed these "major, unproven changes" in the early 1990s.

It's taken Democrats time to "see the light" of insurance exchanges, but now that they have ... isn't it strange for Republicans to claim that their own ideas were unsound?

[quote]It might work, but it might also be a major problem that didn't need to happen.[/quote]Then, why oh why was it originally a [U]Republican[/U] proposal?

[quote]They believe things could easily be made worse if Obamacare starts up.[/quote]Wrong. That's what they claim to believe, but actually they're scared to death that Democrats will be given credit for its success [I]after Democrats figured out that the Republican ideas were sound[/I].

[quote]But Obamacare is a consolidating of resources, people being taken care of by the huge beast known as the government. It will slow down the adoption of innovative ideas and ultimately hurt everyone, especially the lower class.[/quote]You're just showing your ignorance of all the free-market provisions in the PPACA.

Would you claim that all insurance policies are run by "the huge beast known as the government" just because governments [I]regulate[/I] private-enterprise insurance companies to a limited extent, in order to protect consumers?

[QUOTE=ewmayer;355251]But I'm in "popcorn mode" here - the stupid has been committed to, best just sit back and look forward to the [i]Schadenfreude[/i].[/QUOTE]

Ernest...

The US of A could be great.

I would respectfully argue that it hasn't performed to its full potential recently.

Ernst has a government job. He is on furlough. :office:

[QUOTE=cheesehead;355045]Bothh he and I were suspended for a week. We're back now.

I saw an article which explained that

(1) such amazement would arise naturally in countries with parliamentary systems, where it doesn't happen that the executive and legislative branches can often be controlled by opposing political parties. (Is this true?)

(2) it may not be appreciated abroad that an internal Republican party rule (not law), the [URL="http://Hastert Rule"]Hastert Rule[/URL], has allowed the Republican-controlled House of Representatives to currently be under the thumb of just one faction ("Tea Party") of GOP House members, numbering far less than a majority of the whole House by themselves.

That minority of the whole House is able to blackmail the majority-ruling-party Speaker of the House (Boehner), not of that faction, by threatening to vote him out of his Speakership post if he doesn't abide by the Hastert Rule. Thus, the Republican Party itself has enabled its "Tea Party" faction to currently set the agenda.

See explanations of the consequences:
[/QUOTE]

I'm guessing nobody is wondering, but the reason why this could become true is that as you go down in number of representatives ( lets say x) for the minority you increase 218-x and they represent more of the majority of the majority you need. At 217 representatives in the minority you need 218/2 = 109 votes from the majority but only 1 to get to 218 so you need 108 votes over majority. With a 215 minority the votes needed goes to 220/2 = 110, but you gain 2 more to get to 218 anyways so you only need 107 votes over majority decreasing the needed votes by 1 to pass a bill. Interesting topic though.

Prohibition in the U.S.
 

Prompted by recent late-night TV-watching of the famous 1960s series [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Untouchables_%281959_TV_series%29]The Untouchables[/url], which made real-life US Treasury anti-prohibition-and-racketeering enforcer [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_Ness]Eliot Ness[/url] into a kind of mythical bullet-proof crime-fighting superhero, I've been reading up on the history of [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States]Prohibition in the US[/url]. Fascinating stuff - a classic case study in government overreach, efforts to legislate morality (and generally the effects of willful ignorance of human nature in public policy), legislators immunizing themselves from their own laws, and the law of unintended consequences. For example, the TV series nearly always paints the liquor-smuggling Mafias - most notably the Chicago-based one headed by Al Capone - as unmitigated, spontaneously-arisen evil, almost entirely disregarding the obvious fact that Prohibition turned these organize crime outfits from local-nuisance vice rings into wealthy and powerful large-scale syndicates with international reach:
[quote]Organized crime received a major boost from Prohibition. Mafia groups limited their activities to prostitution, gambling, and theft until 1920, when organized bootlegging emerged in response to the effect of Prohibition. A profitable, often violent, black market for alcohol flourished. Powerful criminal gangs corrupted law enforcement agencies, leading to racketeering. In essence, prohibition provided a financial basis for organized crime to flourish.

Rather than reducing crime, Prohibition had transformed the cities into battlegrounds between opposing bootlegging gangs. ... Despite the hope of the prohibitionist movement that the outlawing of alcohol would reduce crime, the reality was that the Volstead Act led to higher crime rates than were experienced prior to prohibition and the establishment of a black market dominated by criminal organizations.[/quote]

The background of WW1 and the associated backlash against [url=en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German-American]German-Americans[/url] [the largest ethnic group in the US][sup]*[/sup]] in helping Prohibition to pass is fascinating:
[quote]In January 1917, the 65th Congress convened, in which the dries outnumbered the wets by 140 to 64 in the Democratic Party and 138 to 62 among Republicans. With America's declaration of war against Germany in April, German-Americans—a major force against prohibition—were sidelined and their protests subsequently ignored. In addition, a new justification for prohibition arose: prohibiting the production of alcoholic beverages would allow more resources—especially the grain that would otherwise be used to make alcohol—to be devoted to the war effort.[/quote]
The "save grain for the war!" rallying cry did lead to war-oriented anti-liquor legislation passed, with one teeny irony, underlined for emphasis:
[quote]On November 18, 1918, before the ratification of the Eighteenth Amendment, the United States Congress passed the temporary Wartime Prohibition Act, which banned the sale of alcoholic beverages having an alcohol content of greater than 2.75%. (This act, which was intended to save grain for the war effort, [u]was passed after the armistice was signed[/u] on November 11, 1918.)[/quote]

Several episodes of the TV series also focus on toxic illicit booze contaminated with methyl alcohol, but paint this as a result of bootleggers trying to cut corners, in ignorance of the central role the government played in this aspect, in real life:
[quote]Furthermore, stronger liquor surged in popularity because its potency made it more profitable to smuggle. To prevent bootleggers from using industrial ethyl alcohol to produce illegal beverages, the government ordered the poisoning of industrial alcohols. In response, bootleggers hired chemists who successfully renatured the alcohol to make it drinkable. As a response, the Treasury Department required manufacturers to add more deadly poisons, including the particularly deadly methyl alcohol. New York City medical examiners prominently opposed these policies because of the danger to human life. As many as 10,000 people died from drinking denatured alcohol before Prohibition ended.

New York City medical examiner Charles Norris believed the government took responsibility for murder when they knew the poison was not deterring people and they continued to poison industrial alcohol (which would be used in drinking alcohol) anyway. Charles Norris said, "The government knows it is not stopping drinking by putting poison in alcohol..."[Y]et it continues its poisoning processes, heedless of the fact that people determined to drink are daily absorbing that poison. Knowing this to be true, the United States government must be charged with the moral responsibility for the deaths that poisoned liquor causes, although it cannot be held legally responsible."[/quote]
I wonder to what extent late-50s social-conformity pressures in the US - as embodied by wildly pervasive TV censorship laws and enforcers - and the Cold War raging at the time led to popular media being so lopsidedly, unquestioningly pro-government so as to rewrite even then-accepted history in such a blatant propagandistic fashion.

Perhaps the one "silver lining" aspect of the whole idiocy is that it surely fueled a thriving homebrew movement:
[quote]While the manufacture, sale and transport of alcohol was illegal in the U.S., Section 29 of the Volstead Act allowed the making at home of wine and cider from fruit (but not beer). Up to 200 gallons per year could be made, and some vineyards grew grapes for home use. Also, one anomaly of the Act as worded was that it did not actually prohibit the consumption of alcohol; many people actually stockpiled wines and liquors for their own use in the latter part of 1919 before sales of alcohol became illegal the following January.[/quote]
The "stockpiling" loophole led to another strike against the law in the public eye: To fill one's basement with booze in advance of the law's taking effect was a privilege of the wealthy, which then as now included most DC legislators. Once the extent to which the rich and well-connected had "exempted themselves" from the 18th amendment became widely known, the obvious "class warfare" argument gained a lot of traction.

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

[sup]*[/sup] That wikipage details the various distinct waves of German immigration to the US, including the "name-transliterationally challenged" Pennsylvania Dutch, who are not in fact "Dutch" but "Deutsch". Most interesting bit of trivia for me here is that Prohibition-era US president Herbert Hoover was of German ancestry, with original family name [i]Huber[/i]. And forum owner Xyzzy will of course be interested in that wikipage's list of prominent German-Americans - he will approach it with high hopes, or in German, "mit Hoff-nung". ;)

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

NB: [i]The Untouchables[/i] is still an entertaining series to watch, but "based on real life" is a big stretch. As the Wikipage on Ness notes:
[i]
he efforts of Ness and his team had little impact on Capone's operations. Ness had almost nothing to do with the IRS prosecuting Capone for income tax evasion, which led to Capone's downfall.
[/i]
The post-Untouchables trajectory of Ness's life is more than a little ironic: Trained as an economist, his lack of business acumen dogged him repeatedly ... from Prohibition-era anti-booze crusader to notorious social drinker, the latter aspect having more than a little influence on the overblownness of the posthumous TV series:
[i]
After his second divorce and third marriage, [Ness] ran unsuccessfully for mayor of Cleveland in 1947,[9][12] after which he was expelled from Diebold [corporation] in 1951.[11] In the aftermath, [u]Ness began drinking more heavily and spending his free time in bars telling (often exaggerated) stories of his law enforcement career[/u]. ... Collaborating with Oscar Fraley in his last years, he co-wrote the book [i]The Untouchables[/i], which was published a month after his death.[13] This book, among others about the Untouchables by Oscar Fraley, was heavily spiced with fiction including fictional characters and events to make the books more appealing to a general audience. The 21-page manuscript that Ness himself wrote for the book was a more reliable source and only included the real events that Ness experienced during his career.[/i]

[QUOTE=ewmayer;358605]Prompted by recent late-night TV-watching of the famous 1960s series [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Untouchables_%281959_TV_series%29]The Untouchables[/url], which made real-life US Treasury anti-prohibition-and-racketeering enforcer

<snip>


.[/i][/QUOTE]

It's deja vu all over again. Tell the DEA.

MF Global gets a kick
 

MF Global collapsed not that many months ago after betting big on EU government debt in an apparent pyramid scheme that fell apart. In the process, they "depleted" customer accounts of about $1.6 billion. Now they have been ordered to cough up 1.2 billion plus are facing $400 million in fines.

[URL]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24991051[/URL]

I think this is a step in the right direction, but would much prefer that they send a few head honchos to jail for their role. Where are the prosecutions of executives for what was clearly violation of securities laws?

Today I discovered a new (for me) example of corporate wealth created through the co-option of the political and regulatory processes. Colchichine is drug used primarily in the treatment of gout. [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colchicine"]Wikipedia [/URL]says the price has gone from $0.09 to $4.85 per pill thanks to actions by the Food and Drug Administration. This medicine is available over the counter in Canada, and the herbal basis of the drug goes back to ancient times.

Interestingly, today I also learned that the FDA's actions only affected "single ingredient colchichine," and a probenecid/colchicine combination drug is available for about $0.90 per pill. I'll ask my doctor to prescribe that next time.

This post isn't about the financial crisis, but it seems to fit under "Mystery Economic Theater"

[QUOTE=wblipp;359826]Today I discovered a new (for me) example of corporate wealth created through the co-option of the political and regulatory processes. Colchichine is drug used primarily in the treatment of gout. [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colchicine"]Wikipedia [/URL]says the price has gone from $0.09 to $4.85 per pill thanks to actions by the Food and Drug Administration. This medicine is available over the counter in Canada, and the herbal basis of the drug goes back to ancient times.

Interestingly, today I also learned that the FDA's actions only affected "single ingredient colchichine," and a probenecid/colchicine combination drug is available for about $0.90 per pill. I'll ask my doctor to prescribe that next time.

This post isn't about the financial crisis, but it seems to fit under "Mystery Economic Theater"[/QUOTE]The pricing of colchichine and also asthma inhalers outrage me the most. [URL="http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/10/heres-why-your-asthma-inhaler-costs-so-damn-much"]Here's Why Your Asthma Inhaler Costs So Damn Much[/URL] (Mother Jones) [QUOTE]In other words, pharmaceutical companies didn't just take advantage of this situation, they [I]actively worked[/I] to create this situation. Given the minuscule impact of CFC-based inhalers on the ozone layer, it's likely that an exception could have been agreed to if pharmaceutical companies hadn't lobbied so hard to get rid of them. The result is lower-quality inhalers and fantastically higher profits for Big Pharma.[/QUOTE][URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/13/us/the-soaring-cost-of-a-simple-breath.html"]The Soaring Cost of a Simple Breath[/URL] (nytimes)[QUOTE]
Asthma — the most common chronic disease that affects Americans of all ages, about 40 million people — can usually be well controlled with drugs. But being able to afford prescription medications in the United States often requires top-notch insurance or plenty of disposable income, and time to hunt for deals and bargains.

The arsenal of medicines in the Hayeses’ kitchen helps explain why. Pulmicort, a steroid inhaler, generally retails for over $175 in the United States, while pharmacists in Britain buy the identical product for about $20 and dispense it free of charge to asthma patients. Albuterol, one of the oldest asthma medicines, typically costs $50 to $100 per inhaler in the United States, but it was less than $15 a decade ago, before it was repatented.

“The one that really blew my mind was the nasal spray,” said Robin Levi, Hannah and Abby’s mother, referring to her $80 co-payment for Rhinocort Aqua, a prescription drug that was selling for more than $250 a month in Oakland pharmacies last year but costs under $7 in Europe, where it is available over the counter.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention puts the annual cost of asthma in the United States at more than $56 billion, including millions of potentially avoidable hospital visits and more than 3,300 deaths, many involving patients who skimped on medicines or did without.[/QUOTE]

Here's the sort of fact-based analysis and criticism of the PPACA that I wish conservatives would stick to instead of promoting lies like "government takeover of health care":

"Here's The Choice Obama Made 5 Years Ago That's Hurting Obamacare Now"
[URL]http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-made-a-choice-thats-hurting-obamacare-now-2013-11[/URL]

[quote][SIZE=3][SIZE=2]When he was seeking passage of the Affordable Care Act, one of the things President Obama really wanted to be able to say was that his plan didn't increase the deficit. So the law was designed to hold down explicit spending by relying heavily on mandates and cross-subsidies to get people covered without direct government outlays.

That choice is causing a lot of the political headaches the president is facing today.

. . .[/SIZE][/SIZE][/quote]

[URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25349240"]Iceland jails former Kaupthing bank bosses[/URL]

It would never happen in the civilized world ...

[QUOTE=xilman;361966][URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25349240"]Iceland jails former Kaupthing bank bosses[/URL]

It would never happen in the civilized world ...[/QUOTE]
Just so long as they don't buy up Amnesty International to help them out now, I can sleep easily over this one.

[QUOTE=xilman;361966][URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25349240"]Iceland jails former Kaupthing bank bosses[/URL]

It would never happen in the civilized world ...[/QUOTE]

Another shining example from Iceland! :tu: Would that we were seeing such a perp-walk here in the States with the likes of Jaimie Dimon and John Corzine in orange, with chrome accents.

Anyone who has been to Iceland knows that the country - and especially the area where > 90% of the populace resides - is small enough that the political/financial leadership cannot effectively isolate itself from the citizenry as it does in most larger nations. I suspect that rather adds to impetus to not f*ck the unwashed rabble over.

===================

Couple of [i]Naked Capitalism[/i] posts on the latest US-led "free trade" initiative, the ultra-secretive TPP, which aims to effectively place the rights of multinational corporations to pursue profits over those of sovereign states to govern themselves:

o [url=www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/12/will-opposition-us-overseas-derail-toxic-transpacific-partnership.html]Will Opposition in the US and Overseas Derail the Toxic TransPacific Partnership?[/url]

o [url=www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/12/krugman-running-brand-fumes-transpacific-partnership-edition.html]Is Krugman Running on Brand Fumes? (TransPacific Partnership Edition)[/url] - Best comment (imo) on this one is from Ramon Creager:
[quote]On a more fundamental level it doesn’t matter just how bad (or good) TPP is. [i]The single fact that it has been negotiated in zealously guarded secrecy, in an ostensibly democratic society by a supposedly representative government, is sufficient reason to oppose this plan.[/i] To my representatives in Congress, I have a simple proposal. Whenever no one gives you a chance to read, debate & amend legislation before demanding an up-or-down vote, vote down. It should be automatic.[/quote]

bitcoin
 

There have been a lot of requests for details of how Bitcoin work (plus a lot of LaurV chiding us for not understanding it).

[url="http://www.michaelnielsen.org/ddi/how-the-bitcoin-protocol-actually-works/"]This[/url] was recently linked on the Bogleheads forum, and looks extremely well written. I'm grinding through it slowly; enjoy!

There is a lot of fluff going around about the Volcker rule and how it will establish boundaries around a bank's trading practices. Glass-Steagall originally restricted banks from engaging in investment activities. Banks were limited to lending money for interest. Since banks are backstopped by a government guarantee, Glass-Steagall was intended to prevent banks putting their assets at risk in market ventures. This was blown away by repeal of Glass-Steagall a few years ago allowing banks to rapidly expand into the investment arena. An early abuse of this system was transfer of assets from investment portions of the business to balance sheets on the regulated and federally backstopped side.

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/13/opinion/finally-the-volcker-rule.html[/url]

My question is simple. Does anyone here really think the major banks are going to even be inconvenienced by this monstrosity? I submit that the international activities exception will be the source of the next major international financial crisis.

[URL="http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/12/amazon-warehouse-workers-strike-germany-pay-sweatshop-conditions.html"]Amazon Warehouse Workers Strike in Germany Over Pay, Sweatshop Conditions[/URL]
[quote]Amazon is rapidly becoming the poster child for what is wrong with the so-called new economy. Critical to the online retailer’s success is its warehouse operation, which have been repeatedly found to demand unreasonable work output from its “pickers” as well as often being physically demanding, which is compounded by the warehouses too often being uncomfortably hot or cold.[/quote]This story has both "the new temp-worker economic model" and "about those rumors of economic recovery..." aspects. Since our dear leaders in the political class so love to tout the latter, it's only fair that they take some well-deserved flak here:
[quote]...getting the word out about Amazon’s labor practices matters because our neoliberal propagandist-in-chief, President Obama, would have you believe these are good “middle class” jobs. As we wrote in July:

Obama needed a visual to show that, no, really, truly, jobs really are being created somewhere in America for yet another one of his exercises in trying to pretend that he’s on the side of ordinary Americans. But it’s hard finding any really good success stories in an economy with 12.2 million counted as unemployed and over 28 million as “disemployed” which is the number of people out of work relative to normal labor force participation rates when the economy is in good shape. So Obama chose as his backdrop an American success story, Amazon, which is opening a new a warehouse in Chattanooga and hiring 7,000 people.

But Obama in trying to tout this as a success story revealed either that he’s completely out of touch or that he’s conditioning American to regard a state of peonage as middle class. Not all that long ago, “middle class” meant you could after a few years of work and savings, buy a house in the suburbs, afford to have children and have a reasonably comfortable family life, and send those kids to college. “Middle class” also generally meant college educated, white collar employment plus the higher-skilled, better paid blue collar jobs…

So notice, first, that those 7,000 jobs aren’t in Chattanooga, but all over the US. Second, Amazon’s cash comp is markedly below local averages. And although it offers a “benefits package,” it’s not clear that it’s better than what other area employers offer. The article doesn’t add that some of these 7,000 jobs are part time and/or seasonal.

A quick look at a Chattanooga job site shows the hourly for a comparable job at $9 an hour for someone with a minimum of six months recent experience. That’s just above the living wage for a single person in that city of $8.92. Given Amazon’s record in Allentown, there isn’t good reason to expect it to be paying over the prevailing rate in the local market.

The message from Obama is clear: Americans are now expected to celebrate when companies are willing to pay at or not much above a living wage. As long as you pay enough that the workers don’t wind up having to seek public assistance in the form of food stamps or emergency rooms for medical care, you’ll now be promoted as creating better conditions for Americans. [/quote]Reader "John" comments:
[quote]I am sure everyone saw the puff piece about Amazon Prime Air delivery service. The first thing that struck me was the lack of human interaction at the facility launch. Not a single Amazon employee was engaged in the launch of the package in the video. Very sterile and I am sure that was not an accident. Companies such as Amazon see workers as burdensome costs that should needs to be reduced or eliminated.

I use to shop regularly on Amazon.com but no longer. We pay for the “low cost” strategy in other forms such as in higher unemployment, shrinking middle-class, more pollution because they shifted production to countries with lax environmental laws, reduced tax base, crumbling infrastructure, etc….

Unfortunately, political analysts and economic theory preach low cost products and services are good for you while ignoring overall impacts. What we have are policies that are indeed costing us socially big time.[/quote]User "DakotabornKansan" also has a good lengthy missive regarding the Cult of Amazon.

I am torn - as a longtime Amazon customer, I enjoy the low prices and various purchase-format (including used) options. As I've done this year with Google (as a result of their "partners with NSA in wholesale violation of your constitutional right against unreasonable warrantless search" status), seems it's time to find ways to at least significantly curtail my usage. More alternative used-product sites, more direct-purchase-from-seller (e.g. eBay, which lacks the slave-labor stigma but alas has a surveillance-state taint). The eBay-as-second-option is one I regularly exercise now when Amazon's site freezes up on me, which is far from infrequent. Just last week I had a $60 order for a half-dozen long-sleeved cotton sweatshirts all queued upon the 'Zon site, which then froze up during checkout. Multiple attempts to remedy, including alternate browser, failed. Over to eBay, found equivalent for only couple $ more, those arrived last weekend.

User "Bridget" probably comes closest to echoing my state of mind on the many reasons we became loyal Amazon customers:
[quote]

There is another side to the Amazon story…..it is wonderful for the consumer. Particularly for people like me who would rather take a beating than shop in any brick and mortar store. No more trips all over town looking for difficult to find items. Shop from your bed at midnight, or when stuck in traffic. Get product reviews from other buyers to help make purchase decisions. Amazon transformed Christmas for me from a dreaded ordeal to a semi pleasant experience.

But I have read the articles about working conditions in the warehouses. As a Prime member, I am usually offered several shipping options at checkout. Instead of the shortest next day free shipping, I choose 2-3 day free shipping, hoping that my orders create less stress for the pickers and packers.[/quote]...except that I'm even more of a no-rush shipping cheapskate and look for a free shipping deal whenever humanly possible. I am also a big fan of the Subscribe & Save feature for Costco-style regular-bulk purchases. Does Costco treat their workers - erm, I mean "associate contractors" - any better?

[QUOTE=ewmayer;362349]...except that I'm even more of a no-rush shipping cheapskate and look for a free shipping deal whenever humanly possible. I am also a big fan of the Subscribe & Save feature for Costco-style regular-bulk purchases. Does Costco treat their workers - erm, I mean "associate contractors" - any better?[/QUOTE]Much better methinks. [URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/19/reasons-love-costco_n_4275774.html"]11 Reasons To Love Costco That Have Nothing To Do With Shopping[/URL][QUOTE]1. The company pays a living wage. Costco's CEO and president, Craig Jelinek, has publicly endorsed raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, and he takes that to heart. The company's starting pay is $11.50 per hour, and the average employee wage is $21 per hour, not including overtime. Most other big box retailers start their employees at minimum wage.

2. Workers get benefits. About 88 percent of Costco employees have company-sponsored health insurance, according to David Sherwood, Costco's Director of Financial Planning and Investor Relations. "I just think people need to make a living wage with health benefits,” Jelinek told Bloomberg. “It also puts more money back into the economy and creates a healthier country. It’s really that simple.”

3. The CEO makes a reasonable salary. Costco's CEO makes far less than most executives, with a total compensation package of about $4.83 million in 2012. In contrast, Walmart CEO Mike Duke made roughly $19.3 million during the same year. Walmart's CEO earns as much as 796 average employees, according to CNN Money, compared to Costco's CEO making 48 times more than the company's median wage.

4. Costco helped its employees weather the recession. When the economic crisis hit and other retailers laid off workers, Costco's CEO approved a $1.50-an-hour wage increase for many hourly employees, spread out over three years.

5. Costco doesn't kill Thanksgiving. While many of its competitors are forcing employees to work on Thanksgiving Day, Costco will buck the trend and stay closed.

6. It also doesn’t waste money on expensive advertising. The company doesn't advertise nor does it hire a public relations staff. Meanwhile, Walmart dropped $1.89 billion on ads in 2011.

7. Its prices aren't horrendously high. Costco never marks up products by more than 15 percent, while most retailers commonly mark products up by more than 25 percent.

8. It embraces equality. Costco scored extremely well (90/100) on the Human Rights Campaign's Corporate Equality Index, an assessment of LGBT policies in the workplace.

9. It hires from the inside. More than 70 percent of its warehouse managers began their careers working the register or the floor.

10. Costco's employees are loyal. For employees that have worked at the company for more than one year, the annual turnover rate is below six percent, according to Sherwood. For executives, the turnover rate is less than one percent.

11. Free samples. Need we say more?[/QUOTE]

I've never been in a Costco store, but you two have inspired me to look up the locations of the nearest ones (and shun Amazon).

[QUOTE=huffingtonpost.com quoted by only_human]3. The CEO makes a reasonable salary. Costco's CEO makes far less than most executives, with a total compensation package of about $4.83 million in 2012. In contrast, Walmart CEO Mike Duke made roughly $19.3 million during the same year. Walmart's CEO earns as much as 796 average employees, according to CNN Money, compared to Costco's CEO making 48 times more than the company's median wage.[/QUOTE]
I can't resist adapting a joke I've just heard for this context:

Four people, whose occupations are (1) benefit claimant, (2) Fox News viewer, and (3) and (4) the CEOs of Costco and Amazon, are sitting at a table sharing a plate of 30 biscuits. The CEOs immediately grab their share (Amazon's boss manages to grab 22, Costco's gets 7). Munching away, the Costco boss warns the Fox News viewer: "Watch out for the benefit claimant, he wants your biscuit!"

I've been a member for 18-19 years (since 1994/95, when the PriceClub store was conveniently close to us in Edison, NJ; walking distance: we didn't have a car for a year). I still remember how they first had their own store credit card, then they carried Discover for some years and then went into partnership with AmEx - the Costco membership covers AmEx dues, conveniently. Interestingly, the original "[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_Club"]Price Club[/URL]" store is still right here on Morena Blvd in San Diego; we used to go there often, but now we live closer to Poway.

One perk is that: The executive membership pays for itself. In fact for us, it is just hundreds of dollars payback to us, each year. There are certain things that are not very good there, like fruit and vegetables? don't get them there; these are not bad but just mediocre.

[QUOTE=jasonp;362024]There have been a lot of requests for details of how Bitcoin work (plus a lot of LaurV chiding us for not understanding it).

[url="http://www.michaelnielsen.org/ddi/how-the-bitcoin-protocol-actually-works/"]This[/url] was recently linked on the Bogleheads forum, and looks extremely well written. I'm grinding through it slowly; enjoy![/QUOTE]


Thanks for posting that link- haven't made it all the way through either, but its already explained a lot that I misunderstood. Good stuff.

Norm

The most surprising factoid was the current difficulty needed to 'win' a bitcoin payout: something like 2^61 hashes. By way of comparison, a hot AMD GPU can manage something like 2^29 hashes per second. No wonder everyone is farming up.

/begin OT/
Cheesehead, re Costco, I got a membership a year ago on the advice of a friend and after visiting a couple of Costco stores to see what they carry. If you do your due diligence, you can find some significant bargains that are well worth the price of membership. Recent examples include: Craisins in bulk, spaghetti noodles, bread flour, LED light bulbs, cheese, milk, apples, and pillows. All of these had up to 10% discounts off the regular prices. Be discriminating, some of their items are not such good deals to start with. If you don't try anything else, grab one of their pumpkin pies. They are pretty good for the price. You can purchase presciptions at their pharmacy for ridiculously low prices and you don't even have to have a membership to shop at the pharmacy.

One significant tip I can give, all stores don't carry the same items. I visited the Costco in Kent Wa and was surprised to find a complete line of restaurant cooking and serving items. I had not seen them until going to that particular store.
/end OT/

The Fed has committed to easing off the accelerator by reducing debt purchases to $75 billion per month. It is interesting to see how carefully they are handling this to avoid spooking the markets. They run a significant risk of inflation if they continue to pump money into the market, but at the same time if they stop pumping money, the market could go into a tailspin.

Maybe we should have named this new emoticon "Federal Reserve". :digging:

@Fusion: Central wankers never see inflation as a risk, because they see only the inflation they choose to see, and the other stuff (bubble-priced markets) is all salubrious "wealth effect" to them, which makes consumers "feel rich ad want to spend", thus promoting a "virtuous cycle" of demand-driven economic growth, and stuff. No, they are not shy in proclaiming that the real bogeyman is disinflation, and their job is to fight it by any means necessary.

========================

o [url=www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/19/us-target-breach-idUSBRE9BH1GX20131219]Target holiday cyber breach hits 40 million payment cards[/url]: [i](Reuters) - Target Corp said hackers have stolen data from up to 40 million credit and debit cards of shoppers who visited its stores during the first three weeks of the holiday season in the second-largest such breach reported by a U.S. retailer.[/i]
[quote]In terms of the speed at which the hackers were able to access large numbers of credit cards, the data theft was unprecedented. The operation was carried out over just 19 days during the heart of the crucial Christmas holiday sales season: from the day before Thanksgiving to this past Sunday.

Target, the third-largest U.S. retailer, said on Thursday that it was working with federal law enforcement and outside experts to prevent similar attacks in the future. It did not disclose how its systems were compromised.

Target did not detect the attack on its own, according to a person familiar with the investigation.

The retailer uncovered the breach after it was alerted its systems might have been compromised by credit card processors who had noticed a surge in fraudulent transactions involving credit cards that had been used at Target, according to the source, who was not authorized to discuss the matter.

For Target, the timing of the breach could not have been worse, coming just before three of the four busiest days of what has been a bruising holiday season for retailers, with the highest level of discounting in years. Target itself last month lowered its profit forecast for the year after disappointing sales in the third quarter.[/quote]

o [url=http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/19/us-usa-healthcare-insurance-idUSBRE9BI04X20131219]In healthcare experiment, patients pay more for 'bad' medicine | Reuters[/url]
[i]
One of the central features of a value-based system is a financial "stick." [u]If patients insist on medical procedures that science shows to be ineffective or unnecessary[/u], they'll have to pay for all or most of the cost.
[/i]
Ineffective or unnecessary procedures - You mean, like the ones so many doctors [url=http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/12/cancer-free-i-beat-prostate-cancer-mish.html]like to foist on their trusting patients[/url]?

[QUOTE=ewmayer;362495]
Ineffective or unnecessary procedures - You mean, like the ones so many doctors [URL="http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/12/cancer-free-i-beat-prostate-cancer-mish.html"]like to foist on their trusting patients[/URL]?[/QUOTE]How does one individual's case say anything about ineffective or unnecessary procedures on other patients?

Which procedures [strike]performed[/strike] foisted on Mish were ineffective or unnecessary? If none (I missed seeing any described in his article), then what did you intend your link to his article to mean in regard to ineffective or unnecessary procedures and their being foisted upon trusting patients?

[QUOTE=cheesehead;362514]How does one individual's case say anything about ineffective or unnecessary procedures on other patients?

Which procedures [strike]performed[/strike] foisted on Mish were ineffective or unnecessary? If none (I missed seeing any described in his article), then what did you intend your link to his article to mean in regard to ineffective or unnecessary procedures and their being foisted upon trusting patients?[/QUOTE]

Mish does describe procedures which were urged upon him. That he chose another path does not predict what many other people might do under expert medical pressure. I have known of one other man who took the non-official road with some success, though what I know is third-party in that case.

There is, however, the old adage that when one's only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. I do believe that this can be applied to those who use scalpels instead of hammers. Then too, one sometimes has to wonder, if nail driving pays much better than monitoring, whether there might be any financial influence on the medical opinion.

Judge Blasts Feds for Failure to Go After Wall Street Fraudsters
 

[URL]http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/judge_blasts_feds_for_failure_to_go_after_wall_street_fraudsters[/URL]

Excerpt:
[QUOTE]U.S. District Court Judge Jed S. Rakoff has written [URL="http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/jan/09/financial-crisis-why-no-executive-prosecutions/?pagination=false"]a scathing indictment[/URL] of the federal government’s approach to prosecuting Wall Street finance and banking executives, concluding that timidity, lack of resources, and a desire by individual prosecutors to pluck the low hanging fruit of fraud cases has left the country’s top financial wheeler-dealers unscathed by the likely crimes that [URL="http://qz.com/158314/the-us-economy-may-never-be-the-same-after-the-great-recession/"]seized up the world economy[/URL].
Particularly galling, Rakoff writes in The New York Review of Books, is the sense among Justice Department officials that some financial institutions are too big to be disciplined. “This excuse—sometimes labeled the ‘too big to jail’ excuse—is disturbing, frankly, in what it says about the department’s apparent disregard for equality under the law,” wrote Rakoff, who [URL="http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970203935604577066242448635560"]previously rankled[/URL] Justice officials and corporate executives by refusing to approve civil settlements over corporate wrongdoing that did not include an admission of guilt.
And there likely were many crimes committed in the financial collapse. While pointedly saying he has no opinion on whether crimes occurred, Rakoff cites the findings of the [URL="http://fcic.law.stanford.edu/"]Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission[/URL] that fraud lurked behind the transactions that collapsed the economy. Yet U.S. Justice Department officials “have been more circumspect,” and point to three factors in their decisions not to prosecute: Proving fraud is hard; the sophisticated buyers of ill-fated mortgage-backed securities should have known better; and that going after the crooks could destabilize the economy.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=kladner;362519]Mish does describe procedures which were urged upon him.[/QUOTE]But I asked about [U]ineffective[/U] and [U]unnecessary[/U] procedures, not just procedures in general.

[quote]There is, however, the old adage that when one's only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. I do believe that this can be applied to those who use scalpels instead of hammers.[/quote]Yes, indeed. When that hammer is general distrust of doctors, the nail may be inappropriately driving patients away from proper treatment.

Mish's closing advice about being one's own medical advocate is sound, but he doesn't seem to offer directions on just how best to go about that. Where does he discuss how to tell the difference between reliable and unreliable advice on the Internet?

Mish seems only to urge readers to disregard their doctors' recommendations and to perform their own research, without any discussion of cases in which the doctors' recommendation may be superior to anything the patient might find in Internet forum postings by people with no medical qualification.

[quote]Then too, one sometimes has to wonder, if nail driving pays much better than monitoring, whether there might be any financial influence on the medical opinion.[/quote]... and the evidence Mish's article supplies that is applicable to that issue is ... ?

[URL="http://money.msn.com/now/blog--americans-undergo-too-many-unneeded-surgeries"]Americans frequently undergo unnecessary surgeries[/URL][QUOTE]Here are some findings:
12% of all angioplasty procedures, which often include the insertion of stents, weren't medically necessary.
In 22.5% of cases in which a cardiac pacemaker/implantabl​e cardioverter-defibri​llator was installed, no evidence supported that decision.
In 17% of cases in which patients were told they needed back surgery/spinal fusion, no neurological or radiographic findings indicated such an operation was necessary.
Among patients told they needed total knee replacement surgery, 38% who received information about joint replacements and alternative treatments decided against the procedure.
Similarly, 26% of patients who received additional information about hip replacements decided against them.
In 43% of colonoscopies, no clinical indication showed a need for the procedure.
A study from earlier this year, looking at data from nearly 600 hospitals nationwide, found the rate of cesarean section deliveries varied tenfold across those hospitals -- from just more than 7% of all births to nearly 70%.
70% of hysterectomies were inappropriately recommended, "often because doctors didn't attempt treatment with non-surgical procedures."
USA Today broke down these unnecessary surgeries into three groups: the immoral, the incompetent and the indifferent.

Some patients, it says, fall victim to predatory doctors who defraud the insurance industry by performing operations that aren't medically justified. But a larger number of people, it adds, "turn to doctors who simply lack the competence or training to recognize when a surgical procedure can be avoided."

Experts and patients alike say questioning a doctor's decision to operate -- by researching the suggested procedure, asking for nonsurgical options and getting a second opinion -- can help reduce the number of unnecessary surgeries.

"We expect the physician to know what's best for a patient," William Root, the chief compliance officer at Louisiana's Department of Health and Hospitals, told USA Today. "We put so much faith and confidence in our physicians, (and) most of them deserve it. But when one of them is wrong or goes astray, it can do a lot of damage."[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=cheesehead;362544]But I asked about [U]ineffective[/U] and [U]unnecessary[/U] procedures, not just procedures in general.[/QUOTE]

That is true. I suppose that I might, at least, argue that he is contending that the procedures recommended turned out to be unnecessary. They might have proven effective, if they were indeed necessary. However, that effectiveness would be at a considerable quality of life, as well as financial, cost.

[QUOTE]Yes, indeed. When that hammer is general distrust of doctors, the nail may be inappropriately driving patients away from proper treatment.[/QUOTE]It is a good point that the adage is a double-edged sword.

However, I do not believe that I have a general distrust of doctors. I do have one personal experience in particular, and others of which I have knowledge, which lead me to always urge careful consideration of courses of action in which mixed results might reasonably be considered possible.

To elaborate, many years ago, I fell and broke my left wrist. The doctor who treated it stuck it in a simple cast. He mentioned up front that the broken ulna MIGHT telescope upon itself and heal shorter. He mentioned this while he was wrenching on the incompletely anesthetized fracture. He also mentioned that surgery, and pinning was another option. I was in shock, and extreme pain at the moment, so I had nothing meaningful to say.

Three weeks later, he looked at an X-ray and pointed out that the ulna had indeed telescoped and shortened. At this point, he added that "this always happens. I could have pinned the fracture, but I've had bad experience with that, [U][I]so I decided not to do it."[/I][/U]

I also had an uncle who, in his late seventies or early eighties was diagnosed with prostate cancer and treated with radiation. I was not close enough to discuss this at the time, but my understanding of evaluating a case at that age is that one is most likely to die [U][I]with, not from[/I][/U] the cancer. In addition, he subsequently developed (perhaps coincidentally) colon cancer. This caused him to live out his last few years with a colostomy bag. Again, there is no way to assign causality between the radiation and the colon cancer. However, there is a good chance that treating his cancer at that age was unnecessary, if not outright counter-productive to his quality of life.

Now, back to my broken wrist. It came out of that cast severely displaced inward. This was in spite of the fact that I had told this alleged "healer" that I play keyboard instruments. I told him this after he asked if I were left or right handed, and what I then did for a living. I believe that there was a very cynical calculation which this person made as to what he was likely to be able to get away with in the malpractice arena, versus the least he might do to collect his fee. Further, he did not even bother to send me to occupational therapy. I then saw another doctor who did so. The therapist was shocked. She said, "I usually see such cases when they are right out of the cast."

This upshot was that for over 15 years my hand was badly aligned. Eventually, this began to cause joint pain, as by that time I also spent much time at computer keyboards. About this time, I was also on a decent enough HMO, with an understanding Primary Care doctor. He referred me to an outstanding orthopedist, who walked into my first appointment, and said, at a glance from the doorway, "Now That is a deformity."

While I had hoped to pursue a course known as the Ilizarov procedure [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilizarov_apparatus[/URL] the doctor could only locate external fixation device which would pin into a bone in the hand. He felt that the stress on the joint would cause problems. Note that he discussed all of this with me at length when I was in an appropriate mental state to evaluate the proposals. I ended up going with his recommendation that a bone graft be taken from the iliac crest, installed in the ulna, a plate attached, and pinned.

This seemed to work, and my hand was realigned. However, a year or two later, I had an accident in which I was carrying a heavy case as I stepped up onto a train. I lost my balance, and struck the wrist against the rubber bumper of the door. It hurt at the time, but subsided. It was only later that I realized that the fracture had separated, in fact, pulling out the screws which held the plate to the bone. Rather than knit properly, the ends of the disunion had calloused- formed scar tissue, essentially.

This resulted in a second surgery to clean the junction, and replace the plate with one on the underside of the bone. Unfortunately, this junction also calloused. Third time was a charm, though, only requiring yet another scraping out of scar tissue. At this point, the bone finally healed.

Now, you might say that this sequence called the second orthopedist's skills into question, except for one thing. If proper procedure had been followed at the outset, the fracture would have been fresh, and no graft would have been involved. I was also in my early thirties, instead of my late forties, so that healing might have been more immediate.

[QUOTE]Mish's closing advice about being one's own medical advocate is sound, but he doesn't seem to offer directions on just how best to go about that. Where does he discuss how to tell the difference between reliable and unreliable advice on the Internet?[/QUOTE]This was a personal account, not expert advice. One must be responsible for one's choices, and not everyone is cut out for that kind of research. However, medical advocacy is a good idea, whoever provides it.

[QUOTE]Mish seems only to urge readers to disregard their doctors' recommendations and to perform their own research, without any discussion of cases in which the doctors' recommendation may be superior to anything the patient might find in Internet forum postings by people with no medical qualification.[/QUOTE]I would have to re-read the article to really evaluate that contention, and I've really put a lot into describing my own background experience. However, my own impression was that he urged taking medical advice with an ample helping of salt, especially when there is a substantial pay-off to the adviser involved.

[QUOTE]... and the evidence Mish's article supplies that is applicable to that issue is ... ?
[/QUOTE]It is notoriously difficult to prove what the content of another person's mind might be, especially when the thoughts in question might be subliminal rather than direct and conscious. The surgical doctor (urologist) not only pushed very hard for surgery, but attempted what appears to be arm-twisting to that end. Some of the information he provided was called into question by the oncologist, at least in its presentation. Mish did not [U]only[/U] go trolling the internet. He consulted a doctor in a related specialty.

[QUOTE=only_human;362560][URL="http://money.msn.com/now/blog--americans-undergo-too-many-unneeded-surgeries"]Americans frequently undergo unnecessary surgeries[/URL][/QUOTE]

Very interesting. Thank you, Ross. It was good to finish my lengthy screed and find a post which seems to somewhat support my feelings on the subject.

[QUOTE=kladner;362563]That is true. I suppose that I might, at least, argue that he is contending that the procedures recommended turned out to be unnecessary. They might have proven effective, if they were indeed necessary. However, that effectiveness would be at a considerable quality of life, as well as financial, cost.[/QUOTE]

If I may share...

A few years ago a doctor recommended to me that he send electrified needles into my spine, and I undergo an MRI; all at very great profit to him and great expense to me.

You might imagine what I told him to do with that idea....

[url=http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/12/yes-obama-democrats-mussolini-style-corporatists-just-like-republicans.html]Yes Virginia, Obama and the Democrats Are Mussolini-Style Corporatists, Just Like the Republicans | naked capitalism[/url]

Nice piece from the ever-erudite Yves Smith (pseudonym - this "Eve" is a she) - Only real revelation for me was the reason why Wall Street likes to label Obama "anti-business" at the same time it donated generously to his campaign(s) and benefited outrageously from his policies.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;362576][URL="http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/12/yes-obama-democrats-mussolini-style-corporatists-just-like-republicans.html"]Yes Virginia, Obama and the Democrats Are Mussolini-Style Corporatists, Just Like the Republicans | naked capitalism[/URL]

Nice piece from the ever-erudite Yves Smith (pseudonym - this "Eve" is a she) - Only real revelation for me was the reason why Wall Street likes to label Obama "anti-business" at the same time it donated generously to his campaign(s) and benefited outrageously from his policies.[/QUOTE]


I am surprised at how close I am to the Right (Reich Wing, to some partisans!). My complaint about Obama has long been his Corporatism. My feelings are the same for both Clintons, and many other alleged "Center Leftists", (or is that "Left Centrists?") Nothin' Centerish about the lot. Bill Clinton added another example to what I call the "Nixon in China Syndrome." That is, conservatives can get away with things which no alleged liberal could. And conversely, alleged liberals can get away with things no conservative can. In Bill's case, it was "Welfare Reform" and "Banking Reform" with the repeal of Glass-Steagall.

I suppose the farther around the (political) Universe one travels, the closer you get, first to your supposed opposite, and then closer to where you started.

EDIT: I am also mildly amused that Reich Wingers, who would be (and really are) gung ho Corporatists, cannot maintain that position as long as Obama has occupied their home turf.

Ernst has frequently seemed not to comprehend the nature of evidence and its role in supporting allegations,or at least not to think it's necessary to show his readers any evidence. Here, he has linked to an article that has no evidence to support his reference to ineffective and unnecessary procedures.

[QUOTE=kladner;362563]I suppose that I might, at least, argue that he is contending that the procedures recommended turned out to be unnecessary.[/QUOTE]But Mish provides no evidence that they would be unnecessary for anyone else. That he himself didn't need them to stop his cancer (at least, as far as we know from his testimony) doesn't show that they would be unnecessary for anyone else.

[quote]However, I do not believe that I have a general distrust of doctors.[/quote]... and no one said you did.

Mish, however, seems to be promoting distrust in doctors.

[quote]I do have one personal experience in particular, < snip >[/quote]... but your testimony, like Mish's, proves nothing about whether any procedures in your, or your uncle's, particular experience would be unnecessary or ineffective in anyone else's case.

Do you understand that none of the details you describe about your uncle and yourself constitute the sort of evidence of effectiveness that comes from double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials?

[quote]However, medical advocacy is a good idea, whoever provides it.[/quote]Fine, but Ernst didn't link to Mish's article in the context of medical advocacy.

[quote]However, my own impression was that he urged taking medical advice with an ample helping of salt, especially when there is a substantial pay-off to the adviser involved.[/quote]Fine, but that has nothing to do with providing examples or evidence of unnecessary or ineffective procedures.

(The following quote was in response to my question, "... and the evidence Mish's article supplies that is applicable to that issue is ... ?")
[quote]It is notoriously difficult to prove what the content of another person's mind might be,[/quote]I asked for evidence, not content of another person's mind.

[quote]especially when the thoughts in question might be subliminal rather than direct and conscious.[/quote]What in the world are you talking about?

I asked what evidence Mish's article supplied, not what was on his mind. You haven't cited a single piece of evidence from Mish's article.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;362587]But Mish provides no evidence...[/QUOTE]

Mish's article does provide indirect evidence. The relevant quote is:

[quote]The oncologist informed me that ... "based on your conditions, there is no statistical evidence that strongly favors any one course of action. Equal results are obtained by surgery, by radiation therapy, and by waiting".
[/quote]

It is not unreasonable to assume that the oncologist is referencing the kind of scientific evidence you desire. If so, then Dr. G was pushing a $20,000 surgery that had the same statistical outcome as doing nothing and most would consider this an example of an unnecessary surgery.

You are correct in that 1) Mish's case does not prove the problem is widespread. and 2) Mish's case does not prove a doctor was pushing an unnecessary procedure - the oncologist may not have been up on the latest literature.

However, Ernst isn't publishing in JAMA either. Ernst's style seems to use links to provides (some) evidence that there may well be a problem, leaving it up to the forum reader, if they so desire, to pursue more evidence on their own.

[QUOTE=Prime95;362588]Mish's article ...[/QUOTE]
:goodposting:

[QUOTE](The following quote was in response to my question, "... and the evidence Mish's article supplies that is applicable to that issue is ... ?")
Quote:
It is notoriously difficult to prove what the content of another person's mind might be,
I asked for evidence, not content of another person's mind.

Quote:
especially when the thoughts in question might be subliminal rather than direct and conscious.
What in the world are you talking about?

I asked what evidence Mish's article supplied, not what was on his mind. You haven't cited a single piece of evidence from Mish's article. [/QUOTE]

My general context had to do with the motivations of the urologist in promoting a certain course of action. I was attempting to allow for the possibility that, even if there were a financial element to those motivations, the doctor might not have been consciously conniving to come up with his next boat payment.

All these various anecdotes must be considered against the broader background (and statistics such as Ross provided) that the US spends twice as much per capita on medical care than the next-most-outlay-friendly nation on the planet, and for a result which taken on a whole-society basis can only be characterized as execrable.

Or do some of our readers believe we are exchanging charming personal-medical anecdotes in a vacuum?

[QUOTE=ewmayer;362628].....

Or do some of our readers believe we are exchanging charming personal-medical anecdotes in a vacuum?[/QUOTE]

Not this one. :no:

I'll finish with:

[QUOTE=Prime95;362588]Mish's article does provide indirect evidence. The relevant quote is:
[quote]The oncologist informed me that ... "based on your conditions, there is no statistical evidence that strongly favors any one course of action. Equal results are obtained by surgery, by radiation therapy, and by waiting". [/quote][/QUOTE]"based on your conditions" means that what followed was applicable only to Mish. That statement doesn't provide any other reader with a useful guideline for deciding between the three alternatives.

[quote]It is not unreasonable to assume that the oncologist is referencing the kind of scientific evidence you desire.[/quote]But Mish doesn't reveal that scientific evidence, or help a reader find similar for himself.

[quote]If so, then Dr. G was pushing a $20,000 surgery that had the same statistical outcome as doing nothing and most would consider this an example of an unnecessary surgery.[/quote]Yes, given that lead "if so" hypothetical, that might indeed be what most others would decide. But the article gives the reader no information on whether that would be true in anyone's case but Mish, because of the "based on your conditions" qualification.

Cheesehead, there are forms of reasoning other than just inductive reasoning. Read up on deductive and abductive reasoning and see why you criteria for reasoning and evidence is unnecessarily narrow.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;362628]All these various anecdotes must be considered against the broader background (and statistics such as Ross provided) that the US spends twice as much per capita on medical care than the next-most-outlay-friendly nation on the planet, and for a result which taken on a whole-society basis can only be characterized as execrable.[/QUOTE]

Say it ain't so, Joe!

Interestingly, this kind of behavior was codified by Machiavelli ~480 years ago (and Sun Tzu ~2,200 years ago), and yet so few "get it" even today....

[Numerous inline links in the article not propagated to my quoted snip]

[url=https://al3x.net/2013/12/18/bitcoin.html]Alex Payne -- Bitcoin, Magical Thinking, and Political Ideology[/url]
[quote]Economic inequality is perhaps the defining issue of our age, as trumpeted by everyone from the TED crowd to the Pope. Our culture is fixated on inequality, and rightly so. From science fiction futures to Woody Allen character sketches, we’re simultaneously alarmed and paralyzingly transfixed by the disappearance of our middle class. A story about young people dying in competition with one another just to continue lives of quiet desperation isn’t radical left-wing journalism, it’s the pop fiction on every teenager’s nightstand and in every cinema right now.

With this backdrop of looming poverty, nobody can reasonably deny that the euphemistically “underbanked” are in desperate need of financial services that empower them to participate fully in the global economy without fear of exploitation. What’s unclear is the role that Bitcoin or a similar cryptocurrency could play in rectifying this dire situation.

The push toward Bitcoin comes largely from the libertarian portion of the technology community who believe that regulation stands in the way of both progress and profit. Unfortunately, this alarmingly magical thinking has little basis in economic reality. The gradual dismantling of much of the US and international financial regulatory safety net is now regarded as a major catalyst for the Great Recession. The “financial or political constraints” many of the underbanked find themselves in are the result of unchecked predatory capitalism, not a symptom of a terminal lack of software.

Silicon Valley has a seemingly endless capacity to mistake social and political problems for technological ones, and Bitcoin is just the latest example of this selective blindness. The underbanked will not be lifted out of poverty by conducting their meager daily business in a cryptocurrency rather than a fiat currency, even if Bitcoin or its ilk manages to reduce marginal transaction costs (at scale and in full regulatory compliance, that is). But then, we should note that Dixon wasn’t talking about lifting anyone out of poverty, just “offer[ing them] low-cost financial services”. Also notable is that both Andreessen and Horowitz supported Mitt Romney’s failed presidential bid, giving us some insight into the likely level of concern for economic inequality around Dixon’s office.

In Bitcoin, the Valley sees another PayPal and the associated fat exit, but ideally without the annoying costs of policing fraud and handling chargebacks this time around. Bankers in New York and London see opportunities for cryptocurrency market-making. International investors see the potential for arbitrage and are taking advantage of cheap electricity, bringing the environmental destruction of real-world mining to the brave new world of digital money.

In other words: Bitcoin represents more of the same short-sighted hypercapitalism that got us into this mess, minus the accountability. No wonder that many of the same culprits are diving eagerly into the mining pool.

...

Working in technology has an element of pioneering, and with new frontiers come those who would prefer to leave civilization behind. But in a time of growing inequality, we need technology that preserves and renews the civilization we already have. The first step in this direction is for technologists to engage with the experiences and struggles of those outside their industry and community. There’s a big, wide, increasingly poor world out there, and it doesn’t need 99% of what Silicon Valley is selling.

I’ve enjoyed the thought experiment of Bitcoin as much as the next nerd, but it’s time to dispense with the opportunism and adolescent fantasies of a crypto-powered stateless future and return to the work of building technology and social services that meaningfully and accountably improve our collective quality of life.[/quote]

[url=http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/12/china-interest-rate-crisis-continues-7.html]China Interest Rate Crisis Continues: 7-Day Interest Rate Doubles to 10% in One Week; China Bans Words "Cash Crunch"[/url]

Interesting things happen against a background of utterly out-of-control shadow banking/credit-bubble in the Middle Kingdom. China is my #1 pick for "2014 Black Swan candidates".

[QUOTE=ewmayer;362744]Interesting things happen against a background of utterly out-of-control shadow banking/credit-bubble in the Middle Kingdom. China is my #1 pick for "2014 Black Swan candidates".[/QUOTE]

I watched my favorite real-time news outlets last evening...

Interestingly, all the news was about war, hatred, natural disasters, and being scared and being under attack...

Meanwhile, all the ads were about sexy cars you just couldn't afford not to buy, pain-stopping drugs you just had to take if you were going to be productive the next day, and lotteries worth millions of dollars you just couldn't afford not to invest in.

It all seemed somewhat wrong to me....

[QUOTE=garo;362652]Cheesehead, there are forms of reasoning other than just inductive reasoning. Read up on deductive and abductive reasoning and see why you criteria for reasoning and evidence is unnecessarily narrow.[/QUOTE]
I note that you give no example of how my criteria for reasoning and evidence are unnecessarily narrow. Will you please do so, especially with examples of how abductive reasoning and deductive reasoning invalidate my criteria? Remember that one goal I seek is to avoid self-deception, so as to avoid pseudoscience.

I prefer subductive reasoning ... that way any faults that are present in the initial argument are guaranteed to get buried and erased with time.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;362834]I prefer subductive reasoning ... that way any faults that are present in the initial argument are [B]guaranteed to get buried and erased with time[/B].[/QUOTE]Which is it? Buried, or erased? Or are you talking about superpositions? Supine is pretty good. There is a book full of them.

First buried as the slab descends into the upper mantle, then gradually erased by annealing as the temperature rises. It's beautiful - first they're out of sight, then later if anyone tries to dig them back up, they're gone. Revisionist geologic history, as it were.

Hmmmm...

[url]http://tech.slashdot.org/story/13/12/24/1929258/how-healthcaregov-changed-the-software-testing-conversation[/url]

[QUOTE=ewmayer;362837]First buried as the slab descends into the upper mantle, then gradually erased by annealing as the temperature rises. It's beautiful - first they're out of sight, then later if anyone tries to dig them back up, they're gone. Revisionist geologic history, as it were.[/QUOTE]Exactly. :smile:

[QUOTE=cheesehead;362964]Exactly. :smile:[/QUOTE]

Exactly what?

What did you mean to say Richard?

Please forgive me for this Richard, but I find myself with little time for those who say things without saying things.

Another data point on those (allegedly) unnecessary medical procedures:

[url=online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304244904579278442014913458?mod=WSJ_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond]Fake Knee Surgery as Good as Real Procedure, Study Finds[/url]
[quote]A fake surgical procedure is just as good as real surgery at reducing pain and other symptoms in some patients suffering from torn knee cartilage, according to a new study that is likely to fuel debate over one of the most common orthopedic operations.

As many as 700,000 people in the U.S. undergo knee surgery each year to treat tears in a crescent-shaped piece of cartilage known as the meniscus, which acts as a shock absorber between the upper and lower portions of the knee joints. The tears create loose pieces of cartilage that doctors have long thought interfere with motion of the joints, causing pain and stiffness.
Enlarge Image

Patients led to believe they had knee surgery saw results comparable to those who had the procedure, a study by Finnish researchers found. Here, an arthroscopic surgery, during which two incisions are made: one for a small camera and the other for the surgical tool. Washington Post/Getty Images

But researchers in Finland who studied two sets of patients—one that received the surgery, and another that was led to believe that it had—observed no significant differences in improvement between the groups after one year.

Surgery did provide a slight advantage in certain areas early on, including a decrease in pain felt after exercising and in some quality-of-life measures, but the differences disappeared by the end of the 12 months, the researchers said in a paper published Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The patients agreed to participate in the study prior to the procedure and were informed they would either receive the surgery or not.

"The implications are fairly profound," said Jeffrey Katz, a professor of medicine at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston who wasn't involved in the Finnish study. "There may be some relatively small advantages to meniscal surgery, but they're short-lived."[/quote]
To be fair, additional advantages of surgery include GDP-stimulative revenue for the medical industry and complications requiring -- you guessed it...

[QUOTE=ewmayer;362966]Another data point on those (allegedly) unnecessary medical procedures...[/QUOTE]

Some might consider this to be funny (other's might not)...

Hey, let's spend a lot of money together. Just to be clear, you'll spend the money, I'll collect the money. But because of the legal arrangements it will all be cool and legal and (oh, by the way, I'll get all the money)....