Today's Buggy Topic

It continues the lengthy commentaries that prof bug has been posting in a variety of recent thread at Economist View, these latest prof bug posts generating --- as was fully predictable --- surges of angry and uninformed retorts from the usual suspects in that thread . . . about 8 or so chronic left-wing posters, with way too much time on their hands and hostile to any analyses that contradict their shared groupthink orthodoxies.   Altogether, there are about four or five buggy posts in the thread, full of evidence and theoretical observations.

No Need To Say More 

Just be sure when you click here  and end up in the relevant thread that you note something important: the initial page of posts is followed by a second page.  Which means you need to click on the "show more comments" blue-bar at the very bottom of that initial page, found right above the little box at the bottom for entering posts. 

Today's Buggy Topic Continues The . . .

Prof bug analyses of income inequality and income mobility in American life that he posted originally two days ago, and in the same place:  a thread at Economist View.  And so even if you'd read the initial two bugged-out commentaries, you might find it rewarding to look at the two latest ones.  Click here for the thread.

Today's Buggy Topic . . .

Was inspired by a linked article and commentary, plus posted comments, in a thread at Economist View  on US income inequality and mobility over the last three decades or so .

As it happens, the linked article relies on a recent Brookings Institute book that was published too late to to use the  thorough, detailed analysis of IRS data published by the US Treasury Department in November 2007.  Entitled "Income Mobility in the United States from 1995 to 2005", that Treasury study found more or less parallel trends in income mobility that it tracked between 1979 and 1988: the US remains, contrary to left-wing views, an unusually mobile society for the 117.1 million American taxpayers whose income tax-returns it followed in the ten years after 1995. 

What Else Did the Study Find?

Lots of surprises, all encouraging.  Not least, as you'll see from the two long buggy comments posted in the Economist View thread, around half of all low-income households moved up from the bottom quintile of cash-income --- including welfare cash transfers and taking into account social security payments and income taxes --- to either the second or higher quintile.   Equally desirable, those Americans who started out in the bottom quintile of income saw their median income rise more in percentage terms than those in the highest income quintile. 

Something else is relevant here.  The US Treasury report refers only to cash benefits for welfare-recipients.  It does not cover non-cash benefits like food-stamps, rent-subsidies, educational subsidies, Medicaid, and the like.  Generally, if these non-cash benefits are included, they reduce the level of poverty in the US from about 12.3% in 2007 at the start of the recession by about a third.  One recent study referred to by an economist with the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis found that the cash-value of these non-cash benefits might raise the median income of poor people not by just a third but by 50% or so.

Click here for the buggy posted comments.

Today's Buggy Topic

The subject-title above captures only part of the topic, covered in two lengthy prof bug comments left at Economist View . . . the laudable, justifiably well-regarded web site run by a good fair-minded economist, Professor Mark Thoma of the University of Oregon. 

Professor Thoma, please note, is himself a moderate and far more balanced in his commentaries and links than the 7 or 8 regular posters who hog about 80% of the posts in each thread . . . one of whom, with way too much time on her hands, posts unglued, hilariously clownish observations about every subject under the sun, about which she is notably ignorant.  Not to forget her furious wacko-city indignation that is stoked by any dissenting views, however well-founded, from the dominant group-think in the thread.

Guess who leaves many of these simple, evidence-based heresies these days? 

With, to prof bug's wicked pleasure, her fully predictable explosions soon to follow, each one crammed to the rafters with buffoonish spite and sarcasm . . . the unhinged furioso apparently seeing herself on a messianic crusade to save the world from folly; and with any dissenters or critics  the equivalent in her eyes  of fiendish apostates or evil heretics, both of which groups --- however numerous --- should be put pell-mell on a rack, enjoy hundreds of pounds of scalding rocks pressed on their chests, and eventually be  burned at the stake strictly in the interest, you understand, of humankind's salvation.  Nothing less.  

Back to the Topic

The two buggy commentaries were motivated by a link that Professor Thoma created to the web-site of a talented professional philosopher at a University of Michigan campus, Professor Daniel Little . . . one of the handful of philosophers who analyze with regularity social science theories and methodologies. 

The first prof bug commentary at Economist View summarized the Little argument and ended with some observations of his own.  That was a prelude, set out later in the day, to the bugged-out major concern: the various intellectual styles that prevailed historically in Europe and the English-speaking world --- roughly divided into two sorts --- and how these very different styles in philosophy and the social sciences, not to mention in the media, influenced wider social, cultural, and political life in different countries.

No need to say more here.  The prof bug commentaries should clarify all these matters, illustrated with lots of historical and up-to-date evidence, if you click here and read the buggy stuff.    

Oh, Almost Forgot

You'll find the link to Professor Daniel Little's article at the start of the thread under the heading, "Demystifying Social Knowledge: Understanding Society."   And you'll find it right now if you click here for his web site.    Too bad that Professor Little is the chancellor of the University of Michigan, at any rate for the rest of us who admire his work. 

If he were a full-time professor-scholar, he'd be able to post more of his admirably readable analytical commentaries . . . much to our benefit.

Today's Buggy Topic

Once more, it's reflected fairly accurately in the subject-title above, and once more, the buggy comments are found in a thread on the topic at Economist View. 

There Are Three . . .  

buggy posts so far in that thread, each fairly long --- two of which summarize an important path-breaking study of the growth in both national income and inequality since 1979.

The study is by Professor Robert Gordon, a justifiably distinguished economist at Northwestern University . . . and very much in the mainstream of economic analysis of policy-oriented matters.  Among other things, what with the reflexive dismissal by the usual chronic left-wing posters of the buggy summary of Professor Robert Gordon's study, prof bug posted a second commentary that summarized Professor Gordon's record of praiseworthy work on a variety of key economic issues . . . Gordon immediately accused, wrongly, of being some front for right-wing research institutes.

The third buggy post delved further into the Robert Gordon study . . . which is an updated version of a paper that he originally gave at a conference on measuring real national income and measuring as well the extent and pace of growing income inequality over the last three decades.

No Need to Say More 

For the thread and the buggy comments, click here. 

Today's Buggy Topic

It's found, as usual, in a lengthy thread at Economist View . . . the admirable web site run by Professor Mark Thoma, a macro-economist at the University of Oregon.  And as it happens, it's in the same thread about American education that prof bug had posted in four or five times already. 

By the time prof bug left his latest three posts in that thread --- with over 200 posts altogether --- the subject-matter that kicked off the thread had widened.  Those last buggy posts dealt directly with the welfare system, and for reasons that those of you who have followed that thread linked to in earlier buggy articles here will be familiar with. 

To Find Those Latest Posts,

. . . click here.  Please note that the thread's posted replies are found on three pages.  To get to the new buggy stuff, run --- if you want --- a "show more comments" on the first page.  Or scroll down to the end: you'll find a blue bar with those words.  Click on the bar.   On the second page, run "buggy professor" searches for the earlier and one of the new  prof bug posts.  When you're through, click on the "show more comments" at the bottom of the second page, and voila! you'll be on the third page and find two more long buggy posted comments. 

Today's Buggy Topic

. . . Is, as the subject-title indicates, strictly limited to some tossed-out personal observations about universities in the US and Europe, based on my experience here and in Britain, France, Germany, and Switzerland.  Believe me, nothing profound; even so, , maybe worth your while to look them over.

Those observations appear in a thread at the Marginal Revolution, a very good economist web-site run by an uncommonly flexible libertarian economist, Professor Tyler Cowen of George Mason University in Virginia.  Click here for the thread.

Today's Buggy Topic

 . . . continues, as the subject-title indicates, the same topic dealt with in the previous prof bug article on October 10, 2009. 

In that earlier article, the buggy prof linked to a thread on educational performance in the USA, viewed comparatively in part, at Economist View . . . where he originally left  a couple of lengthy commentaries.  Since then, he has posted three more commentaries, and so even if you've looked at those earlier buggy comments, you might want to click here and read the further stuff --- which includes some exchange with other posters.

The New Buggy Posts 

They deal with the emotional and behavioral problems of children from broken families and above all fatherless families --- not least in school, but otherwise as well.  They also note, with long references, how these problems are generally much worse for boys than for girls . . . who have a better relationship with their single-parent mothers. 

Keep in mind here that statistical analyses deal with "averages" and the distribution of outcomes around those averages.  So prof bug also looks at and compares dysfunctional single-parent families with two-parent ones .  As it happens, the emotional and behavioral problems tend to be 4 to 5 times worse for children from the single-parent family-structure.   Those references are to scholarly work by psychologists, sociologists, and criminologists, and the quoted material is non-academic and easy to read.

You'll also find a buggy commentary that looks at the educational performance of charter schools compared with standard-model public schools --- the evidence very mixed, but generally not encouraging. 

So . . .

Click here for the Economist View thread.  And remember to go to the bottom of the initial page there and click on the "Show More Comments" blue bar right above the posting box.   That will take you to the second page where the several buggy posts are found.  

Oh, and have a few laughs as you look through the thread --- specifically, after the initial buggy comment --- of the hilarious unintended, unglued, head-case humor of the usual irate suspect.

A Big Mouthful Of A Subject-Tile, No?

Yes, obviously.  And also,  as you'll see if you link to prof bug's three lengthy posts on the subject at Economist View, good for some laughs again . . . with the usual suspect the source of the mirth.

Click here.  Note though: you need to go down to the bottom of the initial page of posts, then click on the "show more comments" blue-bar.  That will bring you to the second page of posts, where you'll find prof bug's stuff.

Today's Buggy Topic

The official global warming models, developed and modified in an ongoing manner by the IPCC --- the International Panel on Climate Control --- are enormously complex, involving potentially thousands of different variables from numerous disciplines . . . all compounded by uncertain interactions between the variables and, no less important, uncertain feed-back influences or forcings, whether of a positive or negative sort.  A positive sort would intensify the level or rate of global warming, attributed to greenhouse gases caused by human activity --- especially CO2. 

The post on these complexities --- which prof bug compared to the far less complex mathematical models that macroeconomists employ --- appeared a couple of days ago at Economist View. Click here.

Please Note

Whether or not climate change of a warming sort is going on --- never mind whether it's being caused by human activities and energy sources --- for prof bug there's another, two-edged reason, more sfolid in his view, for trying to step up the pace of moving away from our energy reliance on oil ---- and especially oil imports  It's a matter basically of both national security and economic stability and prosperity.

 Currently, to clarify, we import about 13 million barrels a day of crude oil and natural gas and related petroleum products.  The fluctuations in prices that occurred in late 2007 and into 2008 helped dislocate the US economy --- and for that matter other economies around the world --- and contributed to the deep recession that occurred at the same time. 

The Specific Problems That Follow

 That's one problem, economic in nature, which we can only deal with by finding alternative energy sources, domestically produced or at least less subject to continued fluctuations in prices, and with less impact on our trade-deficits.  Consider that impact briefly. 

In the last decade, about 40 to 50% of the deficits were caused by petroleum imports.  And that in turn has required the US to borrow large sums of money from abroad, not least China, to finance those deficits. A superpower should not be so dependent, financially, on another country . . . in the Chinese case, one with great-power ambitions.  (Managing that relationship effectively and peacefully  is one of the two or three most important US national interests.  It's liable to be a challenge for us over the next several decades.)  

Enter the second reason for moving away from our national over-dependence on oil, and especially our growing need for oil imports.

Of the roughly 71 million barrels of oil produced daily around the world, OPEC's 13 countries generate about 60%.  The key producers are Arab countries and Iran, which are in the most volatile region of the world --- and their oil resources and exports have vastly inflated their importance to the security interests of the US and its allies, not to mention OPEC's overblown influence in the global economy.  And though it's true that the US oil and gas imports don't come mainly from OPEC sources, that really doesn't matter. 

 The international petroleum market is globally integrated and fully fungible: any stoppage of oil exports from the Persian Gulf would immediate affect global output and prices.

Back to Global Warming

The questions here are numerous: first and foremost, if it is occurring, how serious would be the consequences over the next several decades?  The range of projections in IPCC models indicate that in the low range, such warming could be beneficial to most countries in the world --- including in agricultural output and reforestation.  Then, too, if warming is occurring and is likely to be more serious, is it largely man-made or not?

Enter prof bug's observations about the models left in the post at Economist View.   Note that a key assumption in the global warming models produced since the early 1990s --- that the current uptick in the earth's warming since the late 1970s (some say for a century earlier) --- produced the warmest period in climate history. 

 To bolster that assumption, two variants of what's called the "hockey-stick" view of global warming, caused by humans, emerged.

Meaning? 

The centuries in Europe and elsewhere in the Northern Hemisphere from 800 to 1300 A.D. are called the Medieval Warming period --- a long age in which the Vikings were able to colonize Greenland and Newfoundland and other parts of the far north.  Then the Little Ice Age ensued in Europe, which lasted roughly from 1300 until some time late in the 19th century --- this slide in temperature amply documented, and found in recent studies of ice core, tree-rings, and lake deposits to have occurred. 

Enter the controversy. 

The two major studies that doubted the Medieval Warming Period and, to an extent, the Little Ice Age in Europe were endorsed in several IPCC reports, not least in 2001 that questioned the noticeable changes in temperature around 1300, and simultaneously doubted that there was much warming in the Medieval Warming period.

One of these studies, produced by Michael Mann and his associated, has already been thrown into doubt.  It showed a hockey-stick view of global warming in which, from roughly 1000 until the 1800s, average global temperature was a flat bar.  It then began to rise, like the striking end of a hockey stick in the 19th century, due, it was argued, to human-caused greenhouse gas activities . . . with the 20th century the warmest ever.  A flurry of critical studies followed, including one sponsored by a Congressional Committee drawing on the chairman of the National Academy of Sciences.  In turn, Mann and his defenders have altered their original claims, but find that they still largely stand.

On Top of That . . .

. . . A second controversy now surrounds the use of tree-samples in  Yamal Peninsula in Siberia, which a British climatologist studied to bolster the hockey-stick there.  That version of the Hockey Stick is also being thrown into doubt. 

Again, the main critics of the original Michael Mann study, Steven McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have called foul --- in particular, claim that the British climatologist carefully picked a sample from the trees in that Peninsula to bolster the Hockey-Stick theory, whereas an updated sample show clearly that the Medieval Warming Period was actually warmer than the 20th century.   McKitrick is a professor of environment at a Canadian University.  McIntyre, another Canadian, is a specialist in hard-rock mineral exploration.

Click here for the controversy until the end of 2008.  And for the updated recent work by McIntyre and McKitrick, which denounce what they say is a fraudulent misuse of sampling of the tree-rings in Siberia, click here