Monday, July 26, 2021

A Critical Distinction

But what does it mean to believe in science? The British science writer Matt Ridley draws a pointed distinction between “science as a philosophy” and “science as an institution.” The former grows out of the Enlightenment, which Mr. Ridley defines as “the primacy of rational and objective reasoning.” 

The latter, like all human institutions, is erratic, prone to falling well short of its stated principles. Mr. Ridley says the Covid pandemic has “thrown into sharp relief the disconnect between science as a philosophy and science as an institution.”

Wall St Journal 23 July (remainder pay walled)

Saturday, July 24, 2021

The Stench of Regulator Envy

New Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) rules say astronaut hopefuls must be part of the flight crew and make contributions to space flight safety. That means Jeff Bezos and Sir Richard Branson may not yet be astronauts in the eyes of the US government.

These are the first changes since the FAA wings programme began in 2004.

The Commercial Astronaut Wings programme updates were announced on Tuesday - the same day that Amazon's Bezos flew aboard a Blue Origin rocket to the edge of space. To qualify as commercial astronauts, space-goers must travel 80km above the Earth's surface, which both Bezos and Branson accomplished.

But altitude aside, the agency said that would-be astronauts must have also "demonstrated activities during flight that were essential to public safety, or contributed to human space flight safety".

What exactly counts as such is determined by FAA officials.

Wednesday, July 21, 2021

Two thoughts worth considering

Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber. Plato, ancient Greek Philosopher


Politicians are people who, when they see light at the end of the tunnel, go out and buy some more tunnel. John Quinton, American actor/writer


Monday, July 19, 2021

Biden Turns Back the Progressive Clock

Without the deregulation of the ’70s—which he supported—the economy would be smaller today.

By Phil Gramm and Mike Solon

July 14, 2021


In a sweeping executive order aimed at reimposing Progressive Era regulatory policy across the U.S. economy, President Biden recounted the foundational myths of modern progressivism. The first canon of progressivism holds that breaking up the consolidating industries or trusts in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and regulating those industries heavily until the late 1970s, benefited the economy and gave “the little guy” a fighting chance. Consumers, workers and the economy took a hit, according to the progressive myth, when the regulatory structure was overturned 40 years ago.

Progressive interpretation claims that the industrial concentration of the late 19th and early 20th centuries was evidence of the rise of monopolies, but if the consolidating industries were exhibiting anticompetitive behavior, output would have fallen and prices would have risen. The opposite happened. As economist Thomas DiLorenzo showed in a classic study, output in industries accused of being monopolistic during the debate on the Sherman Act in 1890 increased by 175% from 1880 to 1890—seven times the growth rate of the economy as a whole. The average price of products sold by these same industries fell three times as fast as the Consumer Price Index.

Hard economic data consistently shows that the industrial concentration at the turn of the 19th century was driven by vigorous competition arising from transformative technology and improved industrial organization. Efficient producers mastered the economies of scale to provide consumers with lower prices and improved product quality. Competition and new technology destroyed the pricing power of emerging trusts, and most failed to survive. Even the oil and sugar trusts, which existed because of protective tariffs, faced relentless price competition.

Many trusts welcomed progressive regulation. A comprehensive study by economist George Hilton and historian Gabriel Kolko showed convincingly that railroads championed regulation. They were more than happy to have the feds set freight rates. Market forces had driven down revenues per ton-mile by some 18% between 1870 and 1890. The first major action of the Interstate Commerce Commission was to ban price competition by outlawing price rebating, which the owners of an overbuilt railway system welcomed. When interstate trucking became an effective competitor of the railroads, the ICC muted that competition by regulating the new industry.

The 1970s brought two recessions, double-digit inflation and an end to America’s postwar economic dominance, setting off an intense policy debate. As economists, regulators, politicians, business leaders and policy advocates debated why the U.S. economy seemed to be losing its exceptionalism, a consensus formed around the belief that regulations based on the Progressive Era principles that Mr. Biden now seeks to revive were hurting consumers, workers and the economy.

Experts charged with protecting consumers, like then-Senate Judiciary Committee staffer (and Harvard antitrust law professor) Stephen Breyer and Civil Aeronautics Board Chairman Alfred Kahn, provided the hard evidence that convinced their bosses, Sen. Ted Kennedy and President Jimmy Carter, that America needed to reform agency regulation and end regulation of vast sectors of the economy. Any doubt that the consensus that Progressive Era regulation had failed ended when Ralph Nader testified before Kennedy’s subcommittee, denouncing regulations that kept prices high and choices low, and protected regulated industries.

When airline deregulation passed the Senate in 1978, Kennedy declared: “The success of this legislation is the result of a clear consensus . . . that rigid federal economic regulations of the airlines tends to increase prices, foster inefficiency in operations and perpetuate Government control, bureaucracy and red tape. . . . This consensus has been built brick by brick in recent years by serious and careful nonpartisan examinations of . . . the nature of government and competition in the 1970s.”

The Senate passed airline deregulation 82-4 on Oct. 14, 1978, and Sen. Joe Biden voted for it. But Democratic deregulation was only beginning. As Kennedy noted: “The restrictive price and entry provisions of the Federal Aviation Act . . .  were copied directly from the Interstate Commerce Act of the 1880s governing railroads. . . . We need to now look beyond the airlines and the corrective measures we are voting upon today and recognize the fact that . . . heavy regulation, as illustrated by the airline industry, is not the answer.”

On April 1, 1980, the Senate voted on the Staggers Rail Act to deregulate railroads. Again, Mr. Biden voted for it. In signing the Motor Carrier Act of 1980, which Mr. Biden also voted for, President Carter sounded the death knell on Progressive Era regulation: “This historic legislation . . . will remove 45 years of excessive and inflationary Government restrictions and red tape. . . . No longer will trucks travel empty because of rules absurdly limiting the kinds of goods a truck may carry. No longer will trucks be forced to travel hundreds of miles out of their way for no reason or prohibited senselessly from stopping to pick up and deliver goods at points along their routes. The Motor Carrier Act of 1980 will bring the trucking industry into the free enterprise system, where it belongs.”

Far from hurting consumers, as progressive myth alleges, deregulation of the U.S. transportation system unleashed a wave of invention and innovation that reduced logistical transportation cost—the cost of moving goods as a percentage of gross domestic product—by an astonishing 50% over 40 years. Airline fares were cut in half on a per mile basis, while air cargo surged from 5.4% of all shipments to 14.5% by 2012, making air transit for people and packages a routine part of American life. “Our economy would be much smaller and per capita income significantly lower without these far-sighted changes,” according to FedEx CEO Fred Smith.

In this Carter-Kennedy led reform, the duty of government was to protect the consumer from harm, not to protect the producer from competition. Without the productive energy released by deregulating airlines, trucking, railroads, energy and communications, the U.S. might not have found its competitive legs as its postwar dominance in manufacturing ended in the late 1970s. The benefits of deregulation to this day continue to make possible powerful innovations that remake the world. Amazon, FedEx and Facebook are but a tiny fraction of a long list of progeny produced by lifting the heavy hand of Progressive Era regulation. We reimpose that regulation at our own peril.

Mr. Gramm is a former chairman of the Senate Banking Committee and a visiting scholar at American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Solon is a partner of US Policy Metrics.

Thursday, July 15, 2021

Public Relations or Chicanery?

The Economist’s  commentator on management in companies notes in a recent article (July 3rd 2021) the tendency to swap colourful glad handing and puffery with but the faintest resemblance to everyday reality which, he notes, likely has “zero impact” on the company’s profile for a more down to earth but less glitzy presentation all under the guise of PR or perhaps more plainly hubris. This at considerable cost to shareholders, staff and customers.

In fact at the meeting concerned the Chief Executive summed matters up, upon the PR man’s exit, with “Thank goodness he’s gone. Now I can tell you what’s really happening.” This condition is observable in the style of numerous popular governments at present. Just which entity is the infectious spreader of this particular variant of the virus?

Wednesday, June 30, 2021

Deep Down We Know This.....


A critical point at present: 

A widespread issue with behaviours around energy, is that individuals and institutions are more interested in looking green or feeling green, than being green. In other words, we get a warm feeling when we think we did something green or we can make others think we did something green, regardless of whether it truly is green in the full lifecycle of its existence. 
Lyn Alden Schwartzer June 2021

Monday, June 21, 2021

More than helpful concept

 "Be less curious about people and more curious about ideas."

— Marie Curie 

Saturday, June 19, 2021

Disputable Fact, Fantasy and Pure Fiction

Currently, in the world of academia or is it literature, a hefty debate involves the "fleshing out" of the often skeletal or even documented but subject to interpretation tales of yore - history. The Economist of June 12, 2021 explains the debate well and covers arguments from "both sides".

Its priceless description of the traditionalists reaction to current trends seen in "reconstruction" is worthy:

Academic historians tend to be sniffy about all this. But though their work may be unsullied by ingratiating ornament, it is also , often, untouched by readers.

This is true, and understandable but, at present in particular, a great pity.

Thursday, May 27, 2021

Judging Yesterday by Today Involves Mistaken Arrogance

 As part of the 200 year commemoration of Napoleon, President Emmanuel Macron recently addressed an audience of secondary school students amid the architectural grandeur of the Institut de France

He note in particular that we ought not to gloss over the complexities of a historical figure he described as “both eagle and ogre”. On the contrary, as well as explaining Napoleon’s soaring achievements, the President highlighted the appalling errors the “Little Corporal” had made, and their tragic cost in human life.

This was the object lesson on the importance of truth in history. “You are not responsible for France’s past,” Macron told the students, “nor are you its guardians.”

“It comes to you as an inheritance, without a testament attached,” he went on to say, using a phrase every French student would recognise as a quotation from the poet and resistance hero, Rene Char. “You may choose to love it; and so too you may choose to criticise it.”

“But first of all you must learn it”: which means “facing it directly and as a whole”, imbued “with a love of knowledge” and “resisting the temptation to judge yesterday by today”. That is the foremost duty “a free people” owes its ancestors who secured the freedoms it enjoys — but it is also a free people’s greatest privilege, because it is only by “understanding its past” that it can freely “forge its future”.

Thanks to Henry Ergas

Monday, May 24, 2021

Better Ways to Approach Thinking


Tyler Cowen on preparing for the future:

"I think the future belongs to people who are what I call meta-rational. That is, people who realize their own limitations. So not all the skills that you think are so valuable actually will matter in the future. Don’t just feel good about yourself, but think critically, what am I actually good at that will complement emerging sectors and emerging technologies. The world of the future, even the present will be a world of algorithms. ... People who think they can beat the algorithms will make a lot more mistakes. ... So know when you should defer. It’s easier than ever before to get advice from other people, including on podcasts, right? Or, you know, go to Yelp. When can you trust the advice of others? Having good judgment there is becoming more important than just being the smartest person or having the highest IQ."

Wednesday, May 19, 2021

Noise.... the book is here. Kahneman, Sibony and Sunstein


In Noise, Daniel Kahneman, Olivier Sibony, and Cass R. Sunstein show the detrimental effects of noise in many fields, including medicine, law, economic forecasting, forensic science, bail, child protection, strategy, performance reviews, and personnel selection, there is judgment, there is noise.

Some decades ago Nobel winner Fischer Black wrote the Classic Paper "Noise". Nassim Nicholas Taleb wrote much on noise - sometimes in the guise of random processes - throughout the early years of this century. Awareness of the confounding effects of noise are not new.

Bringing these minds (Kahneman, Sibony and Sunstein) together on the topic likely is new. A great difficulty with handling noise is producing strong frameworks to make the relevant ideas cohere, develop structures to analyse the phenomenon within and to figure ways to ask the "right" questions about noise. Currently, these three are likely the best shot on the planet at doing just that.

Simple Posting Text

 The story continues unabated and with promise...