Category: General

The Earth is not 10,000 years old

The evolution versus creationism debate has resurfaced over the last few years in the US, primarily as a result of numerous local school boards’ decisions to modify biology curricula to include more creationism-oriented education. Gallup polls conducted in recent years indicate that as many as 45% of all Americans believe in the that God created the Earth and humans within the last 10,000 years. This belief is particularly interesting since the science underpinning the geological age of the Earth is the same science responsible for much of modern technology.

One of America’s foremost strengths is its respect for individual beliefs and belief systems. If 45% of America wants to believe that the world is flat or that babies come from storks, that’s perfectly acceptable. Unfortunately, since technological advancement is founded upon a scientific understanding of the universe, a belief in the soundness of basic science is almost a prerequisite to further study in science and engineering fields.

The principles of radioactive decay that are widely used in geological dating are part of the same physics used to create the atomic bomb and subsequent nuclear devices. Do those who believe the Earth is 10,000 years old refute the existence of nuclear weapons, or deny that 15% of US electrical power comes from nuclear power plants? Perhaps modern medicine is also not of much interest to the young-Earth crowd, as radioactive isotopes and related electromagnetic phenomena are used there as well.

If a plurality of America doesn’t believe in the underpinnings of modern technology, perhaps it’s understandable why the US is falling behind other nations in its education of scientists and engineers. America’s long term position as the center of innovation is further threatened when individual and personal beliefs invade the science classroom. American scientists, engineers, and educators have to do a better job at making clear that without science, modern technology’s comforts cannot be had.

Posted on by praveenghanta 0

When the Saints go marching in…

Today a regular season game will be played at the Louisiana Superdome, and we Saints fans will be watching with excitement since our team is 2-0. Amazingly, the New Orleans Saints have issued over a thousand press credentials, in a sign that tonight’s game is about much more than football. Over $185 million has been spent to renovate the Dome and to erase the memories of the weeks following August 29, 2005.

The Saints’ return to the their home field and the relatively quick turnaround of the Superdome stands in contrast to the condition of many surrounding neighborhoods. While reconstruction has begun, most observers have been appalled at the speed of progress and lack of a cohesive redevelopment plan. But in individual instances, where the political will coalesced, significant progress has been made: in politics, New Orleans’ archaic systems of seven real estate assessors and two clerks of court are being consolidated, while in business the Port of New Orleans is back near 100% of pre-Katrina shipping volume.

The progress with the Superdome and the accompanying media frenzy will be good for New Orleans, and give it a chance to put a more positive image in front of viewers nationwide. To be sure, the rebuilding has just begun, and New Orleans’ familiar plagues of crime and corruption seem to have returned faster than most residents. New Orleans will likely emerge a smaller city; as one of the smallest NFL markets, the Saints’ long term commitment to the area remains an open question. But for one night at least (and hopefully all season!), the Saints will bring excitement and positive energy back to the city – and who can blame us Saints fans for dropping everything else to get caught up in it?

Posted on by praveenghanta 1

I want to be a Farmer

The Census Bureau has reclassified farmers and ranchers as management, with only farm workers officially classified as being in the farming, fishing, or forestry occupations. And according to the USDA, farm households earned 10% more on average than non-farm households. Farming seems like a great business to be in! But if farmers are doing so well, why do we pay them $30 billion per year in subsidies?

Over two hundred dollars in taxes per working American were paid to American farmers last year. On top of that, we protect our farmers from foreign competition in many markets, leaving the American consumer to pay double or triple world prices for commodities like sugar. Meanwhile, the average wheat farm receives twenty grand a year in direct cash payments.

It seems that we American taxpayers have been forking over extra grocery money so that farm management can earn above-average incomes! Proponents claim that American farmers are the most competitive in the world; why not let them compete, saving us on taxes and at the grocery store to boot? Reducing farm subsidies will end a cherished way of life, subsidy-supporters respond. If farming is so cherished as a traditional American way of life, then why does the Census report that only 0.7% of the population is involved in it? Most farm workers are Hispanic immigrants – so exactly what kind of “traditional farming” do farm subsidies mean to protect?

In international negotiations, the Bush administration, like others before it, has always tied reduction in our subsidies to reduction in other nations’ subsidies. Even absent EU cooperation, the US should move forward to slash subsidies and open agriculture markets. Altruistic motives notwithstanding, we should do this simply to save our taxpayers and consumers money.

If America were able to cut subsidies and open agricultural markets, it might just find another problem going away: illegal immigrants wouldn’t want so desperately to come to the US if they could sell us their produce from their home countries.

Posted on by praveenghanta 1

Why won’t anyone buy an American car?

Ford and GM, the two remaining US-headquartered automakers, remain mired in seemingly endless losses, and point to union compensation and health care costs as the sources of their problems. Toyota and Honda are doing quite well, by contrast, and have remained as profitable as ever. Ford and GM complain about costs, but they don’t mention that their competitors manufacture their vehicles either in Japan, Germany, or right here in the US – all high wage locations. Japan and Germany generally require companies to provide more benefits to workers than the US, hardly giving their car companies a cost advantage.

Might the problem be that Americans don’t want to buy American cars? Ford and GM have been steadily losing market share for years, a trend briefly halted by the SUV craze, but which has now accelerated as consumers look to foreign makers for efficient vehicles. Outside of the truck segment, Ford and GM simply don’t seem to have any products that anyone wants.

How did that become the case? Toyota, Nissan, and other foreign automakers do a significant amount of vehicle design for the US market here in the US. Does this mean that Ford and GM are incapable of hiring good designers? Many “foreign” cars like the Toyota Camry are now made in the USA; how then can there be such a perceived reliability gap between domestic and foreign car models?

Using the same talent pool, Toyota, Honda, Nissan, and others have run circles around the Detroit club. It’s gotten so bad that the governor of Michigan is openly recruiting investment by foreign automakers. It’s not that Americans don’t buy American cars; they buy plenty of cars made in America by companies with Japanese (or German) owners. Perhaps this is just the case of two companies with terrible management, bloated bureaucracy, and glacial efforts at restructuring.

Unless you’re loyal to their brands, don’t despair over troubles that Ford and GM brought on themselves. Hey, chances are you’re driving an Accord by now anyway.

Posted on by praveenghanta 0

If you’re a Confederate, you’re not an American

Moving back to the South after living in the Northeast for many years, I immediately began to notice the far-increased number of Rebel flags aflight. Growing up in rural Louisiana, I honestly can’t remember seeing them that often. Now they seem more popular than ever, from the standard version down to purple-and-gold and other college-color-themed versions. I think many of those who fly the flag conflate it with both American patriotism and Southern pride, and it is that delusion I wish to address.

Confederates, I have a news flash for you: the Confederacy was the greatest threat ever faced by the United States of America, and by flying that flag you signal your disloyalty to the country of your birth. Many of you claim that it is a symbol of Southern pride and values, and indeed, the United States permits you the right to fly it and proclaim whatever meaning for it you wish. But historically, the Confederate flag regained popularity during the Civil rights movement, when it was placed atop the South Carolina statehouse and elsewhere in obvious retaliations against the cultural change taking place.

The Confederate flag was, and is, the symbol of a nation. By supporting that nation, a nation created expressly to maintain the practice of slavery, you show your allegiances are not with the United States of America. So for those who fly the CSA flag: you’re not patriotic Americans, you’re Confederates living in the past.

Posted on by praveenghanta 5

Another Immigration Post

I just saw a presentation by George Borjas, a Harvard economist specializing in immigration issues. His research seems to support the common-sense opinion on the effects of large-scale illegal immigration: it has some positive economic benefits, but it also redistributes wealth somewhat from poorer Americans to richer Americans. Since illegal immigrants compete for jobs mainly at the bottom of the economic scale, their arrival tends to increase the wealth of those who use labor (business owners and the upper-middle class), while decreasing the wages of unskilled Americans.

This is perhaps not very surprising, and refines my previous article’s view as to why illegal immigration has continued for so long: it has some benefits, and those benefits accrue primarily to middle and upper class Americans, who tend to vote at a higher rate than the poor. Only recently has the cultural backlash against Latinization reached a level necessary to unbalance the old equation and force immigration reform.

Though most of Lou Dobbs’ rhetoric is of little value, he is right on this: America cannot begin to have a rational immigration policy until it can control who immigrates.

Posted on by praveenghanta 1

Gas Prices – and what ever happened to the gas guzzler tax?

Americans have been complaining about gas prices lately; recent polls have shown that high gas prices are their number one economic concern. Of course, high gas prices are driven by high oil prices, which are in turn driven by supply, demand, and a healthy premium to account for terrorism, hurricanes, and other delights. Demand has grown faster than supply lately, shrinking surplus capacity to a minimum. Many point outside our shores to emerging economies as the source of this growth. But no one likes to look inward, right?

Since the late 80’s, fuel economy in American consumer vehicles has decreased, while vehicle weight and performance have increased (the EIA has the details). Since American vehicles consume 20% of the world’s oil, our driving habits have a huge effect on oil prices. Since everyone seemed to want an SUV until recently, the increased demand eventually impacted gas prices. Another way to look at this: if average fuel economy got back to what we achieved in 1987, we would consume 2 million less barrels of oil per day, driving oil prices down significantly, and cutting our import requirements by 20%.

The federal government instituted a tax on inefficient vehicles – the “gas guzzler” tax – back in 1978. So why hasn’t it had any effect on the demand for inefficient vehicles? The gas guzzler tax doesn’t apply to trucks of any kind, so it doesn’t apply to SUVs and trucks even though they account for 54% of all US vehicle sales today! If you buy a Lamborghini, expect to pay up to $8000 in gas guzzler taxes; if you buy an 8000 pound Excursion, laugh at the other guy on your way out!

Extending the gas guzzler tax to apply equally across all vehicles would seem a logical start to encouraging conservation and decreasing oil dependency. Then again, I’m not aware of any lobbyists who get a paycheck for that, while I expect the auto industry has its forces lining up against this already…

Posted on by praveenghanta 1

Fixing Social Security

Two words: Social Security. Together they’ve come to represent a massive defined-benefit pension system in which all working Americans must participate. The system worked well for decades, when life expectancies were lower and a smaller percentage of the population was in retirement. Now, even though a full 12.4% of most workers’ gross salary is devoted to Social Security, the system may run bankrupt before young Americans today retire. Some Republicans are proposing to privatize the system, while Democrats are fiercely fighting change. Why not start with a simpler question: why does Social Security even exist?

Social Security was originally intended as a way to guarantee that the elderly would not fall into poverty after leaving the work force. It has now become the primary, and in many cases, only savings program in which most Americans participate. But why force Americans to save? This is perhaps the most socialist part of the American economy, wherein every working American must set aside one-eighth of their pay for retirement. Rather than forcing Americans to save, why not return Social Security to its original purpose of providing benefits to the impoverished elderly?

By reducing the scope of Social Security benefits so that they cover only the elderly poor, the program will again provide a safety net for the elderly, and not a forced savings program. The resulting program shrinkage can be used to both cut taxes and make the program solvent over the long term.

In practice, this kind of change could be implemented through significant means-testing of Social Security benefits. The change could phased in so that it affects only young workers, while preserving benefits for those who have paid higher rates for decades. By modifying Social Security from a savings program into a safety net, we can both cut taxes and provide for the less fortunate among the elderly. Who doesn’t want that?

Posted on by praveenghanta 0

Post 9/11 – Are we any safer?

Yes, we are safer in that our sense of vigilance in the US has been heightened, both within the government and within the population as a whole. But in terms of broader American policy since 9/11, has it made us any safer?

We’ve successfully conquered unfriendly regimes in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Numerous unfriendly regimes remain, however, and the population of almost every Muslim nation (and many non-Muslim nations) became vehemently anti-American after the Iraq war. If the US were to conquer Iran and Syria, effectively controlling the entire Middle East, we might gain security against these enemy states. Ah, but enemy states did not attack on 9/11 – stateless terrorists attacked on 9/11. These sorts of terrorists would have thousands of hiding places remaining, and we can never conquer and hold all of them.

Better intelligence and policework have led to the capture of more terrorists than our invasions; it’s time to redirect investment in that direction. At the end of the day, the US will have to come to terms with the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims. We’re spending 10 billion per month and losing a couple of soldiers per day to control one small nation of 25 million – this strategy cannot work on a wider scale. It’s time to invest in intelligence gathering, domestic security, and arms control. These are the realistic anti-terror strategies for the long run.

Posted on by praveenghanta 0

On Illegal Immigration

Well, what do you want? Do you want cheap labor, or do you want sound borders? Illegal immigration has been an economic boon to the US, providing between 10 and 20 million workers that have moderated the costs of construction, housekeeping, daycare, food service, and agriculture even while oil and other commodity prices are pushing inflation up.

Illegal immigrants have increased the US workforce by 5-10% in recent years, and have been a key factor in recent economic growth. The price: some displacement of poor American workers, growing Latin-American influence on US culture, and insecure borders. Economists are having a hard time measuring American job loss to illegals, chiefly since growth has provided other opportunities (they also find it difficult to measure any net loss in tax collections or state benefits). And while the Mexican border may be insecure, the Canadian border is the only border previously used by anti-American terrorists.

The only price paid so far, then, is the increasing Latinization of American culture.

Politicians on the social right are pandering to some Americans’ xenophobic fear of cultural dilution with the onslaught of immigrants. If you view cultural diversity as a threat, then for you the fear and costs are real. While the border should be secure both on principle and so that the US can create a rational immigration policy, the benefits of illegal immigration have so far outweighed the costs. And guess what: that’s exactly why it’s been allowed to go on for so long.

Posted on by praveenghanta 2