No more Pontiac?

I'm not sure I understand why, of all the GM brands in existence, they decide to kill off the one with the most youth appeal. The Vibe (which is a Matrix), G#, and Solstice are good cars. The real problem seems to be that the division is less profitable because it is SUV and truck light, but once the economy recovers, gas prices are going to jump again, and those SUVs and trucks will once again see plummeting sales. GM's new motto should be: "Still as short sighted as ever."

Family Responsibilities Discrimination

Think Progress's Matthew Yglesias has this post about, well, the title. There are a whole host of issues I have on the subject, which boils down to: women are paid less than men. So long as the phrase goes: "equal pay for equal work" I have no problem with it. In fact I am a huge fan of that notion. People who take more time off work for family issues (children, ailing parents, spouse, whatever) are NOT DOING EQUAL WORK. Now, that sounds mean, but to ask a company to pay two people the same amount when one is doing less work, is not payment equality, and it does not matter the gender, or age, or anything else that may be different between the two.

The trouble with family responsibilities discrimination is that it is a perfectly legitimate form of discrimination: paying someone who works less, less. Now, this does not mean that it is employed in a fair manner, but that is a much more complex issue as year over year percent increases compound, and many industries/companies don't use a linear scale anyway.

I appreciate that men can't get pregnant and so this is inherently unfair. But neither is it fair to compensate two people the same when one does more work. I am genuinely torn by the whole thing. Unlike some of my peers, I have no problem with, a university hiring a woman over an equally qualified man because of her gender. I don't really even have a problem if she is less quantitatively qualified, as measurable differences (# papers, impact factor of the journals, etc.) between two applicants for tenure-track positions are generally a crap method for hiring anyway, and basing it on gender is at least non-random. On the other hand, if it is a known policy to hire women over men (who are least equally qualified) then that places an excessive burden on those women to produce, and getting pregnant does have a tendency to be viewed as counter productive.

Again, the issue is very complicated.

Grouchy Old Men Are Hilarious

There is a conservative op-ed columnist at the Wash Post named George Will who has a severe case of grumpy old man syndrome. He spends the whole of this column complaining about people wearing jeans. Seriously. Laugh-out-loud funny waste of newspaper space.

The Problem with Tax Polls

A great example of a meaningless poll is presented by Gallup and it regards the views of Americans regarding income taxes (link). The phenomenal amount of complexity associated with the issue combined with the simplicity of the given question means the results are completely without value.

The first, and most obvious problem, is that people don't generally like being taxed. So there is an inherent predisposition to say that any taxes are too high, that people can appreciate taxes as necessary means that some fraction will overcome that impulse and say that they are appropriate or even low. Now we get to venture into guessing territory: I would guess that those who say their tax levels are appropriate or low do not have serious money problems. I would guess further that individuals who are more giving would similarly say that their taxes are appropriate or low.

The second problem, I see as much bigger: taxes affect people in different income brackets differently. We have a somewhat progressive tax scheme (on the federal level--state level goes from progressive to flat to regressive). This means people who make more are taxed higher. They are also less likely to get some of the more obvious benefits of taxes (like welfare) and so they may be more inclined to see their taxes as too high. Lower income individuals and families pay a smaller percentage in taxes but it is a much larger fraction of what would be their "disposable" income. They may or may not see the things that result from taxes as benefiting them directly, but either way, taking $1000 from someone making $20k is a much more significant tax than is $20k from someone making $100k, so they may be inclined to say that their taxes are too high.

Moreover, what I feel about my personal taxes may be much different than how I feel about taxes as a whole. The wealthy or the poor may think their taxes are too high, but that overall taxes are too low. This brings about another possibility: do people base how they feel about their own taxes on how they view the tax code as a whole? Would a system that a large majority felt was fair result in a large majority feeling that they were taxed fairly, or would the personal outweigh the group and result in people saying their own taxes were too high even though they thought the system was fair?

Now I'm only scratching the surface here, but suffice to say: The poll linked above is absolutely without any real value.

On a personal note: I don't have any problem with my federal taxes (now that I bought a house they may even be too low), but I will make sure to get the full refund next year as I did this year. Also, I do not like the flat tax used by either the state of PA or the townships.

Statistics (again)

I have, in the past, on this blog commented on statistics. There is a good reason for that: statistics are everywhere.

Statistics are vital to science, politics, economics, ...

Mathamatically statistics can be very simple to very complex. The simpler the analysis the less wiggle room for out and out lying about results (a standard deviation is what it is and if it corresponds to 30% of the value it is not too good). This gets us to political polling. We've heard lots of it and will hear lots more. The math behind the various modeling parameters and resultant presented data is all good and valid. The selected model and any extrapolation to the motivation behind behavior on the other hand...

And now the trouble. It is impossible to perfectly predict behavior of a hydrogen molecule (H2). Billions and trillions of molecules, however, tend to behave. People are somewhat more complicated than hydrogen (and arguably less explosive, but I'll reserve judgment on that), but are not available in sufficiently large and uniform numbers that large number treatment is relevant.

In general 1/sqrt(#) gives an estimate of the deviation from the mean, which is often the stated error in the absence of an error that can be propagated for a system. So 10000 sample points corresponds to 1% error. In science 10k is a small number and 1% dev from the mean is huge. In polling people it is a huge number. Often ~1000 (or ca. 3% error) is used. The problem is that that 3% error assumes that the sampling is random across all major differences. The 1000 must be completely random, but then some race, or religion or region or...may be undersampled invalidating the resulting stated error. This means that the "random" sample must have rules associated with it that preclude true randomness. Often times statisticians use post sampling corrections. That is, a random sample is used, but then various models are used to variably extrapolated different subgroups to their representation in the general population. Those models, of course, are quite variable. In the end this means that the stated % error is pretty much crap. The only validity it holds in practice is if there is sufficient past experience by a particular statistician to lend validity. Of course that is meaningless if something fundamental changes from past samples.

I'm fairly certain I lost sense in there somewhere so I'm posting this for now. May correct later.

Fable 2 Offline Money Calculator

Is a very fun game. I don't have it but played at a friends. The fighting sucks, but I love the money/real estate side and the interactions with the people around. In particular if you lease a property or own a store you earn money. When you are playing you get it every 5 min of real time. But you get paid when offline too. I finally found some numbers, and used them to give a rough calculator. This is my guess as to how it works in the game. The number of payments you receive when you start playing again goes with the square root of time. Put to numbers it seems:

#pmts = int(sqrt(t/5))

Where t is in minutes since logged out, and with the at max #pmts = 100 (which would occur at near 35 days). I was frustrated by not being able to find this, which at least that serves as a rough estimate.

So it's a good idea to log in, get money and log out daily, even if you don't have time to play every day. (you get 16-17 in the first 24 hrs, but 32-33 in 96, and 45 for 7 days)

Science in Public Discourse

I generally love the idea of science getting public attention, and the fact that our new administration seems to see science as worthy of respect (and funding) is a good thing. I still don't know how to think about the way that science is conveyed and perceived by the general public.

There are two major problems: 1. Scientists generally do not do a very good job of conveying their studies and message to a general audience, 2. Those who do convey messages well to a general audience typically don't understand science worth a damn. This is why news outlets (tv and papers) so easily fall into the traps of anti-science types. Anti-scientists are dominated, publicly, by religious (anti-evolution, anti-stem cells) and industrial (anti-global warming) anti-science groups. Both groups are much better at presenting things to the public because they represent the same level of science understanding, i.e. virtually none.

I can explain the cyclic voltammetric response to increased solution resistance very well to another electrochemist. And electrochemistry pretty well to a chemist. And I can even do a fair job of explaining general chemistry to a chem student or a physicist. Explaining any level of science to someone who has no background, and little interest in, science is virtually impossible. The language is just too different. The subtle distinction between scientific theory and hypothesis is easily lost to someone who uses the word "theory" synonymously with "guess." The elegance behind the statement that 0% and 100% do not exist in real probabilities is lost when the listener has no familiarity with numbers like 10^-34.

On the one hand it is incumbent on scientists to do our best to share valuable information with the public in a way that they can comprehend. On the other it is the responsibility of media outlets (and the public) to understand that the complexities of scientific discovery and debate are not being kept from them because we are a secretive cabal of elitist decision-makers who are hell bent on silencing all dissenting voices, but because the complexities are just that: complex. They are well beyond the comprehension of most people, including most scientists not in the field being discussed. The anti-scientist arguments meant to sound rational but are not, they are emotional, and most scientists don't like to drag themselves into the mud to argue with them. (It is impossible to debate against a lie if viewers of the debate will not acknowledge the lie for what it is.)

In the face of complexity, it becomes easy to sound correct using the correct talking points against someone who lacks sufficient knowledge/background to dispute. Your high school biology teacher is very unlikely to even have awareness of the real scientific debates and controversies related to evolution, much less the related sciences that contribute and support the theory(like geology). Your high school physics teacher probably knows about relativity, but probably does not understand the mathematics that result, and is probably every bit as lost when it comes to string theory as I am.

Next time: where the hell am I going with this?

Simple House Pricing Formula

There are lots of ways to try and figure whether housing prices are reasonable, and there will always be some fudge factor, but for a quick immediate comparison the following seems to work:

House Price ≤ 150xRe - 150xHA - 10xTp

Where Re is equivalent monthly rent, HA is any monthly fee associated with ownership (like a homeowner's association) and Tp is the annual property tax. If a 1 bed 1 bath apt rents for $700 /month then a 1 bed 1 bath condo w/$100/mo fee and $1k/yr taxes should cost no more than $80k. Of course, location is important, as well as amenities. For detached, single family houses, finding equivalent rental prices can be difficult in many places, so some figuring may be necessary to compare with apartment prices instead.

And really, this is just a starting point. If the economy doesn't pick up, then rental prices may start to slide, and hosing prices that seem a good deal now may prove bad bets.

Walking Away Is Not a Morality Issue

It's a financial decision. The more I read the crap about responsibility to honor your obligations the more it ticks me off. CNN has comments from some folks here about whether they will walk away (be foreclosed on), and the answers are generally not in line with the real world. For a much more in line with reality commentary go read this.

Imaginary situation, bought in 2006:
Purchase price: $800k
Down payment: $160k (20%)
Other closing costs/fees: $20k
Total principal paid on mortgage: ~$20k @ 6% interest

Current house value: $400k
Owner out: 100% of investment of $200k+
Bank out: $220k if owner walks, less if they renegotiate, or 34.5%, plus they got another ~$80 interest worth of payments.

The banks are not being screwed by those that walk nearly as much as those that walk have been screwed by the artificial run-up in prices. Now people who put less money down (like $0) are not out as much cash, but are still out 100% of whatever they did put in. Banks are out by a larger amount (dollars and percents), but still not 100%. In this case the bank also bears substantial responsibility for making the loan (well, bad investment on the property).

Mortgages leverage a greater percentage risk on the buyer, not the bank. It is only when values fall precipitously that banks suffer much loss from a foreclosure. Of course, it's also only when values fall precipitously that foreclosure becomes a major concern. Specifically, foreclosure becomes a threat when the "owner" has equity of zero or less. This is a good reason for banks to require something (anything) down (particularly from speculators, who should have been forced to invest much larger down payments than resident owners...2-5% down for a primary home is fine, for a second house/investment property 25-50% down is a must). In rising markets the amount banks require down decreases due to the assumption of being able to sell for more (i.e. equity will always be positive if values always rise). This, naturally, is idiotic. Banks, who are supposed to be the financial experts in the transaction, should know better than to assume that anything (including housing, gold, et cetera) could only go up.

While many buyers were being irresponsible, it is downright vicious to lay blame on them. Banks are supposed to go through underwriting to prevent just these problems...they are supposed to hire appraisers that give them real house values so that they do not put in too much...they are supposed to know what they are talking about. I have never placed much trust in banks (and I've addressed that here before), and I am math capable, so it wasn't hard for me to figure out what I could afford and whether prices were in line with reality. Most people are not nearly so adept with numbers and take for granted when experts tell them they can afford payments.

I think that buyers do have a responsibility to understand what they are getting into, but their responsibility is less than that of the lending institutions in this regard. Of course, in a foreclosure it is the buyer, not the bank, that is hurt the most. They lose everything they invested.

Foreclosure, walking away, is not the irresponsible thing to do. The irresponsibility occurred on closing day.

Housing is Local, The Problem is National

For all the talk of the huge housing/mortgage/foreclosure crisis, it is remarkably confined (this is a good map). Basically pretty much the entire of California and Florida, a fair amount of Nevada, Arizona, Michigan, Ohio and possibly Indiana, and the metro areas of D.C., Chicago, Atlanta, and Memphis are the only areas where foreclosure is a major problem. Really, though, of all those areas, only California, Florida, Nevada, Arizona and DC were riding major speculative bubbles. I was living in Chicago for a bit and the bubble there was just starting to take off when it began collapsing out west, so things there are bad but not as bad. Rust belt states have severe economic issues driving their foreclosures.

The real problem, the reason that it is affecting the whole economy, is that banks (which will heretofore be a bad word) traded off those markets so heavily that everyone gets to suffer for the shortsightedness of a few. Don't get me wrong, housing values everywhere have gone down, and will a bit more. It's a sensible correction, but by and large it won't hurt folks like in those few places. Save for the trouble caused by the banks.

So, yes, it is a confined problem in terms of where the troublesome homes are, but it is a national problem because of the way that GOP desired deregulation allowed major financial institutions to gamble on that confined problem. I have a strong tendency toward letting the banks die, but that exact behavior is what turned one economic recession into the great depression. Maybe that is what is needed, but it won't make people's lives better any time soon to go down that road again.

Thinking Catholic to Vatican: WTF?

So here's the story...

A nine year old girl in Brazil is pregnant with twins, and has an abortion. The pregnancy, aside from being the result of rape, threatened the life of this very young girl (rape and life of the woman/girl are the only grounds for legal abortion in Brazil). On top of this the man who got the girl pregnant: her stepfather.

So the Catholic archbishop excommunicated: the girls mother and the doctors who performed the abortion. The girl's rapist stepfather...not so much. And now the Vatican defends this.

It's no wonder that church attendance has been declining in developed nations, or that people are in greater numbers saying that they are not religious (often that would be spiritual, but not religious). This is the Catholic church basically saying that raping a 9 year old girl is not as bad as her having an abortion...an act that in this case will most likely help her mental well being and potentially saved her life, and at the very least minimized the potential for harm to her.

No matter your position on abortion, the Catholic church here is very much in the wrong, and will drift further out of relevance. If they want to make a difference when it comes to things like violence, war, poverty, hunger, abuse and other issues that are universally held as valuable, then they need to stay the fuck away from abortion and birth control and sex. That doesn't mean they should say those things are ok, but excommunication and repeated public statements are hurting, not helping with their overall cause. Especially when most people compare this with the Church's expressed level of anger when priests were raping altar boys.

Interesting Viewpoint

Long post short version:

All economic gains of the past decade were not based on producing anything of real value (just financial numbering games), but we ignored it because rich people got richer, and their politicians were in charge. Also, in the meantime we have atrophied our productivity muscles, so the next decade isn't looking to hot.

Hate Groups Hate Obama

On the one hand this is a bit of a no-brainer. On the other, it's one heck of a strong pro-Obama bit of news. With very few exceptions, if you want to get public support behind you, having the KKK oppose you is a good thing.

More on bipartisanship

Again, I think that talk of bipartisanship is idiotic drivel. Bipartisanship is not, generally, good. We need an opposition party, and we need the party in charge to be in charge. If Dems pass bills that Repubs like, then we end up with the same crap no matter who is in charge, and what the hell is the point of having two parties?!?

If there are any concessions to the minority, out of power and dumped-by-the-public, GOP party by Democrats then it is, so far as I'm concerned, bipartisan. Any. The voting doesn't matter. The country is behind the Democrats right now. If the GOP wants to be obstructionist then that is their prerogative and probably their duty, but they should expect nothing they want as a result. Despite that, the stimulus, and probably most other bills that get through, will have concessions to some GOP members. In the real world that will make those bills far more bipartisan than the GOP will likely deserve (if stimulus voting is any indication).

New England Seafood

Can be hazardous to your health. I was in Newport, Rhode Island, and had some seafood at an ostensibly nice restaurant. Five hours later I was quite violently ill. After finishing dinner, I felt fine, even got in a short workout and soaked in the hotel hot tub before going to bed. I woke up 2.5 hours later, and didn't sleep much after that with many trips to the bathroom.

The details are not for the faint of heart, so I'll gloss over... While lying in pain, between cursing about having to get up and bolt for the bathroom for one thing or another, I was in awe of our bodies' ability to deal with such a problem. I ate something bad for me, and when it got into my blood stream and my immune system mobilized, the first thing it did was evacuate everything from my entire digestive tract. Not pleasant, and the fact that it persisted for a couple days possibly a bit overkill, but terribly effective never-the-less.

Then there are the other side effects that followed. Namely fever and a runny nose. The fever is an easy but still pretty neat indication that things are working properly. Immune system activity burns calories, and the wasted portion is heat. Also, many bacteria have a temperature window at which they thrive, and even a few degrees elevation can slow them up enough to make clean-up easier (just think how sluggish you feel when it's 90F and 90% humidity out). The runny nose, in this case is a defense mechanism. With the body fighting off one intruder, it ups the defense to keep another from getting in.

All told the body is a pretty amazing feat of evolution.

Harley Davidson: Too Expensive

Harley Davidson motorcycles are quintessential Americana. An instrument of freedom to the outsiders.

They look mean, they sound angry, and they go fast. They also cost $12-$30k...for a motorcycle.

I understand that many motorcycle riders are out to make a statement, but with the current cost of Harley, the main statement is "I can afford to spend more on a motorcycle that I ride like 1000 miles a year than most people spend on the car they use for daily transportation." And that isn't exactly a renegade message to get behind. I like Harleys, and I like motorcycles, and once I get settled into my house, I will be getting a motorcycle...but not a Harley.

A motorcycle is, at most, half a car. Smaller engine, simpler transmission, two wheels/brakes, and near zero body work or safety features. They are ideal commuters: great gas mileage, easy to find parking for. While the safety issue is overblown by many, it is also real. Of course it is exacerbated by an overabundance of overlarge vehicles operated by overly-distracted drivers (who are likely content in their distraction because of the safety of their vehicles, which are actually the most dangerous on the road...to everyone else).

The new Harley Sportster comes in at a reasonable price and with a look to appeal to younger riders. At over $8k, however, it is still an expensive motorcycle.

Interesting little article

And by little I mean very long (for the intertubes). It talks about geographic demographics of the crash, and potentially of the recovery. Interesting read, I hope it isn't entirely correct.

Go read.

Also Krugman has another, and it didn't make me like him more this time. He can be kind of shrill.

I wonder if they'll ever get it...

I know I've bitched before about the fact that free market capitalism works very well for every aspect of the economy except the money side (banks, brokerages, insurance...the entire financial sector), and on occasion I stumble across a similar sentiment, like that expressed by David Ignatius here.

There are many metaphors possible, but when it comes to the financial industry there are two real workable options, both regulatory in nature: make them smaller and competitive, or federalize the banking and probably insurance sides and let the rest fail on occasion as is their wont.

I'm pretty sure neither will be played out because it is in the financial interests of those in charge of this crap to do neither.

Must Make Bacon Explosion

Yea, the site is called "This is why you're fat"and it is full of pictures of supposedly disgustingly bad for you foods. The link I took to get there warned not to go if you had just or were about to eat. It made me hungry.

Yes, many of the items shown are heart-attack inducing globs of all things bad for you (like the bacon cheeseburger on a Krispy Kreme donut), and some are kind of disturbing and not very tempting (bacon cookies?), but many are acceptable as part of a meal, and some could even be healthy. Case in point: the Super Tuber, which is a hot dog in a baked potato, sliced up and covered in chili...except the pic shows that the chili is almost entirely beans, and even with the hot dog in there, if you prepare that at home, appearance aside, it could be a very healthy meal (if you could buy said from a vendor it likely has too much salt and sugar, but that's often true).

Mostly, however, they are just funny. A Tombstone pizza vending machine, a corndog pizza, and my favorite: the Bacon Explosion. I fully intend to make that one some day, if only so that I can do a basket weave of bacon.

While most of the items listed are very reflective of the title, the main reason why we are fat is not what we eat, but how much, and that is reflected in the most disgusting pics on the site. A slice of chocolate dipped cheesecake on a stick is fine is fine on occasion, four after a huge meal? Not so muich.

Michael Phelps Should Retract His Apology.

Seriously. He smoked pot; who cares? I can't believe this crap is news. Real problems abound (even absent the economy) and people actually care that some famous person took a bong hit? And for that matter, marijuana is still a schedule 1 narcotic?

This phrase is overused and generally toxic to productive dialog but...

Anyone who still believes that marijuana should be illegal is an idiot.