Free Republic

For your reading enjoying:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Altenberg-16-Evolution-Industry/dp/1556439245

The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry Paperback – February 9, 2010

by Susan Mazur

A new theory of evolution begins to emerge in the pages of The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry. Written by Suzan Mazur—a print and television journalist whose reports have appeared in the Financial Times, The Economist, Archaeology, Omni, and many other publications—the book is a front row seat to the thinking of the great evolutionary science minds of our time about the need to reformulate the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution. We hear from world renowned scientists such as Richard Lewontin, Lynn Margulis, Niles Eldredge, Richard Dawkins, the “evo-devo” revolutionaries, NASA astrobiologists, and others.

The book grew out of a story Mazur broke online in March 2008—titled “Altenberg! The Woodstock of Evolution?”—about the now famous meeting at Konrad Lorenz Institute in Altenberg, Austria in July 2008, where 16 scientists discussed expanding evolutionary thinking beyond outdated hypotheses. (MIT will publish the proceedings in April 2010.) Science magazine noted that Mazur’s reporting “reverberated throughout the evolutionary biology community.”

Mazur says she was punished for getting out in front of the story and banned from the symposium but realized the story was bigger than Altenberg (which covered events beginning 500 million years ago) and spoke to scientists who were not invited, including those investigating pre-biotic evolution.

She came to the conclusion that evolutionary science suffers because many in the scientific establishment refuse to acknowledge that the old science has served its purpose and there is disagreement about what the new evolution paradigm is. She thinks the dam is now breaking because the public (who funds science) has become a party to the discourse via the Internet and seeks answers to fundamental questions about evolution that scientists so far can’t definitively answer.

See also:
“The Origin of Life Circus”
by Susan Mazur
http://www.suzanmazur.com/?p=262

>>>The other fired workers.

Bingo.

(And those workers who simply will never be hired in the first place, since their skills are judged by employers as simply not being worth the mandated higher wage.)

>>>However, how many lawyers do you know who were doctors *first*—?

You’re ducking the issue. Nothing you’ve posted proves, demonstrates, or suggests, that doctors are smarter than lawyers.

Present some objective evidence.

>>>Doctors, in general, are far smarter, in general, than are lawyers.

Yes, I hear that often . . . but only from doctors. I never hear it from lawyers. I’ve also seen no data to support that statement from neutral third parties (like psychologists) who could test the two groups and compare the results. Personally, I’ve met plenty of very stupid doctors.

>>>Some of them are young, more naive and inexperienced and in debt…they can’t pick up and move as easily as those with grey hair, lots of experience in dealing with the licensing boards and regulators.

Sorry, I don’t understand the relation between not having grey hair and not being able to relocate easily. School debt will follow them irrespective of where live. There’s no way out of school debt — no bankruptcy procedure — except to pay it back or literally leave the country. There is no licensure requirement or state investigation or federal investigation of someone’s debt status if he moves from Vermont to Texas. He simply moves and lets “Aspire” or some other debt-consolidation agency know where he is. It takes precisely ZERO time.

>>>So, though you smirk more in sorrow rather than in anger, doctors are far better prepared for this than are patients. And those waxing smug after a lifetime of envying and resenting doctors.

The reason I wax smug is not because I envy doctors, nor because I resent them. For many decades there has been a hand-in-glove relationship between the medical profession and government (both state and federal). The late Thomas Szasz, MD (author of “The Myth of Mental Illness” which promptly got him blacklisted from the A.P.A.) wrote that the state legitimizes doctors via licensing (i.e., “You, with your specific kind of allopathic training, are legit; you are a ‘real’ doctor. Everyone else without that kind of training is either NOT a ‘real’ doctor or simply a quack), and in return, the medical profession reports to state authorities who was born, who died, and who has various kinds of STDs (HIV, for example). Under Obamacare, the state (via the IRS) will know who drinks, who smokes, etc., etc.

I am smug because — sorry — this is what happens when you make a deal with the devil. Getting special favors from government in order to protect your market (er, uh, for the public’s own good, of course!) is always a devil’s bargain, and will inevitably bite you in the rear end. It’s now biting doctors in their collective gluteus maximi. I feel sorry for them . . . and, without question, I feel even more sorry for patients. Ultimately, it will be the consumers of medical care who will suffer the most.

>>>Guild, my foot. It takes a multimillion dollar infrastructure to educate any kind of health pro…doc, dentist or nurse.

Yes, I hear that often. But only from the providers of multimillion dollar infrastructures (”You need us! Can’t you see that?”). The historical facts are that the AMA fought to have states license only “approved” medical schools in order to squelch competition from two groups of care providers that were extremely popular with Americans in the mid-19th century: homeopaths and eclectics. Instead of competing freely with them in a spirit of “May the best kind of care win,” they sought to eliminate competition by means of state force. That’s the history, and those are the facts. See this PDF:

http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_5.pdf
“The Early Development of State Licensing Laws in the United States, 1875-1900”

Also watch Milton Friedman’s talk to doctors at the Mayo Clinic in 1978 on the trend toward greater government regulation and socialized medicine in the US:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJgbc8ojYUg&list=PL5E904E0D6DCAAA62
(in 6 parts)

Friedman picks up where the PDF linked above leaves off, as he mentions the famous report by Abraham Flexner in 1910, the upshot of which was to close down many medical schools in the US, thus limiting how many bright students — all whom might have done very well on their organic chem exams — could become doctors.

See this link for a brief description of the Flexner Report:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexner_Report

>>>Physicians relocate to different states all the time.

No they don’t. If they could do so “all the time,” they would. Since they don’t, it’s because there are artificial state-created hoops through which they must jump. That takes time and energy: two resources that are always scarce.

>>>In most states, obtaining a license is primarily a function of the state performing an investigation to assure proper degrees, credentials, and past performance.

LOL! Right. That’s what I posted before. And although the sales pitch for such state investigation is that it’s to “protect the public interest,” the actual economic OUTCOME is to restrict the number of physicians able to respond to the demand for medical care in a given location. This is combined with restrictions on the number of medical schools that can be created (and, of course, WHO can create them) and therefore, a restriction on the number of people admitted to medical school. The sales pitch: “IT’S TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC AND KEEP THE QUALITY OF MEDICAL CARE HIGH!!” The actual economic effect: FEWER DOCTORS.

Try doing a little homework, catnip hombre:

http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_5.pdf

As for current state licensing burdens on new physicians, or those already in practice who want to move or practice in another state, the AMA site says this:

“Even for physicians with uncomplicated histories who submit complete and accurate applications, delays in obtaining a medical license may be encountered. Physicians should plan for at least a 60-day period from the time they submit a completed application for license and the actual date licensure is granted. Physicians who are graduates of a medical school outside the United States should anticipate a slightly longer period. All physicians should be cognizant of the fact that, in general, the highest volume of licensure applications is received between the months of April and September. This is the peak period because physicians with families want to relocate before the academic school year starts for their children, residents want and need licensure to begin practicing, and state employees with school-age children often take their earned vacation time during this period. Finally, it is important to remember that hospital credentialing and qualification for medical malpractice insurance are based on possession of full and unrestricted licensure. This too may mean additional time before a physician can actually begin practicing.

Physicians informed about the process and working cooperatively with the licensing board need not find licensing an unpleasant experience. Members of the medical profession should always remember that the business of medical licensing boards is to protect the public from unqualified and unfit physicians. However, licensing boards also strive to ensure a process that protects the legal rights and privileges of physicians. While maintaining this balance often appears bureaucratic and cumbersome, the end result is improved health care for the people of the United States.”

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/education-careers/becoming-physician/medical-licensure.page

I don’t know what an “uncomplicated history” is, but I’ll bet most physicians have **some** complication somewhere in their past that needs “investigation.” Most people do, don’t you think so? I do. And 60 days? Let’s see. At 5 days per week, that’s at least 12 weeks, or 3 months just to be investigated. The AMA admits that it might even take longer. 4 months? 6 months? I don’t know. The AMA doesn’t know. And guess what, catniphomme . . . neither does the applying physician. In your opinion, does a state of not-knowing how long an investigation might take encourage lots of relocating? Or would it tend to discourage it?

I think it discourages it — most economists who favor voluntary market-based solutions to problems think so, too — and furthermore, I believe that discouragement is ultimately the real **purpose** of the investigations. Once more, just so you get it:

The sales pitch? “We investigate for the purpose of maintaining high standards of medical care. It’s for the innocent public’s own good.”

The actual economic outcome? Fewer doctors move around, so the supply of medical care can never easily satisfy the demand for it. And the result of that is, of course, higher incomes for medical practitioners.

Nice try, but no lollipop for you, catnip.

Oh, and while you’re wondering what’s just happened to you, watch this excellent video of Milton Friedman speaking to doctors at the Mayo Clinic, around 1978. The lecture is mainly on the danger of socialized medicine, but he touches on the issue of state licensure:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJgbc8ojYUg&list=PL5E904E0D6DCAAA62

This particular upload appears to be divided into 6 parts. Pay particular attention to the Q&A toward the end.

You’re welcome.

Enjoy!

>>>It would bring them out in the open and deprive them of concealment.

They’re already out in the open and they’re not concealing anything. They openly and proudly agree with the Communist Manifesto and sympathize completely with it. They all agree with the old excuse that “communism is great in theory, but unfortunately, bad people came to power under it.” They don’t understand — or don’t want to understand — that ONLY bad people can come to power under communism.

>>>So, what I want to know is if the doctors are going to flee the state in mass when single-payer kicks in?

And go where?

A licensed physician, alas, cannot simply move from Vermont and set up a new practice in, e.g., Texas, without retaking various licensing exams and fulfilling burdensome requirements. The purpose of these licensing restrictions was to limit the number of physicians that could legally practice in any particular state, thus keeping their rates higher than a true free market would have resulted in.

I feel sorry for the doctors, but the truth is that ever since the old Flexner Report, they have been a kind of protected guild. Naturally, all such protections are made with the excuse that “It’s for the good of the public,” but the truth is that it was done mainly for prestige/economic reasons.

I think what will happen in Vermont is what I see happening in general: the older physicians will retire a little sooner than they expected to; they will be very reluctant to recommend medicine as a good career to bright young high school and college students; and some of the younger doctors already in practice will branch out into other kinds of care that are not yet so highly regulated. For example, many dermatologists no longer rely only on their practice for an income, but carry their own unique line of skin products — their offices and waiting rooms look like the beauty and skin-care section of a major department store. Some physicians — internal medicine, mainly — give an afternoon or two per week at some of the health food stores, answering questions about food supplements, vitamins, etc. They usually run their own clinics where they practice “integrative medicine” or “complementary medicine” combining orthodox medical therapies with alternative practices. Nothing wrong, per se, with this, of course, but for me, it’s always interesting to see how people respond in whatever pockets of freedom remain during times of political restrictions on liberty.

>>>But have they bailed on their love affair with socialism?

No.

A libertarian historian named Ralph Raico talks about this in one of his lectures. When he first began teaching history and politician science, he would have his students “compare and contrast” sections of the US Constitution with sections of the Communist Manifesto. He no longer does that because most of his incoming students already overwhelmingly agree with the sentiments of the latter rather than the former.

>>>Or are they just disappointed in Obama because they thought that he’d be the one they’d been waiting for to implement it “right”?

Yes.

Many lefties I know wanted Obama to implement a single-payer system. “He didn’t go far enough with Obamacare” they say. When I point out the vast decline in medical outcomes under single-payer systems, accompanied by vast increases in waiting times, they stick their heads in the sand and go into denial mode, “That’s not true!!”

Deny, deny, deny.

>>>”The first early one was, they were really late in issuing the regulations because they didn’t want them to come out during the campaign so Romney could attack them.”

David Brooks is a real piece of work.

How does he know that was the reason regulations weren’t issued earlier?

The real reason regulations weren’t issued earlier is that Obama, Sebelius, Baucus, and the rest of the administration, were confident they could invent regulations as they went along, relying on the traditional leftist political fantasy that “somehow” they could make things work.

It’s clear to me the federal clowns simply ASSUMED the website would be the one thing that would work flawlessly, because — after all! — other websites work nearly flawlessly when they’re built by Google, Apple, and Microsoft! So they outsourced the project to some incompetent Canadian company (whose EVP, I understand, is an old college friend of Michelle’s) at an unbelievably inflated cost, and the whole thing crashes.

Don’t count on leftists to learn any lessons from all this. All the lefties I know are grumbling bitterly about the fantastic increases in their health insurance costs, but instead of blaming Obamacare, or the administration that implemented it, or better yet, themselves (for having voted them back into power), they’re blaming insurance companies and doctors!

As Thomas Sowell has often pointed out, the fundamental error of the left is they believe reality — in this case, economic reality — is malleable and will conform to their wishes by means of diktat. The danger of the left is that when their policies fail, they never reflect that it might be their ideas that are at fault; it is, instead, always some other group — a convenient scapegoat — that caused their “well intentioned” policies to fail.

3013?

What a coincidence. That’s when repairs are scheduled to be completed in the subways.

>>>It’s a bit rich considering that the Soviet Union was allied with Nazi Germany.

Bingo. And also considering that embedded in the 1938 Agreement was the infamous “Secret Protocol” — not made public until after the war — in which Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia divided up eastern Europe into their respective “spheres of influence.” Many in the U.S. today still don’t know about it, nor do they know that after Nazi Germany invaded Poland on September 1, 1939, Soviet Russia invaded Poland about three weeks later.

>>>Today it is “you smoke”. Tomorrow it will be “you are conservative”. Next day it will be “you believe in God”. It will never end. The enemy is inside the perimeter.

Bingo.

>>>The title implies that people are not working because they are getting paid more on welfare. CATO is implying a moral judgement.

The title summarizes the contents of the report: people — including you — follow incentives. One important incentive is money-income. If people can get more on the dole than they can on the job, then many will choose the dole. That’s a value-neutral description of reality, not a normative evaluation.

>>>You can call my comment about tariffs nonsense if you want to. But our founding fathers put up tariffs.

So? They also had slaves. Your point?

>>>And we had tariffs over 15% for the first 190 years of our country’s existence. And they served us well.

The economic growth of the US had nothing to do with tariffs, and everything to do with 1) free trade between the states; 2) mobility of capital and labor; 3) a fairly open immigration policy that also allowed immigrants to bring their wealth — their capital — with them.

The most a tariff can do **in theory** is slightly improve the revenue stream flowing toward one business (or one sector) at the expense another business (or sector) whose revenue stream will worsen. At best, tariffs do nothing except redistribute revenue in a pattern different from what would have occurred under conditions of free trade.

You forgot: the business or sector that suffers usually requires the cheaper import as one of its own economic inputs even for something it’s producing for a domestic market. If it’s a small business, or simply one with thin margins, the higher price it is forced to pay because of the tariff — or the higher price it would have to pay if it bought the domestically produced alternative — could very easily lead it to bankruptcy, or to shift production altogether to something that doesn’t require that particular input (or that doesn’t require as much of that input); or it might seek alternatives to that input if they exist.

The notion that protected-business-A’s fatter profits are good for the country as a whole — while ignoring the tariff’s effect on business B, C, D, etc. — is lousy economics.

It isn’t a country’s exports that make it economically wealthy, but its IMPORTS; and the lower the cost of the imports, the less that country must sacrifice its own labor and capital to acquire them. It would be even better if some country were willing to ship us lots of stuff completely for free; we wouldn’t have to sacrifice any land, labor, or capital toward producing wealth to exchange. The US would be even more fabulously wealthy than it already is if food, cars, iPhones, televisions, blue jeans, shoes, etc., fell from the sky — like sunshine — free of charge. You can’t get less expensive than “free.”

But according to you, if all these things fell from the sky, heck! We’d have nothing to do all day! Better to take all that free stuff and bury it, then start producing it ourselves — at great cost in time and effort — and sell it overseas.

>>>Our stores are full of Chinese made goods. Many of our industries have been destroyed.

Oh, my! And our stores are also full of FREE AIR and SUNLIGHT!!! Think of all the domestic oxygen and lighting industries that we could “stimulate” if we could only stem this awful tide of “dumping”: these horrible FREE IMPORTS of air and light that the Earth and the sun provide for us.

As for many of our industries having been destroyed, that’s nothing specific to free trade with China or any other country, since technology alone has also destroyed lots of industries: cars killed horse-drawn carriages; kerosene killed whaling; incandescent lighting killed candles and tallow; personal computers killed typewriters; digital photography killed Kodak and emulsion film; CDs killed vinyl records; file downloads killed CDs; etc., etc., etc.

And plain old changes in consumer tastes have also killed lots of industries: people no longer buy snuff; few people dare to buy bell-bottom jeans or Nehru jackets; etc.

So, the killing of industries happens constantly — Joseph Schumpeter called this aspect of capitalism “creative destruction” — and has several different causes, lower labor costs by a competitor being only one.

>>>Our unemployment sits at 23% (shadow stats.com) and is getting worse not better.

Unemployment might, indeed, be 23%, but PRODUCTIVITY — both in output/worker and output/unit-time — is the highest in history AND the highest in the world — you can thank technology (computers, robotics, genomics, chemical industry, etc.) for that; which is the reason our FDI — a measure of how much confidence foreign investors have in getting a return on their investments in the US — is so high (it’s in the trillions).

This last recession hit the less educated and less skilled much harder than it hit those with more education and higher levels of skills. That, indeed, might indicate a real structural change in the US economy, but it won’t get fixed by rejecting free air, free sunlight, or cheap Chinese diapers at Wal-Mart.

You’re confused on some foundational issues in economics, especially something called “comparative advantage.”

A clear explanation of it, along with a solid case for free trade, is made by Milton Friedman in this lecture from 1978 at Kansas State University:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJCeoFxrDn0
“Free Trade: Consumers vs. Producers”

You might reflect on these quotes from the 19th century economist Henry George, who — though a bit eccentric when it came to the question of land — was otherwise a sound, free-market economist:

1) “In the United States, the East has had over the West all the advantages which protectionists say make it impossible for a new country to build up its manufacturing industries against the competition of an older country – larger capital, longer experience, and cheaper labor. Yet without any protective tariff between the West and the East, manufacturing has steadily moved westward with the movement of population, and is moving westward still. This is a fact that of itself conclusively disproves the protective theory.

The protectionist assumption that manufactures have increased in the United States because of protective tariffs is even more unfounded than the assumption that the growth of New York after the building of each new theater was because of the building of the theater. It is as if one should tow a bucket behind a boat and insist that it helped the boat along because she still moved forward.”

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

2) “To assume, as protectionists do, that economy must necessarily result from bringing producer and consumer together in point of space, is to assume that things can be produced as well in one place as in another, and that difficulties in exchange are to be measured solely by distance. The truth is, that commodities can often be produced in one place with so much greater facility than in another that it involves a less expenditure of labor to bring them long distances than to produce them on the spot, while two points a hundred miles apart may be commercially nearer each other than two points ten miles apart. To bring the producer to the consumer in point of distance, is, if it increases the cost of production, not economy but waste.”

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

3) “There is no one who in exchanging his own productions for the productions of another would think that the more he gave and the less he got the better off he would be. Yet to many men nothing seems clearer than that the more of its own productions a nation sends away, and the less of the productions of other nations it receives in return, the more profitable its trade. So wide-spread is this belief that to-day nearly all civilized nations endeavor to discourage the bringing in of the productions of other nations while regarding with satisfaction the sending away of their own.”

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

4) “To have all the ships that left each country sunk before they could reach any other country would, upon protectionist principles, be the quickest means of enriching the whole world, since all countries could then enjoy the maximum of exports with the minimum of imports.”

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

5) “Consider, moreover, how sharply this theory of protection conflicts with common experience and habits of thought. Who would think of recommending a site for a proposed city or a new colony because it was very difficult to get at? Yet, if the protective theory be true, this would really be an advantage. Who would regard piracy as promotive of civilization? Yet a discriminating pirate, who would confine his seizures to goods which might be produced in the country to which they were being carried, would be as beneficial to that country as a tariff.

Whether protectionists or free traders, we all hear with interest and pleasure of improvements in transportation by water or land; we are all disposed to regard the opening of canals, the building of railways, the deepening of harbors, the improvement of steamships, as beneficial. But if such things are beneficial, how can tariffs be beneficial?”

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

6) “Trade is not invasion. It does not involve aggression on one side and resistance on the other, but mutual consent and gratification. There cannot be a trade unless the parties to it agree, any more than there can be a quarrel unless the parties to it differ. England, we say, forced trade with the outside world upon China, and the United States upon Japan. But, in both cases, what was done was not to force the people to trade, but to force their governments to let them. If the people had not wanted to trade, the opening of the ports would have been useless.

Civilized nations, however, do not use their armies and fleets to open one another’s ports to trade. What they use their armies and fleets for, is, when they quarrel, to close one another’s ports. And their effort then is to prevent the carrying in of things even more than the bringing out of things—importing rather than exporting. For a people can be more quickly injured by preventing them from getting things than by preventing them from sending things away. Trade does not require force. Free trade consists simply in letting people buy and sell as they want to buy and sell. It is protection that requires force, for it consists in preventing people from doing what they want to do. Protective tariffs are as much applications of force as are blockading squadrons, and their object is the same—to prevent trade. The difference between the two is that blockading squadrons are a means whereby nations seek to prevent their enemies from trading; protective tariffs are a means whereby nations attempt to prevent their own people from trading. What protection teaches us, is to do to ourselves in time of peace what enemies seek to do to us in time of war.”

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

All quotations from:

“Protection or Free Trade”
1886

http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/George/grgPFT6.html

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Finally, you might also be interested in listening to a podcast by economist Lee Ohanian (professor, UCLA) interviewed by Russ Roberts (fellow at the Hoover Institution and host of “EconTalk”, a series of podcasts on economics). It’s from August 2012 and deals mainly with the question of why the “recovery” since 2009 is so anemic.

http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2012/08/ohanian_on_the.html

Of course, Ohanian (like other economists) blames some of it on “Regime Uncertainty” caused by bloated programs like Obamacare, and vague cumbersome regulations like Dodd-Frank; but he also says that something else seems to be occurring in the US labor market — some real structural changes that can’t simply be traced to competition from low-skill, low-value-added Chinese imports.

Enjoy!

>>>Well for starters the title was “Why work when welfare pays more?”

That has zero to do with calling anyone a deadbeat, which is a moral judgment.

The title asks a rhetorical question regarding different kinds of INCENTIVES that present themselves to people in different situations, which is a foundational issue in economics.

I take it you’ve neither read the article nor have read anything in economics. The former is apparent from your misinformation regarding Cato. The latter is apparent from your nonsense regarding import tariffs.

http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2012/08/ohanian_on_the.html

The above-linked audio interview with economist Lee Ohanian (UCLA) is from a year ago, August 2012, but still relevant today.

Ohanian: Typically those big companies [e.g., GM] are not the big job creators. The big job creators are the small companies that then take off. Job creation at those small startups is way, way down. Not just today, but if you look at 2002, 2003, 2004, through 2007, it's not nearly as vibrant an economy during those expansion years as it was during the 1980s and the 1990s. When I look at that data from a long run perspective I'm much more concerned about the future of the U.S. economy than simply saying: We still haven't quite gotten it right from the most recent recession.

Russ: I assume you are saying that because it suggests there are some structural issues that this recession might be masking; that it's not just the recession. There's other stuff going on that's making things not so great.

Ohanian: Yeah. Earlier you asked me what was really different about our current episode. And the recovery now really jumps out. So, you asked me about this paper I wrote for the JEP a couple of years ago. It was a really interesting project. Chad Jones, the Editor of the JEP —

Russ: That's the Journal of Economic Perspectives —

Ohanian: Asked me if I'd be willing to write something, and I kind of specialize in economic crises, so I said, sure, this sounds fun. So there was a symposium in the JEP, Bob Hall, Mike Woodford, Ricardo Caballero, and I think David Laibson were the other papers in there. They were all very different . . . For listeners, all of them are really interesting reads. But when I wrote that, the conclusion I reached was it's not so much about a financial crisis. It's more about labor market issues. Or, if you want to think about financial crisis, it's: Why does that impact labor markets so much? . . . the labor market looks the same today, or perhaps even worse than when I wrote this first two years ago. Which is really disturbing. So, it's really unprecedented to have literally no return to normal employment levels. As I mentioned, employment in the population today is lower than it was in June 2009 when the NBER defined the "trough".

Russ: That's the start of the recovery.

Ohanian: Yeah . . . So, you look at that performance and that's not only abysmal, but it's unprecedented. I know we'll talk about the Great Depression a little bit later, but even in the Great Depression recovery you had at least some job recovery. In this one, you are not seeing any at all.

>>>I must be really dense. How does this obstruct Obamacare?

If I understand the article correctly, Georgia will require potential Obamacare Exchange employees to take the same examination that a trained insurance agent would have to take . . . despite the fact the potential Exchange employees have zero training in being an insurance agent: they’ve taken no courses on the subject, read no books on it, etc.

Georgia will do three things: 1) Require potential Exchange employees to become “Navigators”; 2) Require them to take the examination for becoming a licensed insurance agent: and 3) Change the name of the examination from “Insurance Agent Examination” to “Navigator Examination.” It’s Georgia’s examination; they can call it anything they want.

It’s also based on some demographic savvy as to who the potential Exchange employees are likely to be: probably ACORN types, community organizers, et al. What are the odds that such people will muster the self-discipline and ambition to take the same educational route that someone wanting to be an actual insurance agent would take, especially for the sake of passing what is probably a long, tough, boring licensing examination? Shall we say “slim”?

It’s a clever idea. I very much hope it works.

>>>I think that the way to handle him is by making it very clear that Liberty is more important than safety in the American context.

In the American context, there is no safety without liberty. That’s actually what needs to be made clear to him.

>>>Once a universe exists, within that universe, you can’t create something from nothing.

In other words, once we grant that One Big Miracle occurred, then we can grant a non-miraculous, fully knowable, universe comprising matter and energy.

Got it.

>>>No, Speilburg is reading some very clear and obtuse writing on the wall.

Well, yeah, but in typical Spielbergian fashion, he’s simply telling his audience what they already know, hoping to manipulate a “gasp!” from them (which is what he does in his movies, by the way).

It’s been clear and obtuse for some time now that the new technologies put the power of an entire studio in the hands of anyone. For just a few thousand dollars, one can buy a camera with higher resolution than traditional 35mm film; a lighting kit; a decent microphone or two; a Mac; Final Cut Pro editing software; After Effects software (for titles, special effects, etc.); and a DVD burner. All of these things make Spielberg and Lucas superfluous.

What Spielberg carefully avoided mentioning was that the new technologies also make pricey film schools superfluous. Everything one needs to know about the technical aspects of making a film can be learned by taking some inexpensive online courses.