Economy of Mind

Without mathematics

2008-11-10T06:40:00.000-08:00

It goes without saying that without language, humans wouldn't have much to say. We'd have to bark or grunt--and point.

The same goes for mathematics: without mathematics, we couldn't say too much quantitatively about the world.

This idea is exemplified by the quote in this review of a new book on the history of finance:

Without mathematics, there would be no finance; and without finance, there would be no sophisticated, advanced economies.

Something to keep in mind. The foundation of a good education--and a successful career in many fields or pursuits--often includes a facility with language and mathematics. Both language and mathematics can be considered a key component of critical thinking.

PS: Note how the author uses the term "noughties" for the first decade of the twenty-first century.

Wikinomics: an open collaborative sharing meta-summary

2007-12-14T18:26:00.000-08:00

I came across the book Wikinomics a while back. It reports on yet another revolution that is exploding all around us. Call it the open collaborative sharing peering acting globally revolution. A survey of what is available about this book on the internet leads me to believe it is one that could easily be summarized in a few powerpoint slides. True, many books could be compressed in that way. But given that my personal library has hit somewhere on the order of 3500 books, and according to my wife those 3500 books and I will be living on the streets if I purchase too many more, I have to be selective. So I did the next best thing. I read a summary of the book.

Whenever I read a summary that is freely available on the internet, I wonder where summary starts and copyright ends. I'll let the authors of Wikinomics be the judge. But given their excitement about open collaborative sharing peering acting globally, I'm sure they don't mind.

Also, please note that henceforth when I use the term they I mean the authors of the summary and/or the authors of Wikinomics. Since I only read the summary, there's the possiblity that they--the summary authors--made it all up (a real danger of sharing on the internet). I'm not sure what the actual book says. Like I told you: I'm afraid to buy it. But when I say they I mean those people who produced the summary and/or the book. Anyway, it's all collaborative, so let's not be too concerned with authorship. Right?

So what did I learn from that Wiki-summary? That we're living in a world of openness, peering, sharing, and acting globally.

First, an aside: Don't you suppose they could have come up with a single term to replace acting globally? I think one word would sound better. Maybe they should have collaborated with an online community, finding a solution in the ideagoras (more on that later). Since they didn't, I'll use the term globalling. It's my contribution to their project. I realize it's not an existing word, but if they can coin ideagoras, I see no reason I can't collaboratively bring globalling to the table.

So let's repeat. What did I learn from the summary? We've living in a world of openness, peering, sharing, and globalling.

What does this mean? Briefly:

openness: Fewer secrets. Less IP hogging. Manage some IP tightly, but share the rest. More publicly or communally owner ideas.
peering: No, this does not mean looking into your neighbors window. It means working with people on a more egalitarian basis. Sharing ideas. Code. Whatever. Maybe charging one another as well. Less hierarchy (read: less boss telling you what to do--take that you mean old boss).
sharing: Sort of goes along with the openness and peering mentioned above. "Here, this worked for me, maybe you can try it too." That sort of sharing.
globalling: Remember, that's my word. You can use it though. I'm sharing it. What does it mean? It means there's a big world out there. Lots of players. I'm not sure whether it's flat or not. I suppose globalling can take place on flat or curved globes.

And one other thing. Consumers can also be prosumers. Yup, as a consumer, you help those from whom you consume make money, and that means you make some money too. Maybe you produce a cool video with some tools the big-guys provide, install it on a web-site hosted by those big-guys, and now they're raking in those big-guy advertising dollars. Guess what? The big-guys throw a few cents your way. Or perhaps you've got an old junky bike. Snap a photo, put it up on Ebay: Ta-da, you're both making money.

As a consumer/prosumer, they tell us we may be developing something cool, sharing that cool thing, or just socializing--cause you know what? We're all cool.

Finally, that ideagoras I mentioned above: Some people in the world have questions. Others have answers. Suppose you match up the questions with the answers? You got it: ideagoras. The marketplace of ideas.

That's pretty much it. So what do I think? Well, I'm not overly enthused or convinced when they call YouTube and MySpace collaborative environments. Collaborative maybe in the sense that YouTube and MySpace host an environment in which users can post material. But I wouldn't call them collaborative in the sense that the users on either are producing new innovative ideas. They're mainly advertising, socializing, and entertaining. Don't get me wrong: I've learned a great deal about certain topics, e.g. music, by drawing on the material available on YouTube. I can even show my kids a segment from Gilligan's Island. Not that I'd often want to, but it's there if the need arises.

My opinion: There is obviously some merit in the ideas behind openness, peering, sharing, and globalling. But I'm not sure there's enough to warrant an entire book. Nor the time to read a whole book. And most importantly--to take the risk of coming home with that book, only to find myself later that evening wandering the streets with 3500 books in tow. It's just not worth the risk.

Fortunately, in this open, peering, sharing, and globalling world we live in, I found an alternative. On the internet. That summary I referred to.

In that sense, I suppose they're onto something. But once you've grappled with the definitions for openness, peering, sharing, and globalling--plus prosumer and ideagoras--I think you're 99.9% of the way there.

But now that I know I'm a prosumer, I have to figure out a way to start monetizing my contributions to the this open, peering, sharing, globalling world.

What is an Economy of Mind?

2007-12-14T11:03:00.000-08:00

One of my primary interests is philosophy. Implication?: I'm interested in pretty much everything. Well, not everything--but a lot. Philosophy can be considered both the ground of other fields--e.g. mathematics, physics, economics--as well as the overarching sky--the umbrella that provides cover--or even the framework that holds everything together.

My interest in philosophy ignited in my teens. Though even as an adolescent my interest in science fiction--and even horror or the fantastic--often had philosophical overtones. Probing the limits and edges of what is.

I remember in my teens, riding my bike home from the library. I stopped by a friend's house. I'd picked up a few books. Plato, Aristotle, and Descartes, if my memory serves me. His general response: "???"

In college, I remember a guy saying "Why do I care what Plato thought about something?" My response: "The way you think is heavily influence by what Plato thought. Might be good to examine the mental plumbing."

Philosophy is fundamental. And even if not studied outright, for its own sake, familiarity with philosophical concepts is important. Particular if one is interested in truth: what was true yesterday, what is true today, and what might be true tomorrow. And along with that, what we mean by truth. Hopefully we're all interested in truth.

But as pointed out above, philosophy is not only fundamental. It's primacy makes it overarching. One cannot even discuss or learn a particular science, e.g. physics, without a metalanguage, e.g. English, and before you know it philosophical problems are popping up and scattering about like particles in an "atom smasher." Philosophy, like a broom, helps to sweep up the mess (though often under the rug--still lurking for those bold enough to pull it up).

So as I'm considering this issue of truth--and everything else--I happen upon the following distinction: mind, and not-mind. Traditionally, science was considered the field that studies not-mind. (Many of the sciences are considered to have peeled off of philosophy--hence the term natural philosopher for the original scientists, e.g. Newton.)

Truth itself is a product of mind. And one could say that every individual mind--yours or mine--confronts--on a daily basis--the products of mind and not-mind. And our job or role as minds--if we so choose--is to evaluate these products.

What makes this particularly difficult: even not-mind is covered or smothered in the products of mind. Is a quark real? Do protons exist? These are products of mind--other minds, the minds of physicists. Are they real? Certainly there are phenomenon we can measure to influence our opinion one way or the other. But in the end, they are products of mind.

So in the end, one cannot observe the world other than through mind--one's own that is. You can try to convince me otherwise, but your arguments will have to be processed by--you guessed it--my mind.

Some philosophers, e.g. Berkeley, argued that everything is mind. Maybe the mind of some superior being. Highly speculative if you ask me. Might make a good science fiction book, but I'm not sure of the value.

But he was still onto something. As was Kant in his categories: we observe the world through mind. We have no choice. Our minds are busy--day in, day out--consuming the products of minds--our own, or others.

Hence, it's not a leap to say that we live in an economy of mind. And one goal--in accepting this characterization of our world--is to evaluate these products. To evaluate the products of mind.

The internet is an evolutionary--perhaps revolutionary--step in the direction of a true economy of mind. Or minds--plural. Though some might argue that the singular is appropriate. We might be building a global mind. Possibly.

This thinking lead me to call my blog the Economy of Mind: A node in a global brain. A means to produce products of my own mind, as well as to evaluate the products of other minds.

And hopefully--most importantly--to discover a few truths. If not exact truths, then approximate truths. Approximate may be the best we can do. That's good enough for me.

Update: 071214.1: While looking into the issue of technique, I thought of William Barrett's book on the topic. I never finished the book. Will have to get back to it. Nothing against the book. But while looking into a few issues, I came across this comment in a review of it: For better or worse, he writes, philosophers have made the modern world: "If there had not been those early Greek thinkers who created philosophy, there would be no atomic bombs." This is what I had in mind when I told the skeptic he should consider his Platonic mental plumbing.

Security is a given

2007-12-14T09:07:00.000-08:00

When I previously stated that a political system should be derived from the distinct--and often conflicting--concepts of freedom and justice, one important question remained untouched: What about security?

These days, particularly since 9/11, the word security seems almost obligatory in our political discourse. The Republicans learned this lesson long ago; the Democrats are playing catchup. Hence the Energy Independence and Security Act. Passage of this bill is a "shot heard 'round the world" we're told. (Apparently security is always--what should I say?--more secure--when a few shots are fired. In the streets of the Middle East, shots are literally fired into the air. Here, we settle for the proverbial and metaphorical variety. Less collateral damage--except to the English language.)

Don't get me wrong. Security is important. But I'm not going to start the "Freedom & Security" party? A libertarian might excitedly respond: "Yeah, that's what libertarianism is all about: securing property."

Or how about "Vote Freedom, Justice, & Security." You have to admit: it has that post-9/11 ring to it, don't you think? Though also a bit clunky.

Here's the problem I have with either modification to Freedom & Justice: (1) Humans are communitarian as well as individualistic. A political system should take that into account; (2) Security is a given.

Point #1 implies a sense of justice. Point #2 argues that any system will require steps to ensure it's continued existence.

Adding the security label to concepts in our political discourse is redundant. Security is a given.

Know what I mean?

2007-12-11T13:09:00.001-08:00

I’m convinced that many of our problems or disagreements result from miscommunication. Not all of them. Nor even most of them. But enough to warrant caution.

Often the miscommunication results from inadequate information or ambiguity. Other times, because the individuals on each side of the communication channel bring a significantly different ideological and conceptual encoder and decoder with which they transmit and receive ideas.

As I develop my ideas (or lack thereof) in this blog, it will be important to ensure that we are communicating reliably. (Whoever that "we" may be.)

If you think about it, even our individual dilemmas in life can described as a form of faulty communication. The world sends or presents to us signals, or messages—some might call them facts. And we interpret them. Unfortunately, our decoders are often cluttered with ideological and conceptual baggage. I suppose a philosopher might say we have ontological and epistemological problems. Worse, even in our own heads, miscommunication is often the norm. People can easily delude themselves. It makes life simpler. More peaceful. The old saying "ignorance is bliss" might be rephrased "miscommunication is bliss."

Reliable communication is important. Particularly for an accountant trying to finalize the taxes of a burned out psychedelic rock star.

PS: Yes, this post was an excuse to try out embedding a video link.

PPS: I've yet to figure out how to embed video into the middle of the text.

Frame the Ticking Time Bomb

2007-12-08T09:56:00.000-08:00

Brief observation. What with all the to-do about the CIA destroying interrogation tapes, the ticking time bomb scenario comes to mind. You know the one: If you knew there was a nuclear bomb planted somewhere in NYC, and you knew the person who could prevent its detonation, would you support the torture of that person? Many say "of course, of course, of course."

This makes me think of the following: what is the proper frame for an issue--and the questions surrounding it. It is often possible to frame a question in a way that makes a detestable answer seem--well--downright upright.

Note the framing of the ticking time bomb question. The bomb is there. Certainty: Close to 100%. We know the person who has the information. Certainty: Close to 100%. We just need get the information with torture. Probability of succeeding with this extraction: Close to 100%.

At least, that's the way the question seems framed to me. Hypothetical? Yes, but nothing wrong with that. Probable?--not in the least. But the response to this improbably hypothetical questions opens the door to torture. Now it's not a question of if to torture, just a question of when. Under what circumstances.

I believe the question should be framed in a more realistic way, a way that brings to bear all the important issues: probability, ticking time bombs, guilt, and most importantly--innocence.

So here's the realistically framed question: Someone might have planted a nuclear weapon in NYC. Analysis produces a list of 1,000 people, at least one of whom is likely to have information that can prevent its detonation, if it exists. Some of them may be children. Maybe your wife. Perhaps even you. Would you support the torture of these 1,000 people in order to disarm a bomb that may not exist?

Remember: The bomb may not exist. You may not get the information you need to disarm it. But you will definitely be torturing innocent people--100% guaranteed.

New Game: Neo-Opposites

2007-12-07T13:06:00.001-08:00

Have you heard about the new game? It's called neo-opposites. The neo-cons invented it. Here's how it works:

Step 1: Rattle sabres above head of dysfunctional country. Best if said country has loads of oil reserves.
Step 2: Game and prime and bludgeon the intelligence community until they say "said country (with oil reserves) most certainly has weapons of mass destruction (WMD)."
Step 3: Announce to the world: "Intelligence has demonstrated WMD. A threat exists."
Step 4: Invade country with purported WMD (and said oil).
Step 5: Exhibit beyond the pale incompetence after Step 4 invasion.
Step 6: "Oops, no WMD. Bad Intelligence!!! That's ok, we did find some oil."
Step 7: Look for something to distract everyone's attention.

So far, pretty straight forward, don't you think?

Ok, here's where it gets complicated. Here's where the opposites come into play. Pay attention. We go back to Step 1, but there's a complication. It goes like this:

Step 1: Rattle sabres above head of another dysfunctional country. Best if said country has loads of oil reserves.
Step 2: Shamed and infuriated intelligence community says "said country (with oil reserves) most certainly DOES NOT have weapons of mass destruction (WMD)."
Step 3: Announce to the world: "Intelligence says no WMD. They were wrong last time. They must be wrong again. Hence: A threat exists."

That's the opposites part, in Step 3. And I think you can see where the game is headed.

So the game is called neo-opposites. We're in Step 3 right now. But the world doesn't seem to be buying it. That's got the neo-cons all stopped up.

The latter condition is referred to as neo-constipation. That's not supposed to be part of the game.

Stay tuned.

Fool me right, shame on left

2007-12-07T07:15:00.000-08:00

Somewhat random observation. Not sure of its value.

I not-that-frequently run into people on the political right--or even anarchist libertarians--who proudly report they were once leftists, even socialists--or Fortune forbid: Marxists. Not that frequently. Not enough to get a statistic out of it. But this fact has impressed itself upon me all the same.

They seem proud when they report their change of heart. Sort of a prodigal son, I was once wrong, I've passed through the dark side, and now I've come clean type of story. It reminds me, in some ways, of the people who find religion after a long period of sinning.

Irving Kristol--"father of the neocons"--is a good example of someone once enamoured with the left who later became enamoured with the right.

St. Augustine is a religious example: hedonist becomes celibate.

I grapple with their logic. It goes something like this: "I was wrong once, but you can believe me now." Actually, I wouldn't call that logic. One could call it "lessons from the school of hard knocks."

To me it says: "I was once confused, but now I'm not."

We hope.

Several questions come to mind:

Is this mainly a left-to-right, hedonist-to-celibate phenomenon? Are there any famous people on the right who are now on the left? (Ronald Reagan moved right--who moved left? And I'm sure there a few celibates who became gangbusters hedonists.)
If mainly a left-to-right phenomenon, is it a manifestation of the idea that "people become more conservative as they age?" And acquire life experiences? (Which, by the way, often works in a historical sense--yesterday's revolutionaries are today's conservative icons.")

My own read: Humans have a Utopian impulse that drives them to seek perfection. And control. Or if that doesn't work: oblivion. It drives many people into drink, drugs, cults--or Fortune forbid--the embrace of the neocons.

As an Independent, once member of the GOP [insert obligatory blame my parents insinuation], I find these once-left-now-right types a little over-zealous. Running open-loop (i.e. fact free). Unreality based. Ideological. Zealous.

They replace "the state" with "the market" in the libertarian case. And they replace "I should not have behaved as such" with "you should not behave as such" in the conservative case.

Nothing against the political right, in making this observation. I'm not sure how accurate it is. Nor what use to make of it. But as someone who inhabits that somewhat fictitious and non-existent center, I say: Fool me right, shame on left.

Psychedelic Guitar Fretboard

2007-12-06T23:08:00.000-08:00

I said I'd post something on music, so here's something I dug up to keep my promise.

My son is learning to play the guitar, and I'm polishing up my theory at the same time. So I decided to make a multi-colored display of the guitar fretboard so he could see where all the notes are--and relate them to the staff. (Middle C on the piano is C4).

It's not a lot--but it's a start.

A marriage is a terrible thing to waste

2007-12-06T21:47:00.000-08:00

Michigan State University researchers waste their time discovering that divorced people use more resources. Duh.

The media wastes its time reporting that divorced people use more resources. Duh.

Economists waste their time lecturing us that the media and researchers often waste their time. Duh.

And General Specific wastes his time telling you that the economists, media, and researchers are wasting their time. Duh.

And now--you've wasted your time. (No Duh).

This was a lesson in what might be called compounding. A compounding waste of time.

Let's keep it simple: a marriage is a terrible thing to waste

Vote Freedom & Justice

2007-12-06T17:18:00.000-08:00

This is an informal chatty post. Not totally thought out. A start.

In the future, I'll blog about stuff like economics, politics, ecology. A little philosophy. Anthropology. Perhaps even touch on religion now and then, particularly when considering issues such as morality or the separation of church and state. Or the meaning of life. Some Buddhism perhaps. I'll even blog a tad about science--rumor has it I have degrees in physics--but I'm thinking the physical sciences can pretty much take care of themselves. I'm not sure what I have to add. Maybe note some spectacular discoveries now and again.

And of course music. I'll blog about music. Though I'm not sure--off the top of my head--what I'll say about it.

My considerations of economics, politics, and ecology will take me into a variety of areas, in particular matter (resources) and energy--as well as how they flow and are distributed amongst the people--and not-people--who inhabit this planet. I'll probably consider the interface between society and ecosystems. And the responsibilities or obligations--if any exist--of an individual--living in the present--to others--whether living in the present or in the future. (Memo to the past: take care of yourselves.)

Humans have not inhabited this planet for a very long time. Our modern conveniences, our tools, our ways of thinking--even the very brains that create out internal and external worlds--are--in an evolutionary sense--newborn. Are we humans--with our power of reason and increasing control over matter and energy--unlimited in our potential? Or are we a flash in the pan, playing dangerous and eventually futile games with concepts--and a planet--that we don't understand?

I think the answer is: we don't know. In some cases, we have some fairly refined and useful concepts that seem to fit the world quite well--telling us what happened yesterday, what is going on right now, and--with less accuracy--what might happen tomorrow. Or the day after. But these concepts are often crude.

Economics, as I see it, is particularly crude. Not it's fault. I'm not complaining. After I became interested in energy--and started looking at world energy production, I was on occasion startled by the statements made by people in positions of influence, statements that were purportedly backed by the science of economics. But a closer look showed that many of these predictions were often little more back-of-the-envelope (at best) guesses--or worse, an assemblage of jargon (with a supply/demand chart thrown in to boot) that--amazingly enough--produced an answer that accurately supported the ideological position of the person making the prediction. Go figure.

(Note: I admit that abuse or exaggeration occurs in many fields--not just economics).

Many economists are addressing these issues, looking at human psychology, the interaction of economic systems with the surrounding environment, dabbling in complexity, and in general finding ways to refine their science to better explain and predict our world--or at least the choices we make in it.

But I do believe that economics as a field is (a) easily subverted or wrongly used by those with ideological agendas to fulfill and has (b) found itself in a place of great influence in our society. Note the order in which we consider controversial topics on many occasions: (1) Is a phenomenon true? (e.g. a biological truth). (2) Is it economical? (3) Is it politically tenable?

Economics is the gateway to, and in some ways intermingled with, the political. It's no wonder it was originally called Political Economy.

Libertarians provide what I believe is the standard by which we should consider all questions, whether general or specific: Who chooses? It is an important question. We all want to make our own choices. Though the fact is--because of fortune or otherwise--many people are not in a position to choose. They have few choices. Maybe none. In other cases, the topics are very complex. Our choices interact with other choosers--directly or indirectly. Or in the case of the future, the choosers don't even exist--yet.

The idea that autonomous independent self-serving agents produce optimal solutions is not true under all circumstances. For example, we humans have a brain--a central government--that monitors and controls aspects of the many cells distributed through our bodies. Not total control. But our bodies are not libertarian.

On the other hand, they are not Marxist. Our bodies are not a command economy.

More importantly, optimal is not always good. Or just.

The answer is not libertarian. And it's not Marxist. It is not conservative (the past is always right--if it ain't broke, don't fix it). Nor progressive (the past is bad, it's always broken, let's make it better).

The answer is a balance between freedom and justice. Not equality, mind you. Justice.

Equality makes no sense. If everyone were equal, we'd all be the same person, a physical impossibility. We should stop talking about equality and talk more about justice.

There are some significant issues that I think the world needs to consider, and consider very soon: (1) energy production and our dependence on it; (2) the environment, including the possibility of global warming. (3) the distribution of goods and services in the economy. (4) the balance between competition and cooperation.

I once considered starting a political party: The Freedom and Justice Party. I wanted to define a platform that took into account personal freedom and balanced it with a sense of justice, defining each in the process.

Maybe I'll print up a bumper sticker: "Vote Freedom & Justice". Put it on my car.

Anyway, that's the answer I came up when considering some of these issues I might blog about: Freedom & Justice.

Now what was the question?

Potpourri, 6-Dec-2007 Edition

2007-12-06T15:17:00.000-08:00

Preliminary Notes:

Blogging etiquette suggests not using the word's "URL" nor "link" when referring to URL's and links. I agree for posts on specific topics. But when I'm reading and scribbling a few observations in this Potpourri Section I'm going to plop the links in at the end--to save time.
This section is totally random and disorganize. Just some observations on the state of the world. The world is a complex place and we need to sample it here and there. These are some of my samples. They often contradict. Welcome to the real world.

And now today's Potpourri:

Steven Pearlstein believes that the mortgage fiasco is just the beginning: Home equity loans, commercial real-estate loans, credit card loans, and corporate buyout loans are just as spotty. But their stench will not become apparent until the economy starts slowing, which might be this quarter. (link)
The US economy remains strong, upward pressure on energy prices have ceased for the time being, and job creation also remains strong. This despite the warning clouds on the horizon. (link, link, link, link).
The International Energy Agency (IEA) believes that additional oil production is available (i.e. world oil production has not peaked) but demand is rising so fast that production may not keep up. Hence high oil prices. Probably some truth to this. Production may expand--but don't expect too much. Higher prices are probably here to stay. (link)
Clinton and Edwards say Bush isn't doing enough about mortgage problems. They suggest additional government programs: free swimming pools and carpeting for those who can't afford it. Ok, that's not true. I think consumer protection is a good thing (regulation), but I'm not sure tax payers should pay the costs of bailing out big or small players--unless we think there will be a systemic melt-down of the financial system. (link and link).
The Economist compares US real-estate price changes to the rest of the world. We're losing. If the credit crunch spreads to the rest of the world, we might have company. Though it's not clear the rest of the world has perfected the technique of the home mortgage ATM. (link)
The Economist reports that fuel economy (corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE) standards may be tightened in the US. CAFE standards do not always work as we'd like. James Hamilton points out that these standards--like many regulations--have unexpected outcomes (in this case, import of high performance automobiles). In addition, those hoping that increased fuel economy in the US will reduce global warming do not consider that reduced oil consumption here can lead to lower oil prices in general, hence greater use of fossil fuels in the rest of the world. Still, reducing our dependence on oil imports--which exacerbates our trade imbalance--and setting a path towards higher MPG (and lower 0-60 times) can't be that bad. (link, link)
Hypocrisy watch: CNN and radio personality Glenn Beck asks why anyone has the right to ask about a candidate's religion (e.g. Romney). Yet Beck questioned a Muslim's right to serve in office and also questioned Lieberman as a presidential candidate because he would complicated our situation in the Middle East. I don't want to get too caught up in the left/right gotcha wars, but this seems egregious. (link). Can't we just talk about values, not religion?
Some celebrity somewhere did something. And that's all I'm going to say. (no link).

A few thoughts on banishment

2007-12-06T14:37:00.000-08:00

Arnold Kling refers to my preliminary analysis of the "The Great Global Warming Swindle" and in doing so raises the issue of banishment, which is discussed further in the comments section (over there). Just to ensure there are no misunderstandings:

I've been banned twice from EconLog. Once several years ago--off the top of my head--as T.R. Elliott. More recently as General Specific. No posts were ever deleted or modified (to my knowledge).
No animosity on my part. They've asked me to tone down my comments from time to time--or stay on topic--and I agree with them that I've often failed to follow their suggestions. So each of the two times they banished me, I grumbled a bit about free discussion of ideas, etc--but continue to agree with their right to guide the blog in a direction they see fit.
My comments on on EconLog are in most cases sincere but are no-doubt argumentative in nature--which is not always constructive--and I would easily stray a bit into--not what I'd call ad-hominem--but more like ad-philosophy and ad-track-record. Meaning, I would bring to bear my general disagreement with their positions--past and present. And bring in the kitchen sink on occasion.
I come from a technical background that is extremely competitive and argumentative: QUALCOMM and Bolt Beranek & Newman (BBN), two companies that played important roles in creating wireless communications and the internet. Unlike Arnold Kling--who espouses a concept of what might be called etherial-logical discourse--I think the real world works much differently. Truth and success often result from heated debate. E.g. Intel is a great example of a company driven by spirited argument. There is a great story about the horror the Japanese experienced watching Intel employees lambast their CEO in public.

That said, it's best for me to work out my own ideas. When Kling referred to Get Your Own Blog (GYOB), I immediately wanted to respond back: "You talking to me?"

I'll continue to read EconLog and will--as time permits--look for more constructive ways to formulate reasoned--and thoughtful--responses from over here. And if anything, they've incentivized me to better formulate my thoughts. That's definitely constructive.

Potpourri, 5-Dec-2007 Edition

2007-12-05T13:20:00.000-08:00

Celebrity news: Somewhere, someplace, a celebrity has done something stupid. Essentially un-noteworthy. The mainstream media is milking it for what it's worth. Best ignore it. By doing so, you will save 1.38 years of your life, to use for something beneficial--perhaps even morally uplifting. (Don't ask me for the math behind the number--I made it up). Economists called it opportunity cost: All those lost moments of opportunity because you're too busy learning about Haris Pilton. (no link).

Global warming and atomic bombs both seem complicated. I can never tell who's telling the truth. Maybe Iran is still pursuing that weapons program? And if so, what are the implications? (link)

Can John Edwards maintain the high--clean--ground while Hillary and Obama wrestle in the mud. I wonder if he'll start wearing a white suit? I hope it's not an angel flight. Ugh. (link). Now that I think about it, is this John Edwards?

Is it just me, or does it seem strange to you (all one-of-you reading this, which includes me) that oil prices are near historical highs but Saudi Arabia, oil pumper of last resorts, can't manage to increase output much? I think it means they know something we don't know. Yet. (link) Even the optimists admit that the Saudis are struggling to keep oil production up. (link) One reason oil prices are rising: investors know that oil is a finite resource. They're placing their bets accordingly. (link)

Stock market news: Today the stock market will either (a) go up, (b) go down, or (c) remain exactly the same. It's most likely A or B. Not C. And the "business news" will find a way to correlate these blips up and down with something else in the news. Maybe even with a celebrity. Or maybe a celebrity will report the business news. Who knows. (link) Recommendation: It's bad enough watching celebrities. But don't listen to celebrity economic advice.

US administration continues to say that it would like to study the possibility of studying global warming. The administration that hates bureaucracy wants--drum roll please--more meetings. Or even better, under the table agreements with China and India--to just skip the whole CO2 caps thingy. (link).

Brad DeLong thinks the economy is slowing despite the enormous growth reported for this past quarter--and last quarter has the stock market all excited today. Can you say rear-view mirror? (link) Martin Feldstein is also negative. (link)

Willem Buiter discusses the problem democracy faces when our leaders either (a) lie or are (b) incompetent. (link). I think our leaders are currently both. And regarding all that Iraq war evidence: a little background research in 2002 and 2003 would have shown the administration evidence to be insubstantial.

Example of what economists would call scarcity. Turtle scarcity in this case. Expect more. (link)

Bush too busy running the government to know what's going on with--the government. Or something like that. He didn't know that his intelligence experts were convinced Iran had stopped their weapons program. Seems like something he'd want to know. You think? But you have to admit. It's hard work being president. Hard work. (link)

Got stuff?

2007-12-05T11:55:00.001-08:00

An exceptionally well written and produced short film on our consumer culture: The Story of Stuff.

Do we have too much stuff? Are there problems with the way in which we produce, consume, and dispose of our stuff? I believe it's a topic we should consider. Many economists will argue that price is the only measure of value, and therefore we don't have a "stuff problem." If we did, prices would tell us as such. But economics also brought us the concept of externalities, many of which may not be priced into the products we use. In addition, economics--and price--are not the be-all end-all of our lives. There are other values--moral values--in addition to the values associated with price.

Ecological Economics is a field that is attempting to deal with some of these issues--the non-moral ones. Economics, as a field, even when applied to our society--is insulated from the real-world. It does not consider the interface or dependency that exists between economics models and the real-world--except in terms of price. For that reason, economics will have difficulty making accurate predictions about the real world. It can only do so under limited circumstances. And for that reason, I find ecological economics interesting and noteworthy.

Perhaps it can tell us something that the more insular field of economics cannot. Perhaps it might tell us we're too preoccupied with stuff.

Or did you already know that?

Updates:

I said this video is well written and produced. I don't say it's entirely accurate. I think "stuff" is an issue we should all consider. In particular, our parent's or grand-parent's generation learned to do without, to make do, and to conserve. I think that perspective has merit--no matter how much money one has. But the video has at least one exageration: new central processing units (CPUs) in computers almost always require new supporting hardware: e.g. faster memory, bus, etc. The presentation of that issue is misleading.

Is Global Warming a Swindle?

2007-12-05T09:46:00.000-08:00

Arnold Kling recommends watching The Great Global Warming Swindle, a movie that sets its sights on debunking the CO2 theory of global warming. Kling's right in saying that we should consider alternate opinions. He's also correct that anyone can make a propaganda film. (I'd much prefer a Power-Point presentation.)

I watched it. Took a few notes. And read some background afterwards. I'll summarize my notes so far.

First, an aside. EconLog is one of the many economic blogs I read regularly on the Internet, and also one of the few sites on the internet from which I have been banned from commenting. I'm always interested in what libertarians have to say (Bryan Caplan is an anarchist libertarian and Arnold Kling what I'd call a right-wing libertarian). Perhaps my comments were often adversarial. But I was often put-off by the (a) high and mighty attitude of "we are economists and everyone else is confused" argument that seems to underly their view of economics and (b) their ideological bias.

If you don't think point (a) is valid, consider Bryan Caplan's book "The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies" in which he argues--I jest a bit--that only economists should be allowed to vote (he's a big fan of IQ, and apparently libertarian economists have the biggest of them all).

And regarding my concerns about their ideological bias, I commented once that Arnold Kling would make statements like the "The Angry Left, because it is closed-minded, is in no condition to govern. Barring a catastrophe at home or abroad, I doubt that it will be given the opportunity to do so" while in a separate article he states "But my opinion is that in the absence of recognized boundaries and without healthy anger, Israel is existentially threatened." In particular, my point was not to get caught up in left-right food-fights, nor in arguments about Israel, but just to point out that anger seems to be good when it's something Kling likes and bad when it's something he doesn't like. He often discounts those on the left as "angry." For a blog that espouses logic, it seemed--illogical, or specious.

Anyway, they said I should create my own blog, and they're probably right. So back to the movie. I watched it. Here's what the movie says. I'm not saying this is true or false, it's just what they say:

Climate always changes. (1) Little ice age. (2) Medieval warm period, which was a great time for growing wine and building enormous churches. So what's not to like about warming? (3) Bronze age Holocene 8,000 years ago for 3,000 years. Polar bears survived. It was warmer than now.
CO2 lags warming, not vice-versa. CO2 produced by warming ocean which has a memory of almost 10,000 years. Therefore CO2 has nothing to do with warming.
One-half degree temperature rise this century, mostly before 1940, which is before heavy industrialization. Then temperature dropped after WWII. Then increased with recession in 1970. Therefore not related to human CO2.
CO2 is natural. What's not to like? Without it we'd be dead.
There are other large sources of CO2. CO2 a minor part of atmosphere and minor greenhouse gas.
Sun spots and temperatures correlate. Sun spots affect cosmic rays and in turn clouds.
Warmer earth-temperature means less temperature gradient between tropics and poles, so less storms
Temperature will increase in troposphere, not on surface. But it's increasing on surface.
Greenland has been warmer in the past. 7,000 years ago. The ice didn't disappear.
Malaria can happen in cold weather below 16-18 degrees. IPCC got that wrong.
Computer models have lots of assumption. In the old days, people were more modest about making predictions (Aside: Gee, maybe they had less powerful computers?).
Scientists warned about the big freeze in the 1970s. Got that wrong.
The IPCC has a political process following the scientific one. And some of the scientists wants their names off the report. IPCC removed some sentences that critics of global warming think should be put back into the report.
Global warming is an industry of scientists, journalists, former Marxists, and environmental crazies who hate industry and modern society. They all have hidden agendas. And don't forget Margaret Thatcher.
Thatcher got global warming started with her desire to push nuclear power.
Critics of Global Warming are feeling shamed. And critics of global warming aren't collceting big bucks from oil companies, as suggested by their detractors.
Global Warming proponents treat the people in the developing world like scum. And how dare those attending a UN meeting in Nairobi shop and stay in nice hotels while poor people are breathing smoke nearby.

And here's a further (economized) version of those notes:

Causes of global warming: Sunspots, not CO2.
Implications of global warming: (1) CO2 is natural. (2) The medieval warming produced lots of wine and churches. Call it the "party and pray" argument. (3) Greenland ice and polar bears survived warming 7,000 years ago. Peat bogs have also been warm. (4) Mosquitoes like cold as much as warm--hence disease argument won't be a problem. (5) Weather will be less extreme because of tropic/pole temperature delta.
Implication of doing anything about CO2: Developing countries will suffer.
Motivational/Social aspects: (1) IPCC has a political process as well as technical. Political processes are always bad. (2) Hidden agendas: (a) science wants funding (b) Marxists need a new anti-capitalist hook on which to hang their collectivist hats (c) Environmentalists hate modern industrial society--except maybe rock concerts and their iPods. (d) Margaret Thatcher loves nuclear (and can pronounce it properly--thought with a British accent) and hates (i) Arab oil and (ii) British collectivist miners. (e) Critics of global warming are feeling shamed and picked on. Nobody wants to play with them.

And as far as their analysis of CO2 science, here's what they have to say:

CO2 lags warming (i.e. CO2 increases after warming of oceans and oceans have a long memory, e.g. 10,000 years).
Computer models are complicated.
Scientists got it wrong before--the big freeze in the 1970s.

In a subsequent post, I'll consider each of these issues in more detail. In the mean time, Wikipedia has a page up on this topic. And in particular, consider the case of Carl Wunsch, who says he was completely misrepresened in this movie.

That's enough for now.

Why blog?

2007-12-05T07:43:00.000-08:00

I think I covered most of the philosophical issues associated with blogging in I blog, therefore I am. Well, maybe not all of them, but it will have to do for now.

So let's look at the psychological side of this phenomenon. "Why blog?" I ask myself. Several answers immediately come to mind:

Way too much time on my hands
An unnatural desire to hear the clickety-clackety sound of a keyboard
A delusion that placing a few random arguments and discussions on the internet will make a difference.
A quasi-Napoleonic complex: "I'll be the next great Rock Star Blogger. With Blog groupies to boot."
A futile effort to impress my friends. (They know I'm a dolt; I should quit while I'm ahead.)
It's all about the advertising. Let the big bucks roll in.

And with all that cynicism exercised and purged, let me add one additional possibility:

To clarify my thoughts

But I hear you arguing already: "Can't you clarify your thoughts in your head? Without polluting the noosphere with yet more noise? It's already deafening. If you really have to write things down, buy yourself a journal, go to a rundown coffee shop sporting second-hand tattered furniture, and have at it: think and write all those great or not-so-great thoughts. But why do it here? On the Internet."

(And I also hear you asking "Why oh why must you use that silly term noosphere?")

You make a good point (oh fictional interrogator in my head). But let me counter with a few possible reasons to create a more public form of thought:

Formalizing one's thoughts in a form that can be understood by others tends to focus and improve the process and results of thinking.
One's thoughts and opinions are captured in a form that can be easily shared with others.

But you quickly retort: "What if, Fortune forbid, you are blogging in a vacuum? What if nobody reads it? Does a blog make a sound if there is no-one around to read it?" (Whether or not it is in a forest of other blogs. And notwithstanding that mixed up metaphor.)

My response: Most blogs are read by few, and have few if any comments. That's the way the Internet cookie crumbles, so to say. The way it goes. I'm just not sure that comments should be the focus. I previously asked I blog, therefore I am, not "I get comments, therefore I am."

And finally, you ask: "Have you considered taking up gardening?"

Simple answer: No.

Potpourri, 4-Dec-2007 Edition

2007-12-04T09:35:00.000-08:00

Chimp beats humans on memory tasks. Could chimps have evolved from humans? (link)
California homes sales have decreased 40% in the previous year, median prices are down 10%. The two charts at the link are worth a ponder. (link)
US believes Iran shelved nuclear weapons program in 2003. Iran says they never had anything but a civilian program. Whatever the case, it appears Bush will have difficulty starting that next war. (link) Which is a good thing because...
Iraq war costs could be $3.5 trillion. (link)
Back to Iran. They may be a problem--e.g. funding extremists, not unlike our "friends" the Saudis--but the American administration seems to have done little more than exacerbate the problem. (link)
Menzie Chinn says industrial and manufacturing production may have peaked, increasing the probability that we may already be in a recession. How certain is he? Not very. It's complicated. (link)
Fox News refuses political advertisement claiming Bush is destroying the constitution. They want evidence. (link)
Steve Benen argues that the evidence is thin at best that Hillary Clinton would be a detriment to the Democratic ticket. She might. Or might not. But the evidence is thin. (link)
What's wrong with American political discourse? Those nasty blogs says David Gregory. But the decline of American political civility preceded blogs. Perhaps blogging will, eventually, be part of the solution. (link)
Bush says new skin cell research proves we don't need embryonic stem cell research. Skin cell researchers say their successes hinged upon embryonic stem cells, and that the administration has if anything set back skin cell research. (link)
Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) wants to digitize every book written. 1.5 million so far. Much of the work is performed in China and India: hence, many of the books are in Chinese and various Indian languages. Most English texts so far are not modern. English language libraries not participating. (link) Visit the library. (link).
Bill McKibben says we need less stuff, more time; less satisfying our meaningless needs, more satisfying the wants of those who truly need. (link)
John Edwards as populist. (link)
So what is it: "single anxious female?" Or "soccer mom" and "security mom?" And will this make a difference in the election? (link)

Potpourri, 3-Dec-2007 Edition

2007-12-03T09:29:00.000-08:00

Hypocrisy watch: Hugo Chavez, a populist socialist, drives the right wing crazy. Arab oil emirs--dictators in all but name--not so crazy. Chavez steps back from dictatorship. Will the right wing still hate him? (link)
Mitt Romney to tell the electorate that it's ok to elect a Mormon. John F Kennedy was compelled do to the same for his Catholicism in 1960 (the country still suffered from anti-Catholic bias). JFK told us that he respected separation of church and state. Problem for Romney: Many in the GOP don't care much for separation of church and state. This makes it difficult for Romney. Classic case of being stuck between a rock and a hard place. (link)
Senator Larry Craig continues to pose problems for the GOP. (link)
Situation for Christians in Iraq--long term inhabitants of that region--becoming worse. Worse than at any time in history. Maybe it's sort of bad for everyone else too? You think? (link)
Australia ratifies Kyoto Global Warming protocol. Recent elections diverted Australia from it's rightward drift, similar to Tony Blair's loss in the UK. (link)
Karl Rove continues to have trouble with the truth. Who'd have thought? The latest example? He conveniently forgets that Bush was in a rush to war, not the Democrats. (link)
If the US goes into recession, this will quite possibly be the first in which the median income family has not recovered from the last recession. Welcome to the brave new world of trickle-up economics. (link)
Wolfowitz, after rushing the US into a war with Iraq over WMD that never existed, then losing his job with the World Bank because of mistress problems, is now back working for Bush as a--drum roll please--WMD expert. (link)
Paul Krugman is thinking 30% housing decline, not 15%. And don't forget: housing hasn't declined nationally, as it is now declining, since the great depression. That's a pleasant thought. (link)
Commercial Real Estate (CRE) may be affected negatively by tightening lending standards. Up to now, CRE has been a continuing source of construction employment. (link)
Paul Krugman senses panic in the financial markets. Credit (liquidity, or cheap easy money) is drying up, negatively impacting residential and perhaps commercial real-estate, and even perhaps business investment. Free market ideologues turned a blind eye, ignoring the fact that markets--when unregulated--often fail. (link)
Economy grew at 4.9% in the third quarter. 1% of that growth: inventory build-up. Exports up, perhaps because of weak dollar. But with consumption growth slowing, expectations are for much slower growth (e.g. 0.5% to 1.5% in the fourth quarter). (link)
Oil prices drop from close to $100 to $90 as Saudis increase production. The world has been in a production plateau since July 2006. Increased production is a positive. At least world production isn't in decline. But demand, at 85.3 million barrels a day (mbd) is still very close to supply, 86.43 mbd. With recession possible, demand may not rise significantly. Therefore prices may have stabilized for now. (link, link, link) Stuart Staniford recommends not buying that Hummer you've been wanting just yet. The increase in oil production may be a blip. (link)
Congestion pricing seems to work, based on experience in London. When traffic is congested, charge drivers more to use their cars. Funds can then be directed to rapid transit. Commute delay-time then decreases for everyone. Win-win. (link)
US credit problems spilling into the Euro zone. (link)
Prices on mind-numbing electronic gadgets drop. (link)
To ensure you don't offend people in other countries, act like a zombie. Don't use your mouth. Or your hands. A zen-like stoicism and silence will do you well. And don't ever--ever--name a Teddy Bear Muhammad. Ever. (link, link)
Brains of women long-recovered from anorexia vastly different than women without the disorder. The pleasure centers in their brains seem constrained. They also often worry about the future and obsess about performing actions "the right way," i.e. perfectionism . (link)
Must read for econ freaks: Joseph Schumpeter, economist of Creative Destruction and the "process of industrial mutation," is placed into context by J Bradford Delong. (link)

Largest default in history

2007-12-02T16:21:00.000-08:00

Something to ponder: The Economist reminds us that the recent declines of the US dollar, with respect to other currencies, constitutes--in real terms, for our creditors--the largest default in history.

The winds of history are filled with the remains of shredded paper as countries repudiated their debt obligations: Russia, Spain, Mexico, Argentina, France. Just to name a few.

We're different. We don't repudiate our debts. We allow currency adjustments to do the dirty work. It's different. It's not illegal. Nor even immoral. Nothing more than the invisible hand of the global free market, adjusting the US currency so the dollars we borrowed yesterday are worth much less today--and even less tomorrow.

And this has me wondering: Should we be proud? Because we got away with it? Does the world owe us this? And they're just getting back what they deserve? Or should we be ashamed--for jilting our creditors?

Irrespective of how elated or depressed we feel about it, Brad DeLong is concerned that the declines in the dollar may lead to a global crisis--and recession or depression.

If his fears prove true, then we've all been jilted.

I blog, therefore I am

2007-12-02T14:26:00.000-08:00

Can one exist in the economy of mind, the noosphere, without a blog?

Let's query further: can one even ask this question if one does not have a blog?

Is that where the world is headed? I blog, therefore I am?

Climate changes San Diego wildfires?

2007-12-02T13:12:00.000-08:00

Do the recent San Diego fires have any relation to global warming? The San Diego Union, in Many blame threat on global warming, touches on most of the significant issues. Wikipedia also provides information on both the 2003 fires and the 2007 fires, two of the largest in California history.

Consier this quote from the Union article in particular:

Five years ago, Neilson and other Oregon State University researchers predicted that periodic increases in rain and snowfall, combined with higher temperatures and rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, would spur vegetation growth. That would add to already extensive quantities of fuel caused by decades of fire suppression, in which blazes are not allowed to burn out of control and thereby eliminate dead or dying vegetation. One expectation outcome from global warming: more extreme weather patterns.

This made me wonder: what has been the pattern of San Diego rainfall in recent history. To evaluate this, I found data for rainfall at Lindberg Field (San Diego's Airport), covering the years 1964 through 2005. I then added the values for 2006 and 2007. Here's what we get (click on graph for larger version):

What does it mean? Well, let's start with several big caveats: (1) This is not a lot of data, historically speaking. Climates shift-and-drift to-and-fro, like the tides or the seasons. (2) "Eyeing the data," in other words just looking at it, is often misleading.

With those caveats in place, I still argue that one should be able to "eyeball" the data to find patterns. If no pattern is visible, then there seems little need to quantify it statistically. But if a pattern does exist, perhaps we're onto something.

So the question we should ask ourselves: do we see a pattern? Here's my response:

1. The extremes seem to be increasing. In 1966, 14.76 inches of rain fell on Lindberg field. In 1978 and 1983, the maxima rise to 17.3 and 18.49 inches respectively. In 1998 and 2005, we see further rises in the maxima, to 20.89 and 22.81 inches respectively. The trend may not continue; and it might not even be statistically significant. But it does appear, to the eye, that the the local climate is experiencing more extremes.

2. Consider what has happened after the 1998 and 2005 rainfall peaks: abnormally dry periods. Both 2002 and 2007 were the driest years since 1964. In other words, heavy rains followed by drought.

3. Locate the Cypress and Witch/Harris fires on the graph: Both are located in the abnormally dry years following historically heavy rainfall: 2003 and 2007. In other words, heavy rain produced excessive growth followed by dry years that turned that growth into dry kindling. With all that fuel in splace, the slightest spark will do the rest.

This is all speculation. We'll have to monitor rainfal in the years to come. And look for data further back in time. But it is not unreasonable to speculate that this data fits within the framework of the global warming story.

Is this analysis pertinent? Or an example of Global Warming Ate My Homework?

Global Warming Ate My Homework

2007-12-02T10:24:00.000-08:00

As I admit in Bjorn Lomborg burns a few "witches", the media--and even researchers--can exagerate or trivialize global warming by focusing on the endless ramifications and possibilities.

How should we deal with this? When considering an issue, global warming or otherwise, I like to--at minimum--find the boundaries of the conversation or issue: when do I know that we are outside the bounds of sound analysis and reasonable discourse? For global warming, I propose the following:

Teacher: "Johnny, I see you didn't turn in your assignment. Did your dog eat it again?"

Johnny: "Nope."

Teacher: "Then why didn't you turn it in?"

Johnny: "Global warming."

Teacher: "???"

Though I'm sure someone can come up with a possible scenario, let's assume for the time being that "Global warming ate my homework" lies outside the bounds of reasonable global warming discourse.

The politics of survival

2007-11-30T19:04:00.000-08:00

Adding to what David Roberts and Matthew Yglesia said: many people these days express a great dislike for politics and politicians. “It’s all politics” they say. “I can’t stand politicians—they’re all the same” I’m told again and again.

The causes of this belief are no doubt many. But I still lay significant blame on the doorstep of the libertarians and conservatives who have purposely short-circuited and disabled the efficient working of government (in their open attempt to drown it). They blame government for our ills and inefficiencies while rallying public contempt for the political process.

In a democracy, it is all politics. And we can be thankful for that. “It’s all politics” is a positive, not a negative. The only forms of government that are theoretically politic-free: totalitarianism or anarchism. Yet in practice, even the totalitarian and anarchic system require politics—the establishment and enforcement of rules—at some level. In totalitarian Iraq under Saddam, politics was more than a game. It was about personal survival. In post-Saddam anarchic Iraq, the same statement can be made. In both cases, the rules in Iraq were and remain arbitrary, usually set by raw power. In a democracy, we can be thankful that the rules are defined through due process guided by a sense of moral justice.

So it is all about politics. True, the border between the political that is public and the political that is private will always be in question. But in both cases—public or private--power—whether brute as in Iraq, or financial and moral, in a democracy—requires a respect for the political. And even in a democracy, political questions—how they are asked, the process by which they are answered, and the answers we reach—have implications for our survival.

Politics should be taken seriously. And respected. Not maligned. Our personal survival may not depend on it. The survival of humanity and the planet may not depend on it. But the survival of democracy most certainly does.

Bjorn Lomborg burns a few "witches"

2007-11-30T05:19:00.000-08:00

In the Vancouver Sun, Lomborg maligns those who are concerned about global warming, telling us the debate is filled with a A tsunami of nonsense.

Economized version of his article: Lomborg is not too concerned about global warming. He doesn’t believe rising temperatures and sea levels will be a significant problem; they may even bring more good than harm. He thinks a little research and development will solve all our problems, though he’s not too specific about this. For everything else: business as usual. He would like us to focus our resources on eradicating disease, corruption, and starvation.

Here’s a more detailed dissection of his essay, broken down into topics:

Hyperbole: Lomborg tell us there is too much hyperbole surrounding global warming. How does he tell us? With hyperbole. For example, he tells us that those who are concerned about the more extreme possibilities of global warming are like inquisitional witch burners. While doing this, he ignores the hyperbole and animosity that exists on the other side of the argument, e.g. Senator Inhoffe comparing “An Incovenient Truth” to “Mein Kampf” and comparing those concerned with global warming to Nazis. In addition, Lomborg doesn’t consider the power (of the purse) and momentum/complacency that exists on the cynics (do nothing) side of the debate.
Scare tactics and nonsense: Lomborg tells us that global warming activists, as well as the media, aim to frighten the public with never-ending reports on the potential negative effects of global warming. He has a point. But surely he understands that the press--devoted to assorted and sordid horrors real and imagined, true atrocity and false tragedy, O.J. Simpson or Paris Hilton—is going to fill the pipeline with global warming trivia. A more earnest discussion is required. Is Lomborg willing to participate in it? Or even lead it? Rather than wasting his time--and ours--singling out and maligning as inquisitionists those who believe global warming may be a significant problem?
Cost-benefit analysis: Lomborg argues that we should perform a cost-benefit analysis, e.g. telling us several times how many people might die from heat. But he never tells us how many will be saved from decreased cold. I’ve read that far more will die from more severe summers than will be saved from less severe winters. What does he think? And what of drought? Or affects on crops? If he’s going to argue for cost benefit analysis, perhaps he should be forthcoming, honest, and more specific in his writings. He doesn’t seem to be.
Tsunamic metaphor: Lomborg builds his entire idea for this article on the idea of a tsunami. It’s catchy, providing a riff through which he threads his argument. But the tsunami was a real tragedy. And his argument can be interpreted as saying the following: we should ignore that tsunami because there are other people dying in the world. This is analogous to arguing that we should ignore plane crashes because there are far more automobile accidents in the world. True, we do need to consider the tradeoffs, but some tradeoffs exist on paper rather than in fact. And often tsunamis are important.
Global warming not the only problem: Lomborg points out that the world has other problems: disease, starvation, and corruption. Why doesn’t he mention crime and militarism? Why does he not mention all the enormous amounts of money spent each year on the military? If we’re going to perform cost benefit analysis, shouldn’t we look at everything?
R&D is the solution: Lomborg largely argues for increased R&D, not for directly cutting carbon production. R&D is great. No argument here. But there are two issues to consider: (a) If global warming is a serious problem, like the smoker--shouldn’t we stop smoking? Shouldn’t the doctor tell the man who is smoking that he needs to stop, and not just that “it’s ok, we’ll spend more on cancer research.” Sometimes it makes sense to stop smoking. Do we have time to wait for that next generation low-tar, low-nicotine cigarette? (b) Lomborg ignores the issue of when future R&D might reduce carbon production. He doesn’t consider at all whether we might have to start capping at some point, with or without the fruits of R&D.
How bad can it be?: Lomborg mentions a hypothetical sea level rise and temperature increase caused by global warming. He says both are manageable. Yet he provides absolutely no costs associated with them. His only argument: sea levels have risen before. Nor does he provide any ranges to help his readers understand how high temperatures and seas may rise.
What is the limit for CO2 production?: Lomborg never states whether we can have too much CO2 in the atmosphere. Does he believe there is any limit at all? If we can’t R&D our way to that limit, is he willing to support carbon taxes? Or caps? And is he willing to tax or cap at a level that will limit the CO2 levels in the atmosphere?

So where are we in this debate? In particular, what is Bjorn Lomborg’s position? Here are some questions we should ask ourselves in order to better understand:

Is the globe warming?: Lomborg seems to be saying yes.
Are humans a source of this warming?: Lomborg seems unsure. He seems to say yes, but not always. He seems to leave it open to doubt in the way he discusses the topic.
What will be the cost and/or benefit of this warming on the planetary ecosystem and human society? Lomborg says it might not be that bad.
If humans are a cause, and we don’t like the costs, should we take action? Lomborg says let’s do some research.
If we decide to take action, what form will it take and when will it be implemented?: Lomborg doesn’t say.
If humans are a source, what are the best and worst case scenarios (and associated probabilities)? Lomborg doesn’t say.

If Lomborg wants to show us the path forward, he should answer the following questions:

Is there a maximum level of carbon that humans should emit into the atmosphere? What is that level?
Is he willing to promote limits on carbon production, through outright caps or carbon taxes, if we cannot reach those limits through R&D?
What are the time frames that he proposes for R&D and, more importantly, for reductions in carbon production?
Who are the voices on both sides of this debate that he proposes should take part in the solution?

Right now, Lomborg seems focused on creating what might be called comparative strawmen (tsunamis versus malaria, for example). And engaging in what I call hyperbolic hypocrisy—global warming activists are alarmist and he’ll prove it by being alarmist himself—comparing them to witch burners. Lomborg has demonstrated himself as a writer. He turns a mean phrase. But many questions remain to be solved, in the science and policy realm, and he seems bent on burning witches rather than engaging in a reasoned and balanced debate.

Perhaps everyone should stop burning metaphorical witches and instead have an honest look at what the science is telling us, including the risks and probabilities associated with the many possibilities that exist between “climate change deniers” and the inquisition. This is difficult when people are referred to as witch burning inquisitionists or Nazis.