Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa

[JoeKitchen]

...or economists; or scientists; or all the other -ists that have deep knowledge in a particular field. It's hard to hear them when you have a short tape loop continually running in your mind which you believe provides easy answers to difficult questions.

This is great.

Back in February, the experts at the Fed insisted that inflation is transitory and will only last a couple of months.  What was the inflation rate in August?  In 2007, all the experts said no way the economy would go into recession and that the housing market was strong.  What happened in 2008?  In my short time on this planet, I have been told eggs are good for you, then bad, then good but only if you remove the yolk, to you have to have the yolk to get any benefit at all.  It has changed so many times, I have no idea what the current recommendation is.  How about butter, well it's really bad for you, but the French eat a lot of butter and live longer then most.    My personally favorite, all the political experts predicted, with a Democrat controlled government, PR would be a state by now.  Haven't heard much about that recently. 

In the 1930s, there was this rouge idea making the rounds that all the top experts completely dismissed and considered a conspiracy, that smoking is bad for you.  After all, 4 out of every 5 doctors smoke Camels, right? 

Probably the most sinister idea that came from our experts here in the states was eugenics, which directly influenced the Nazis.  I'm sure they meant well though.   

This idea that we should accept as dogma anything our self appointed experts tell us, especially those in government, whom are partisan by default, without any questions or demands to prove themselves is not only anti-science but would still have us taking the advise of ...

[TechTalk]

Both Minnesota and New York have invested in grape research over the last few decades to produce hybrid varietals that can survive cold winters and produce great wines.

To produce a new commercially viable apple would take 20 years at least, and probably another 20 years of scion and grafts before really getting it to market.  But what are you going to make off of selling apple trees?  Nothing close to the amount that it would be worth putting the time in if you need to make a profit.  This is where university research seems best suited for, along with avoiding people like me who will invariably ask, "... but how is this going to make money before I die?"

One of my favorite apples is the Honeycrisp; so I decided to look it up online not too long a go to see where it originated. Turns out it came from the University of Minnesota which has a plant patent on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeycrisp

As you know, U.C. Davis is a center for viticulture research. They have some free resources online.

https://wineserver.ucdavis.edu/viticulture-grape-growing-information

Last September, they produced for YouTube a 45-minute classroom lecture on how to evaluate a prospective vineyard site for planting from climatic, hydric and soil factors that you might enjoy.

https://www.youtube.com/Site suitability: Evaluation of climatic, water and soil factor

[JoeKitchen]

One of my favorite apples is the Honeycrisp; so I decided to look it up online not too long a go to see where it originated. Turns out it came from the University of Minnesota which has a plant patent on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeycrisp

As you know, U.C. Davis is a center for viticulture research. They have some free resources online.

https://wineserver.ucdavis.edu/viticulture-grape-growing-information

Last September, they produced for YouTube a 45-minute classroom lecture on how to evaluate a prospective vineyard site for planting from climatic, hydric and soil factors that you might enjoy.

https://www.youtube.com/Site suitability: Evaluation of climatic, water and soil factor

Thanks for the info.   

I certainly will be checking out these videos. 

[TechTalk]

This idea that we should accept as dogma anything our self appointed experts tell us, especially those in government, whom are partisan by default, without any questions or demands to prove themselves is not only anti-science but would still have us taking the advise of ...

When did promoting listening become automatically translated into meaning "accept as dogma" "without any questions"? I happen to despise ideological dogma and asking questions, along with listening, is how we learn. There are two very different types of listening though: 1) listening to understand and 2) listening to respond.

By the way, actual experts are not generally "self-appointed". That generally follows years of hard work, study, research, and training. Then again, in the alternative online universe, you can't move an inch without tripping over self-appointed experts.

[TechTalk]

Thanks for the info.   

I certainly will be checking out these videos.

I was hoping that you'd find it useful. Enjoy

[digitaldog]

In the 1930s, there was this rouge idea making the rounds that all the top experts completely dismissed and considered a conspiracy, that smoking is bad for you.  After all, 4 out of every 5 doctors smoke Camels, right? 

Wow, talk about missing the boat here. First, ALL doctors smoke and therefore all of them prefer Camels? Right; no.
Please show us that all top experts completely dismissed and considered a conspiracy, that smoking is bad for you. Or that they stated it was good for you. Or that it didn't matter. Show us this evidence.
Even so, science evolves and gathers more and more evidence to come to sound conclusions . Today (well far earlier than today) doctors and experts knew that smoking is bad for you. There is a lot scientists and so called experts that don't know and they should and do admit this at the time.

From an excellent article in this week's "The Week" about UFOs and science**. The pertinent parts that dismiss what you've assumed with experts and scientists with respect to smoking (nearly 90 years ago):


THE "REPUBLIC OF science" is engaged
in the study of "observable natural
phenomena." I have lifted both
phrases from Richard Rhodes' monumental
book The Making of the Atomic Bomb.

Science is often mistaken for a list of things
we know. It is really just a system, a set of
techniques and principles for investigating
the world. It's very successful as a method
of interrogating the natural world.

While covering the pandemic over the
past year and a half a the statement I've
heard most from scientists is "We don't
know." When will the pandemic be over?
"We don't know." Why do some people
get really sick or even die after
coronavirus infection and others don't even get
the sniffles? "We don't know." Where did
the virus come from, exactly? "We don't
know." IS This is not a failure of science; it's
what makes science so effective. The good
scientists don't start with the conclusion.

Let's cut to the key question: Are we alone?
The plaintive tone of that question tells you
how much we want the answer to be "no."
Unfortunately, there's only one solid, incon-
trovertible answer: "We don't know.'
A couple of decades ago I posed the "are
we alone" question to Stephen Jay Gould,
the Harvard paleontologist and prodigious
author of popular science books. Gould had
long thought through the question of the
evolution of the human species in the grand
context of life on Earth over the course of
4 billion years.When I asked Gould about intelligent life
beyond Earth, he answered, "No data."

**Originally at : https://www.washingtonpost.com/magazine/2021/08/11/stop-ufo-mania-no-evidence-of-aliens/?itid=ap_joelachenbach

[JoeKitchen]

When did promoting listening become automatically translated into meaning "accept as dogma" "without any questions"? I happen to despise ideological dogma and asking questions, along with listening, is how we learn. There are two very different types of listening though: 1) listening to understand and 2) listening to respond.

By the way, actual experts are not generally "self-appointed". That generally follows years of hard work, study, research, and training. Then again, in the alternative online universe, you can't move an inch without tripping over self-appointed experts.

On your second point, most of the experts we are expected to follow are those in the public sector that were appointed by politicians.  Perhaps some earned where they are, but most did not and got it on political reasons. 

Going back to your first point, since Biden has taken office, the CDC changed its Covid recommendations a couple of times due to "new data," but then refused to release that data when asked.  We are told that we need to follow them even though they will not provide explanations as to why.  And if you post a video on social media of an independent expert from say Yale or Oxford that contradicts the CDC, the video will be removed even if they provided their data and reasoning and have a greater amount of credentials then those at the CDC.  Yes, this has happened, multiple times, too many to count actually. 

So although you, personally, would presume to not "accept as dogma ... without any questions," and claim to encourage enquire, that is not how it is working out in real life.  Not to mention, you almost always fall on the side of our "public experts" while initially jeering at anyone on this forum who questions them, which makes it hard to take you sincerely about being purely non-ideological. 

[TechTalk]

On your second point, most of the experts we are expected to follow are those in the public sector that were appointed by politicians.

The evidence of this... none. The overwhelming majority are civil servants hired because of their training and expertise and who have worked their way up over years. The political appointees simply come and go—they're temporary and change with administrations.

Perhaps some earned where they are, but most did not and got it on political reasons. 

Baloney

Going back to your first point, since Biden has taken office, the CDC changed its Covid recommendations a couple of times due to "new data," but then refused to release that data when asked.  We are told that we need to follow them even though they will not provide explanations as to why.

More vague nonsense. The CDC posts reams of data publicly.

And just to be clear, my first point was: "When did promoting listening become automatically translated into meaning "accept as dogma" "without any questions"? Why put words into the mouths of others? It's what people do when they are having trouble formulating a response to what someone actually said.

And if you post a video on social media of an independent expert from say Yale or Oxford that contradicts the CDC, the video will be removed even if they provided their data and reasoning and have a greater amount of credentials then [than] those at the CDC. 

And more random assertions of nonsense. Some random online post that people should gargle with straight bleach to cure COVID hopefully will and should be removed.

What do you mean "a greater amount of credentials"? Where are you coming up with these assertions? Who, when, where, what... you know... basic facts of some kind.

So although you, personally, would presume to not "accept as dogma without any questions," and claim to encourage enquire, that is not how it is working out in real life. 

For whom?

Not to mention, you almost always fall on the side of our "public experts" while initially jeering at anyone on this forum who questions them, which makes it hard to take you sincerely about being purely non-ideological. 

I'm not asking anyone to believe anything that I write. I write what I think. I also often include sources for anyone interested in exploring in more depth. Believe what you want. No one is stopping you. You're totally free to assume whatever you like regarding my sincerity or ideology. (Ideology corrupts your brain kids—just say no. They're mental traps—all of them.)

Let's see now, what are the choices again? I can take seriously people who have many years of knowledge, research, and experience or online critics that don't. Hmmmm.... I'll go with the people that actually know what they're talking about. Besides, all the crap that people argue about and criticize (vaccinations, masks, avoiding crowds and distancing, etc) don't require a PH.D. They're common sense and long-standing public health measures.

As far as criticism of posts are concerned... If you can't take the heat—get out of the kitchen.

[Alan Klein]

This completely ignores the point I was trying to make.  Even with no taxes, businesses just are not going to invest 20, 30, 40+ years into an innovation that has marginal profit returns.  You make no real money from developing new plant species, with the exception of working on plants that mature in one season.  Vines, trees, and other perennials have such a high genetic diversity that getting a new commercially viable varietal is 1/100,000, and they take years to fruit before you can test the new varietal to see if you could actually sell it. 

No way anyone who is expecting to make a profit would be willing to take this type of research on.  However, in the overall economy, creating new varietals can have a net positive on the economy.  It's just an example of something I dont see business doing well. 

With that being said, NJ has a lot of nice properties, but no way I'm paying those taxes.  Business tax in NJ is 5.85% net on the first $250K in revenue.  And they wonder why their cities are shit shows.  I pay less on profits in PA and Phill then business do on net in NJ. 

If private investors aren't interested in starting up a business, certainly the government shouldn't be risking taxpayer money on some flyer.  If there are real profits to be made let the free market make those determinations not some political hack spending other people's money.

[Alan Klein]

This is great.

Back in February, the experts at the Fed insisted that inflation is transitory and will only last a couple of months.  What was the inflation rate in August?  In 2007, all the experts said no way the economy would go into recession and that the housing market was strong.  What happened in 2008?  In my short time on this planet, I have been told eggs are good for you, then bad, then good but only if you remove the yolk, to you have to have the yolk to get any benefit at all.  It has changed so many times, I have no idea what the current recommendation is.  How about butter, well it's really bad for you, but the French eat a lot of butter and live longer then most.    My personally favorite, all the political experts predicted, with a Democrat controlled government, PR would be a state by now.  Haven't heard much about that recently. 

In the 1930s, there was this rouge idea making the rounds that all the top experts completely dismissed and considered a conspiracy, that smoking is bad for you.  After all, 4 out of every 5 doctors smoke Camels, right? 

Probably the most sinister idea that came from our experts here in the states was eugenics, which directly influenced the Nazis.  I'm sure they meant well though.   

This idea that we should accept as dogma anything our self appointed experts tell us, especially those in government, whom are partisan by default, without any questions or demands to prove themselves is not only anti-science but would still have us taking the advise of ...

I'm old enough to remember the experts predicting mass starvation and a new Ice Age.  Oops.

[digitaldog]

I'm old enough to remember the experts predicting mass starvation and a new Ice Age.  Oops.

What experts ?
Prior to 1543 and Copernicus, experts said the sun revolved around the Earth (some believing it was flat). Today some still do.
Later, some non experts suggested curing Covid-19 with Bleach and later, horse dewormer, and many of their followers of the cult, took it very seriously. Old enough to remember that sir?

[Robert Roaldi]

If private investors aren't interested in starting up a business, certainly the government shouldn't be risking taxpayer money on some flyer.  If there are real profits to be made let the free market make those determinations not some political hack spending other people's money.

You mean like when governments give tax concessions to Amazon to relocate to their jurisdiction or when they relax environmental rules to coal mining because someone else's black lung disease is a small price to pay to keep a pointless election promise.

[Alan Klein]

You mean like when governments give tax concessions to Amazon to relocate to their jurisdiction or when they relax environmental rules to coal mining because someone else's black lung disease is a small price to pay to keep a pointless election promise.

Tax concessions like when NYC and NYS made a business deal with Amazon are state and local, not Federal decisions, to entice businesses to move to their state.   It brings jobs and additional tax money to the state.  That's different than the Fed picking winners and losers which should be decided by the free market.

Black lung rules, building codes, etc are regulations of industry not investments.  You've conflated the two. 

[Alan Klein]

On a purely philosophical standpoint, I would prefer states wouldn't need to induce companies to move to their state. It also causes misallocation in the sense that companies decide to move to one state over the other.  But that would happen anyway since states have different taxes, incentives, and costs.  The problem is some states' taxes are so high, they keep losing businesses every year as companies move to lower-tax states. 

[digitaldog]

You mean like when governments give tax concessions to Amazon to relocate to their jurisdiction or when they relax environmental rules to coal mining because someone else's black lung disease is a small price to pay to keep a pointless election promise.

Hammer jerk:

Tax concessions like when NYC and NYS made a business deal with Amazon are state and local, not Federal decisions, to entice businesses to move to their state.

He didn't say anything about the Federal Government. The state is the Government too! Ever heard of State Government?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_governments_of_the_United_States
There ARE State Agencies that have some control over coal mining.
https://www.americangeosciences.org/critical-issues/faq/what-are-regulations-mining-activities
As usual, you've conflated the two, jerked your knee and got it wrong again.

[Peter McLennan]

That's different than the Fed picking winners and losers which should be decided by the free market.

Alan, please list three markets that you consider “free”.

[digitaldog]

Alan, please list three markets that you consider “free”.

With no government interference.
That sound was his head exploding. 
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/free-market-regulation.asp

The Bottom Line
Free market economics isn't perfect, but neither are completely regulated economies. The key is to strike a balance between free markets and the amount of government regulation needed to protect people and the environment. When this balance is reached, the public interest is protected, and private business flourishes.

Why zero government interference is a really bad idea that Alan will dismiss outright (hammer jerk)

Several ways in which the economy has become out of balance as a result of deregulation include:

The deregulation of the savings and loan (S&L) industry in 1982 led to fraud and abuse, causing the federal government to spend billions to stabilize the industry after many S&Ls went under.
Improperly trained crews led to the near-meltdown of a nuclear reactor at Three Mile Island, which released radiation into the air and water. Gordon MacLeod, the secretary of state for Pennsylvania, was fired for voicing his concerns about the lack of oversight of the nuclear industry and the inadequate preparedness of the state to respond to such emergencies.
The lack of adequate regulation of silicone breast implants led to a situation in which manufacturers knew that the implants leaked but continued to sell them anyway, leading to a settlement of $4.75 billion to 60,000 women affected in 1994.

[Robert Roaldi]

An interesting description of what SCOTUS has been up to wrt abortion but also about other things legal, https://www.npr.org/2021/09/09/1035550744/scotus-the-future-of-roe-v-wade.

The interviewee's descriptions of the accomplishments of recent Congresses is not complimentary.

[Alan Klein]

Alan, please list three markets that you consider “free”.

Since every country has taxes and regulations, there is no totally free market, but rather more or less free.  The photography market is fairly free: cameras, film, development, print shops, wedding photographers, photojournalists, etc.  The point is that there's no centrally planned photography market.  LAbor, buyers, sellers, and manufacturers determine what's going on in the industry. The EV industry where the government provides rebates is less free because rebates affect heavy buying patterns imposed by government action of giveaways.   This creates winners and losers in the auto industry determined by government bureaucracy more-so rather than like buyers and sellers in the photo industry. 

[PeterAit]

Since every country has taxes and regulations, there is no totally free market, but rather more or less free.  The photography market is fairly free: cameras, film, development, print shops, wedding photographers, photojournalists, etc.  The point is that there's no centrally planned photography market.  LAbor, buyers, sellers, and manufacturers determine what's going on in the industry. The EV industry where the government provides rebates is less free because rebates affect heavy buying patterns imposed by government action of giveaways.   This creates winners and losers in the auto industry determined by government bureaucracy more-so rather than like buyers and sellers in the photo industry.

The photo industry has no effects outside of the buyers and sellers in that industry. In contrast the auto industry has a huge effect on the future of the climate and of the entire planet and is therefore a perfectly legitimate place for government influence. And the gov't is not choosing "winners and losers" among companies but among technologies, and any company can build an EV and take advantage of the incentives. Those that already have EVs to market will be rewarded for their foresight, as it has always been in business.