Εμφάνιση αναρτήσεων με ετικέτα might. Εμφάνιση όλων των αναρτήσεων
Εμφάνιση αναρτήσεων με ετικέτα might. Εμφάνιση όλων των αναρτήσεων

Παρασκευή 5 Απριλίου 2013

De-Extinction Would Be Really Cool


Wooly mammothThe current issue of Science has an
article on the
costs and benefits of de-extinction
, i.e., using biotechnology
to resurrect species. The article by Stanford University scholars
Jacob Sherkow and Henry Greely note that extinct species might be
brought back to life by means of back-breeding, cloning, or genetic
engineering.


Back-breeding would use selective breeding of species closely
related aim at producing the phenotype of the extinct species,
e.g., the Tauros
Project
is working to revive the auroch. Cloning could be used
if a sufficiently well-preserved nucleus from the tissue of an
extinct species could be tranferred into the enucleated egg of a
similar species and then implanted in a surrogate. So far this has
only been attempted with the recently extinct
Pyrenean ibex
. A kid was born but died of lung malformations
soon after.


Perhaps the more promising, though more technically difficult
route toward de-extinction, would be to isolate DNA from preserved
tissue of an extinct species and then sequence it, e.g., a wooly
mammoth. Then that information could be used to alter the genetic
sequences in a closely related species, e.g., an Indian elephant,
resulting in a wooly mammoth.


The authors observe:



De-extinction is a particularly intriguing application of our
increasing control over life. We think it will happen. The most
interesting and important question is how humanity will deal with
it.



They suggest that some might object to de-extinction on the
grounds that the resurrected creatures might be exploited, vectors
for pathogens, invasive, examples of "playing god," or lessen
people's concerns about extinction. On the benefit side, the
authors them as ...



... falling into five categories: scientific knowledge,
technological advancement, concrete environmental benefits,
justice, and “wonder.”



To my mind, those benefits clearly outweigh the rather
insubstantial objections cited by the authors, especially the last
one. As the authors write:



The last benefit might be called “wonder,” or, more colloquially
“coolness.” This may be the biggest attraction, and possibly the
biggest benefit, of de-extinction. It would surely be very cool to
see a living wooly mammoth. And while this is rarely viewed as a
substantial benefit, much of what we do as individuals—even many
aspects of science—we do because it’s “cool.”



Yes.


See below 1933 footage of the last Tasmanian Tiger.






Τετάρτη 3 Απριλίου 2013

Anarcho-Capitalism: So Crazy, It Just Might Work!


George Mason University economist, and advocate of
anarcho-capitalism, Bryan Caplan explains why details of the
ideological history of human attitudes toward methods and
techniques of government show that ideas that almost everyone
dismisses offhand as nutty and impossible can and in fact have come
to dominate our political culture.


I mean, you think anarcho-capitalism is crazy? Imagine how
people used to react to democracy? 



Let
Caplan explain
:



Imagine advocating democracy a thousand years ago.  You
sketch your basic idea: "Every few years we'll have a free
election.  Anyone who wants power can run for office, every
adult gets a vote, and whoever gets the most votes runs the
government until the next election."  How would your
contemporaries react?


They would probably call you "crazy."  Why?  Before
you could even get to the second paragraph in your sales pitch,
they'd interrupt: "Do you seriously mean to tell
us that if the ruling government loses the election, they'll
peacefully hand the reins of power over to their rivals?! 
Yeah, right!"


A thousand years later, the planet is covered with
democracies.  In most of them, defeated incumbents
consistently make the "crazy" decision to peacefully walk away from
power.  In long-standing democracies, this pattern is so
familiar we take it for granted.  But we shouldn't.  The
viability of democracy is an amazing fact that begs for an
explanation....



Caplan then points out that in the modern world, a political
leader who told his cronies their response to losing an election
would be to start killin' would not be obeyed, but condemned as
"crazy."



The lesson: "Crazy" is relative to expectations.  A
thousand years ago, everyone was used to despotism.   No
one expected a defeated incumbent to voluntarily
hand over power.  As a result, refusing to hand over power
didn't seem crazy.  Since it didn't seem crazy, incumbents who
refused to hand over power after losing an election probably would
have managed to retain power.  In modern Sweden, in contrast,
everyone is used to democracy.  Everyone expects a defeated
incumbent to voluntarily hand over
power.  Refusing to hand over power seems
crazy.  As a result, refusing to hand over power would end not
democracy, but the incumbent's career.



Now, Caplan says, anarcho-capitalism sounds as nuts as to most
everyone as democracy likely did in those days of yore:



"Do you seriously mean to tell us that
privatized police companies will peacefully settle disputes,
instead of attacking each other until one firm becomes the new
government?!  Yeah, right!"


....Suppose however that a stable anarcho-capitalist system
existed.  Then this logic reverses.  Since everyone is
used to this system, people expectprivate police
firms to amicably resolve disputes.  In such a setting, a CEO
who advocates a war of conquest would seem crazy - and his pleas to
his co-workers would fall on deaf ears.  In a stable
anarcho-capitalist society, a war-mongering CEO doesn't get a
war.  He gets fired.


Since we've never had anarcho-capitalism, this peaceful
equilibrium sounds like wishful thinking.  But it's no more
wishful thinking than stable democracy.  Both systems sound
crazy when first proposed.  Neither can be stable as long as
people expect them to be unstable.  But both can be stable
once people expect them to be stable.


You could object: The expectations necessary to sustain
anarcho-capitalism are highly unlikely to ever arrive.  But
the same was true for democracy a thousand years ago.  Yet
somehow, expectations radically changed and stable democracy
arrived.  How did expectations change so dramatically? 
It's complicated.  But can expectations change
dramatically?  Absolutely.



As someone who was first exposed to anarcho-capitalist ideas 25
years or so ago, has written histories of the libertarian movement
since then, and is quite confident (even without survey data) that
the ideas seem far less crazy to far more people than he could have
imagined then, I think Caplan has a point. (On a far narrower level
of precipitous shifts in cultural attitudes toward "crazy," I think
the progress of ideas such as gay marriage and marijuana's use as
medicine or legalization recently are encouraging signs. Things do
change.)


Part of the key to Caplan's "It's complicated" is the tireless
work of ideological and economic education pursued by all the
various thinkers and organizations and journalists and advocates
working under the rough rubric of the "libertarian movement," whose
history was told in my 2007 book
Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern
American Libertarian Movement
, and whose most recent
surprising success was told in my book from last year,
Ron Paul's Revolution: The Man and the Movement He
Inspired
.

Κυριακή 31 Μαρτίου 2013

OH NO: Mom And Pop Are Starting To Jump Onto This Bull Market

For your derision/amusement/confirmation bias/whatever:

The article is exactly what you might fear it is, a story about how individual investors, after feeling burnt in 2008-2009, are thinking it might be time to get into stocks.

Read it here >

Please follow Money Game on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

mf.gif

a2.imga2t.img

businessinsider?d=yIl2AUoC8zA businessinsider?i=RUf9orSnrHw:fmrqx6s6bq businessinsider?i=RUf9orSnrHw:fmrqx6s6bq businessinsider?d=qj6IDK7rITs businessinsider?i=RUf9orSnrHw:fmrqx6s6bq
RUf9orSnrHw

Πέμπτη 28 Μαρτίου 2013

Meet Bernd Lucke, The German Professor Who Might Be Responsible For Europe's Harsh New Strategy

Bernd Lucke, leader of Alternative für Deutschland

Meet Dr. Bernd Lucke, the University of Hamburg economics professor who just formed a new, anti-euro political party to unseat Angela Merkel in this September's German elections.

Lucke, the leader of Alternative für Deutschland, is on board with the "new approach" the euro zone appears to be taking with bank bailouts in the wake of this week's Cyprus deal that has sent bank stocks in Italy and Spain tumbling.

Depositors in the two largest Cypriot banks will take a substantial haircut on bank account balances in excess of 100,000 euros in order to help pay for the bailout. This shifts the burden of footing the bill away from the taxpayers and onto those involved directly with the banks.

Germany, the kingmaker in the euro zone, pushed hard for the EU to take a hard line with Cyprus, ensuring that depositors would be involved in the restructuring. After all, with elections looming in September, the last thing German Chancellor Angela Merkel and her party needs is to look like they are willing to write blank checks to Cypriot banks, which are viewed by the international community as an offshore tax haven for moneyed Russian interests.

Lucke says the reason Germany had to take such a hard line toward depositors – a stance that has set in motion a whole new disruptive chain of events in the euro zone in recent weeks – was because of the new dynamic his party has brought to the German political scene.

"My sentiment is that this is a response to the fact that our party has gone public and that Angela Merkel feels threatened and now fights back for her popular support," Lucke told Business Insider.

So, what exactly is Alternative's plan for Germany and the euro?

For Germany, it's severing the fiscal transfers to struggling peripheral euro zone countries in southern Europe that have fallen into recession.

"While it currently seems to be the case that we do benefit from the euro crisis, there are tremendous risks in the wings, and we would like to end these policies of disguising fiscal risk, and discharging banks of their risk to the detriment of taxpayers," says Lucke. "This heavy burden we just do not want to bear, and this is why we have formed our party to oppose it."

For the rest of Europe, in which Germany remains dominant, it's dissolving the euro altogether.

Lucke says the economic division the euro is creating between North and South "certainly is the cause for envious sentiment and angry sentiment in the southern European countries, so that the political tensions within the European Union actually rise."

Alternative für Deutschland fears that these tensions could jeopardize the principles of a "common market" that make the EU so great for German trade. Lucke suggests, for example, that peripheral nations could perhaps impose customs duties if they can find no other way to become competitive.

"We use the completely wrong incentives for the crisis countries," says Lucke. "We do not help them solve their problems, but pile up more debt for them and force them into a recession, which makes the situation simply unsustainable."

Thus, it's about sacrificing the euro to save the European Project.

We also spoke to Lucke about AfD's chances in September's elections, what an AfD opposition would look like in the German Bundestag, his thoughts on the rise of Beppe Grillo and the anti-euro Five Star Movement in Italy, and the economics Germany's relationship with the euro.

The full transcript is included below.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BUSINESS INSIDER: What is your opinion of how Angela Merkel has handled the Cypriot bank bailout?

Bernd LuckeBERND LUCKE: I think it was a stupid idea of hers to try to use the savings of smaller savers with credits in the bank of less than 100,000 euros for bailing out the Cypriot banks.

This was against European law, as everybody knows, so by doing that, she has caused a very aggressive climate in Cyprus, which made it much more difficult to find public support for the one step which was right, which was correct, which is to use some of the wealth of the big creditors of Cypriot banks to stabilize the banking system there.

So, I do approve of the decision the Cypriot parliament has taken with respect to wealth beyond 100,000 euros. I think this is a good and necessary step. I do not approve, however, of the fact that the bailout clause of the Maastricht Treaty has again been violated by the promise of another 10 billion euros for the Cypriot government.

BI: Do you think the rise of Alternative für Deutschland pressured the Merkel government to take a harder line with Cyprus?

BL: It seems that the German government has been rather tough in recent weeks on the government of Cyprus, and my sentiment is that this is a response to the fact that our party has gone public and that Angela Merkel feels threatened and now fights back for her popular support.

BI: Eurogroup President Jeroen Dijsselbloem this week sparked some controversy by suggesting that the Cypriot bank bailout deal could be a template for future bank restructurings in the euro area. How would a Germany led by your party seek to guide the restructuring process?

BL: I think that the restructuring of banks is necessary in many circumstances. I am very much in favor of having an orderly sovereign default in those countries which are overly indebted. An orderly default means that while the government does default, it is necessary to stabilize banks, and if banks are being recapitalized, then I think the prime resource for recapitalizing banks are the owners and the large creditors of those banks.

So, I am very much in favor, actually, of the policy that has already been outlined this week.

BI: Germany has managed to avoid recession, and unemployment continues to fall. Why would you want to endanger that status quo by leaving the euro?

BL: There is a huge build-up of fiscal risk in Germany by the obligations which we have agreed to under the European Stabilization Mechanism. So, while it currently seems to be the case that we do benefit from the euro crisis, there are tremendous risks in the wings, and we would like to end these policies of disguising fiscal risk, and discharging banks of their risk to the detriment of taxpayers.

We think that the tensions in the euro zone, which are currently just hidden by those transfer payments we make, should be made visible and should be solved by reintroducing national currencies and exchange rate flexibility.

This may, in the short run, put some burden on the German economy as well, but I think in the long run, it will be much more beneficial than the current policy.

BI: What is the real downside to continued wealth transfers from Germany and other northern euro member states to those on the periphery?

BL: Well, I don't really see that those economies are coming back on track. What we see currently is a steep rise in unemployment and youth unemployment in the southern European countries. We do observe some improvement in the terms of current account deficits and measures of productivity, but these are an improvement only because unemployment is rising – because less productive workers have been fired.

So, I do not think that this does indicate any kind of real progress, or at least enough progress to make those countries competitive again.

The problem seems to be that we have started with a transfer union, and there is no way out that we currently see as long as we stay in the euro. Rather, it seems that this policy will linger on for years, and possibly decades, which will put a heavy burden on German taxpayers, households, as well as enterprises.

This heavy burden we just do not want to bear, and this is why we have formed our party to oppose it.

BI: What is your response to the rise of Beppe Grillo and his anti-euro, Five Star Movement in Italy?

BL: I don't really have any response to that – I observe this rise, but we do not have any contact with his party.

I do share some of his views that the euro is not the appropriate currency for Italy. So, I have some sympathy for some of his positions, but certainly not for all of his positions, and certainly not necessarily for the way he is advancing his positions.

So, I think there are also big differences between our party and Grillo's party.

BI: Does Alternative advocate that Germany should leave the euro?

BL: No. We are running on a platform to dissolve the euro in a stepwise fashion, on a platform which proposes to reintroduce national currencies, but not by having Germany leave the euro, but rather by making the southern European countries leave the euro first, and then breaking up the remaining euro zone into other smaller currency areas, or into countries which each have their own national currency.

What we do not propose is that Germany leave the euro either now or in the future in any kind of unilateral sense.

BI: What do you hope to achieve going into the September elections? What sort of ground can you reasonably hope to gain in the government?

BL: Opinion polls currently indicate that about 25 percent of the German population is sympathetic to our anti-euro view, so we hope, of course, to take advantage of this share of the population as much as is possible.

If we do get elected to parliament, then the next question is whether we will be in the opposition there, or whether we will join other forces to form a government. My guess is that we will be an opposition party, because we would be willing to cooperate with any other party only if it changes its view on euro policy, and this is currently not conceivable.

BI: How have relatively calm financial markets in Europe since last summer affected the German perception of the euro and "bailout fatigue" in the German population?

BL: I think that the unrest which the public feels has grown, even though I also believe that there was a big share of the population that was displeased with Angela Merkel's policies already from the start of this policy in May 2010 on.

You may remember that Angela Merkel's party suffered heavy, heavy losses in regional elections which immediately followed the decision of May 2010 to establish the first big rescue facility.

So, there is a large share of the population which is deeply displeased with that, which perhaps has not really had the means to express itself properly, because many people are not so familiar with economics, and don't feel on safe grounds when they speak about that topic.

It is precisely for this reason that we have formed our party now, which is supported by many, many professors of economics, for instance, and many entrepreneurs for whom it is their daily bread to deal with economic issues, and which are quite outspoken in their criticism toward the government's euro policies.

BI: How has your background informed your views on the euro and Alternative's euro policy platform?

BL: I think there are basically two sources. One source is that i do not see much support for the economics behind the rescue policies. We have a big misallocation of capital by the rescue facilities.

We use the completely wrong incentives for the crisis countries. We do not help them solve their problems, but pile up more debt for them and force them into a recession, which makes the situation simply unsustainable.

So, there is a lot of economics which can actually be advanced against current policies.

The second source of my thinking was sort of more democratic or legalistic way of thinking in the sense that I was shocked by the fact that our government does not respective the Treaty of Maastricht. It just acts as it pleases in certain circumstances, completely disregarding all the promises which ever have been made to German voters, completely disregarding the legal framework of the European Union.

This, I think, is something which is really shameful for a democratic society, and is also a major source for my political engagement.

BI: What are your views toward the European Union?

BL: We do think that this is the way to save the European Union from a breakup. Actually, this is a big concern that we have.

We think that the euro currently splits the European Union into two parts – a segment of an economically unsuccessful southern part, and a more northern, or more central, European part, which currently seems to benefit from the misery of the southern European countries, because all of the capital flows back from southern Europe to Germany, and the Netherlands, and other stable countries, where it helps us to do cheap investment, but which is at the expense of those southern European countries, and which certainly is the cause for envious sentiment and angry sentiment in the southern European countries, so that the political tensions within the European Union actually rise.

There is the imminent danger of the disintegration of the European Union and of the common market, possibly even with a return to, say, impediments to trade, like a reintroduction of customs duties if those southern European countries are not able to balance their trade by any other means – in particular, not able to balance their trade by a devaluation of their own currency.

BI: Is Alternative's plan to sacrifice the euro in order to save the European Project?

BL: That would be absolutely correct.

Please follow Money Game on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

mf.gif

a2.imga2t.img

businessinsider?d=yIl2AUoC8zA businessinsider?i=82qDzcC6jeM:-rEr8d1rej businessinsider?i=82qDzcC6jeM:-rEr8d1rej businessinsider?d=qj6IDK7rITs businessinsider?i=82qDzcC6jeM:-rEr8d1rej
82qDzcC6jeM