Dennis Edwall

Watch John do his thing on government on the 20/20 show this Friday night, the 13th.

Link does not work for me - I get the star web page, but no article of any kind.

Excellent, Ed.

GS, <<I have been living in the same place for 15 years, however, I have started working out of my home so I am spending more time here now. Saying this, have you thought about radon poisoning? I find it hard to believe that it could be a problem, but evidently is sure can be. Does not seem to be the controversy over it like Hg and amalgams. And one can be hurt from radon and never know it without environmental testing. For all I know, both of us could be affected. Dennis

GS, <<From my point of view it made sense to use these amalgams 100 years ago but not any more since we have modern composite materials that are far less toxic and for pretty well the same price. In view of your skepticism (which can be a good thing, no criticism here), you might want to be somewhat skeptical about any toxicity of the composite materials, given how new they are. Remember the concerns about some plastics that have developed in recent years. Some people take care to not store cooked food in plastic containers. No doubt there are some people who are hypersensitive to the compounds in some plastics. We choose our poisons.... Think about all the years of lead pollution when cars were pumping it in the atmosphere, and from there, all through the biosphere. It wasn't even obvious that this was an unhealthy thing for many years! I'm sure that some people were significantly affected by it, those who are particularly sensitive. Perhaps you are one of the ones who is very sensitive to Hg. It's a fact that in the late 1800's Hg was used in medicinal products, particularly skin ointments. But even then it was not obvious that Hg was harming those who were using these products. Think of how much lower your exposure must be. But where might you pick it up besides your amalgams and fish, which you don't eat much of? I assume you are not close to any mining activities. How about power plants? I think a major source of Hg pollution is from burning coal in power plants. If you are picking it up from the environment, can you make any correlation between what is happening to you now where you now live versus at the last place you used to live (i.e., far away)? <<Last year I was convinced I had systemic effects from candida overgrowth and this week I discovered that it is related to mercury. The mercury acts as an antibiotic and kills bacteria in the gut, this opens the door for yeast multiplication which causes a multitude of problems like 'leaky gut', gas in the stomach, heartburn, GERD, etc. If this was true, I would think you would be passing "lots" of Hg in your feces. Perhaps you could get an analysis to verify this. But certainly the microorganism environment in our digestive tracts is an important factor in our health. You could try eating some good plain yogurt daily and see if that helps. I do this with my own homemade yogurt which I have been doing for 35 years or so. <<I have been taking 6-12 grams of vitamin C for over a year now this helps a great deal Sounds excessive to me. Good luck in figuring it all out, and hope you get better soon. Dennis

For a different viewpoint, for example, see http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelate...cs/mercury.html I think this subject can be debated almost as much as global warming. And the opinions (reportedly scientific) subject to the prejudices of the advocaters. I'm no expert, but I think other conditions can mimic signs of Hg poisoning. I wonder why you think this is happening to you. I hope you are researching the other side of the fence, too. Full disclosure: I have Hg amalgams in my mouth, and I have worked with elemental Hg as part of my job nearly every day for the last almost 30 years (no, I am not a dentist; I make the semiconductor HgCdTe). I also have had yearly blood analysis for Hg which has always been well below the permissible levels of toxicity. And I don't think I am suffering from Hg poisoning symptoms. And finally, I am a healthful guy who is very concerned about taking good care of myself (exercise, nutrition, etc.), so I don't take the issue of Hg toxicity lightly. My one "irrationality" is living too close to Los Angeles. Dennis

Barbara, your last link is not working.

Very interesting talk, thanks for the link. The idea is cute, and it makes me think of the theory of electrons and holes in semiconductors. In reality, there is no such thing as a particle called a hole, there are only electrons. But it is much easier to explain the operation of semiconductors by postulating the existence of quasi-particles we call holes, and then treating them analogously to electrons. Holes as particles do not exist - but reality acts like they do when we apply the right theory which does a good job of explaining our observations. Similarly, the invention of memes does a good job of explaining our observations of how certain ideas or imitable phenomena get transmitted from one mind to another. Dennis

Thanks, Ellen, for your references to pasts posts between Roger and yourself - I was unaware of them and enjoyed reading them. -Dennis

http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/artic...asury-Secretary

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/eco...ue+with+readers Is Social Security a Ponzi Scheme? Posted by: Michael Mandel on December 28 (This is the first in a series on technology and the crisis) In the aftermath of the Madoff implosion, quite a few people have pointed out the parallels between a Ponzi scheme and Social Security. Arnold Kling, whom I respect, has written: I’ve been thinking that Madoff is a perfect analogy for the public sector. The government gives people money, which it expects to obtain by taking the money from people in the future. Even the Center on Budget Policy and Priorities, not known as a right-wing organization, sees the U.S. fiscal stance as unsustainable (pointer from Ezra Klein via Tyler Cowen)—in other words, a Ponzi scheme. Other people have gone farther. Paul Mulshine of the New Jersey Star Ledger wrote a column entitled “The Ponzi scheme that Baby Boomers are waiting to cash in on.” And Jim Cramer has called Social Security the biggest Ponzi scheme in history. Superficially, these critics have a point, and there is a parallel between Social Security and a Ponzi scheme. But on a fundamental level, they are very wrong, and it’s worth explaining why. First, the parallel. Social Security taxes current workers to pay Social Security benefits for current retirees. In other words, the new entrants into the Social Security system, the young workers, pay off the previous entrants, the older workers. And despite the fact you have a Social Security “account”, there is no necessary link between what you paid into the system in taxes, and what you receive. That’s very similar to the structure of a Ponzi scheme, where new investors pay off the original investors. As long as enough new ‘victims’ are brought into the scheme, it keeps growing and growing. But when the new investors runs out, the Ponzi collapses. Analogously, the slowdown in population growth puts pressure on Social Security finances. But there is one enormous difference between Social Security and a Ponzi scheme: Technological change. Over the past century, new technologies have enabled the output of the country to grow much faster than its population. To be more precise, the U.S. population has more than tripled since the early 1900s, while the U.S. economic output has gone up by more than 20 times. This long track record of technology-powered growth has enabled the enormous rise in living standards in the U.S. and other developed countries. In fact, this increase in productivity—output per worker—is the key fact which gives us our way of life today. Assuming that technological progress continues over the next 70 years, and output productivity growth continues over the next 70 years, the finances of Social Security are relatively easy to fix. A fairly minor cut in benefits, combined with a relatively small increase in taxes, will bring the system back into balance again. (the latest Social Security report projects a 75-year deficit of $4.3 trillion. That sounds like a lot of money, but over 75 years it’s roughly $60 billion a year…not chicken feed, but not overwhelming). But here’s the rub. Ultimately our ability to make good on the “Ponzi-like” nature of Social Security depends on the continued march of technological progress—and in particular, innovation which boosts output and living standards. If we leave the younger generation a good legacy—a sound scientific and technological base, combined with an innovative and flexible economy and an educated workforce—then Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme. The economy grows, and there’s more than enough resources for everyone. But if instead we—the current generation—invest in homes, flat-screen televisions and SUVs, then we don’t leave the next generation with the technological “seed corn” they need. If the technological progress slows, then Social Security does turn out to be Ponzi-like—with unfortunate consequences for everyone. [End of article] I think he has an important point about the importance of technological change. But he does not define exactly what this is. What is this "technological 'seed corn'" he refers to? What is most relevant in this regard is the gains in productivity achieved by technology advancement as applied to creating the raw materials we need, such as food, energy, building materials, metals and minerals, etc. And it is important to note that the wrong economic and tax policies can act to either enhance or retard the creation of this technological change. Team Obama, with help from most of our other politicians, may kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. And the advancement of this technological change is not sustainable in view of the demands being made by the radical environmentalists and those who advocate that humans are responsible for global warming. So there is good reason to worry. It's nice to see that more and more people are seeing Social Security as the Ponzi scheme it is. Dennis

Thanks, galt. I was disappointed to see a lack of history of the Campaign for Liberty discussed on their site. If you have any influence with them, you might suggest that they add this info, which could include data on how fast membership has been growing. I realize that you do not have the numbers yourself. Dennis

Galt: "Why are you so interested in a graphical representation of the consistent growth which is admittedly not skyrocketing but is moving up relentlessly?" Oh, primarily because of all of your past discussion of membership doubling and extrapolating such results into the future. With current membership near 100,000, obviously there has been a lot of doubling going on, but the rate at which this has been happening may not be sustainable into the future. Nevertheless, the growth membership does look impressive. Dennis

galt: no laugh intended, I'm serious. If the membership is growing as rapidly as you claim, let's see a graph of the membership versus time to see how significant it *really* is. Showing a number over a few day or few week period means little in the context of longer time, which is most important. Everyone in business likes to plot sales - let's see yours. Dennis

galt, can you post some graphs showing membership versus time for us to see? Surely they must have this data. Maybe a couple different time scales would be helpful, too. Thanks. Dennis

Yes, 25MW is totally garbage. Maybe they meant 25kW. Since they say there are no moving parts, the electricity must be generated thermoelectrically, not steam. Has worked for some spacecraft.

As a scientist, I agree with Baal. There are lots of half-assed ideas out there. I don't have a reference to this, but I recently read where the idea of nuclear-powered aircraft is being seriously considered again.

I could not agree more.

Ba'al: "Does that mean we are going to pay a tax on what we exhale? " Ah, then a special exercise tax!

Roger: "Dennis, are you not aware that the tax (RATE) cuts generated higher tax ~revenues~? " No, I was not aware of that. Assuming that that is the case, then you can forget everything I said (except that Bush will always be remembered for his profligate deficit spending). I will see what Cato has to say about this. Dennis

Roger: "But on the other side: his tax cuts (which grew the economy, as well) ..." No question that tax cuts have favorable consequences in the short run. However, when considering longer time, I think you over-emphasize their importance in the face of the rampant spending increases, so that the tax cuts simply mean that in the long run the deficits will be all that much higher. Bush's legacy will be the huge increase in deficit spending, not his tax cuts. Dennis

Michael: "I see it as a choice between the greater of two good men." "I have stated that I am proud of the high quality of the two candidates." Just for reference, has there ever been a case where, at the time of the election of non-incumbents, you thought that one of them was not a "good man" or not "high quality"?

See http://abcnews.go.com/search?searchtext=st...&type=video and start with Part 1. Some interviewees were David Boaz and Walter Williams.

Brant: Looks like you won't be up in time for the excitement when the market opens in the morning.

"Sharp, clear and totally chery picked, but it will be very effective." Very effective? I don't see that it proves anything. Certainly not that McCain is ready to lead.