cwan

Sarcasm notwithstanding, can you explain how the long form survey would have helped here? Adding to this, the short form survey is still mandatory where "mathematically justifiable claims about the nature of Canada" can still be made particularly with respect to demographics. Furthermore, compared to the census requirements elsewhere, the long form was unnecessarily intrusive (which included mandatory questions like how many rooms in your home have "missing or loose floor tiles.")

The decision to cancel the mandatory long form survey and make it voluntary was made June 17, 2010. The issue raised by Diewert suggests "that Statistics Canada has badly underestimated the growth of so-called multifactor productivity as far back as the 1960s."

I suspect that HN is a massive advantage over other incubators that really doesn't ever seem to get talked about. The treasure trove of data for finding and keeping the best candidates alone... and it's not something that can be easily copied - though how the magic can be kept alive as it grows seems to be an open question.

Not sure how you figure. The scarcity that they are targeting here is the intersect between entrepreneurs with a higher probability of success. Venture capital/angel investors follow whichever sectors offer the greatest growth / future economic value. The article does not suggest that there is any sector that is being targeted.

I can't say that I'm a fan of Friedman but it would also seem like Gomory's concerns are overwrought. While I'm far from an impartial observer, it seems that Gomory simply echoes the same concerns and fears that many Americans (and the world) had of Japan. I did a quick search for the 'myth of balanced trade' and came up with this article (written with an ideological perspective but it was written in 1986 but it could have been written today in direct response to Gomory): http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/protectionism-the-my...

Further this concern that the US manufacturing industry is dying or dead is a myth (and quite handily, type in 'myths of US manufacturing' and you come up with the following article among many) - an excerpt "U.S. workers produce 21% of all factory goods made globally, or about $1.7 trillion worth per year. That's significantly lower than the peak of 28% in 1985 but only slightly below the long-term average of 23% for 1970 through 2006.": http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/CompanyFocus/...

What Gomory doesn't seem to address and why innovation factors so importantly (if Friedman, overstates his case, Gomory understates the value of innovation), ideas have far higher margins than their underlying component and fixed goods. A contract manufacturer in China might make 5% or less (that Gomory argues are already subidized by the Chinese government which implies that the Chinese government is losing money in this process) while Apple makes 30+ on the overall products it sells (and these products presumably aren't subsidized by the US government). So for that same dollar of trade that an American consumer is buying from China, more profit is retained in in the US as those same products are sold globally. This is why it's not necessary for there to be "balanced trade" and why countries like the UK had been able to run trade deficits for large periods of modern history.

If history is instructive, it's useful to also consider what's happened to Japan over the past few decades. The ascent of China, who Gomory targets, is very very far from trouble free or certain. Further, he seems to have this assumption if the US aims for balance of trade with China, those same deficits won't simply go to other developing nations. Ultimately it is consumers who bear the costs of imposing protectionist policies.

This in itself is remarkable. Even if costs are at parity, this is still amazing given that the technology is continuing to improve / scale. I'd be curious / suspicious as to the discount rate they are using to calculate the present value of long term costs - this is where they can manipulate the numbers in their favor.

Not entirely true. She has been as critical as many NGO interventions - "The types of aid that I’m talking about, I’m not talking about humanitarian or emergency aid, sort of the aid that goes for tsunami, for example. Nor am I talking about NGO or charitable aid which is relatively small beer. I myself sit on the board of a number of charities. But I think it’s important where charities are concerned to understand what they can and cannot do. So they can provide Band-Aid solutions. So we can send a girl to school for example, but they cannot deliver long-term economic development growth and growth or alleviate poverty on the level that we want to see across the continent." (http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/21352...)

Aren't you assuming it wouldn't be even worse with traffic controls? Developing countries deal with the rapid increase of car ownership leading to road capacity issues pretty quickly.

It was the excess underpriced leverage that got us into the whole subprime crisis of 2008. CDS's are financial tools that allow buyers and sellers to expose themselves to certain risks. Whether this is used for insurance/hedge or as a bet on a certain outcome is and should be at the discretion of the buyer/seller.

FWIW we've been running out of oil for even longer than that: "In 1919 United States Geological Survey (USGS) head George Otis Smith even predicted that the nation would be out of oil in nine years." http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/05/0520_040520_...

While I don't doubt volumes have fallen as a result of things like email, the US postal service also hasn't done itself any favors. You read anecdotes like this, and it's a wonder that volumes haven't plummeted even faster: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/04/things-a...

Despite the on-again off-again media hysteria, it would seem that there is some promising research on the horizon. Check out the TED talk by Kary Mullis: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/kary_mullis_next_gen_cure_... "Drug-resistant bacteria kills, even in top hospitals. But now tough infections like staph and anthrax may be in for a surprise. Nobel-winning chemist Kary Mullis, who watched a friend die when powerful antibiotics failed, unveils a radical new cure that shows extraordinary promise."

Thanks. Title corrected. By way of followup/addendum: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/weak-tsunami-hits-polyn... - "Weak tsunami hits Polynesia"

The Lomborg Deception isn't out yet (March 16 is the ship date according to Amazon). I should have specified that Lomborg addresses each of Friel's claims made in the book review/editorial and then some.

Why would fact checking anyone, that by Newsweek's own admission has had high praise from policy makers and any number of publications, be "distasteful"? Newsweek makes the claim that Friel's book is a debunking and achieves its task by referencing three of his primary claims. Begley however does not even bother to thoroughly examine them or take Lomborg's pointed rebuttals into consideration in her sloppy "analysis".

Have you bothered to read Lomborg's rebuttal? It thoroughly addresses each of the claims that Friel makes [at least in the book review]. (as linked by Luyt: http://www.lomborg.com/dyn/files/basic_items/118-file/BL%20r...)

Did you even read Begley's screed? As WindsofChange notes: http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/where_tone_torpedoes_c..., Newsweek discredits itself in its opening paragraph. Since when is "fact checking" so distasteful so as to be considered to be one of the worst jobs by Newsweek? I mean isn't that supposed to be sort of their job? And they wonder why circulation continues to freefall (falling from 2.6M to 1.5M http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-washington-post-company...) in one year alone!

There was no "debunking" here. What exists, appears a desperate editor watching her circulation plunge while she attempts to hype a made up controversy to plug the hole.

There's a journalistic dictum if I recall that goes something like: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" [Thanks sailormoon for the correction]. The evidence from both Begley and Friel do not rise to this level especially as Begley attempts to trash not only Lomborg, casting aspersions on both the reviewers of Lomborg's work and Lomborg himself. What is particularly galling is how profoundly unskeptical Newsweek was of Friel's claims and the remarkably anti-intellectual stance they've taken.

Not sure why you're getting downvotes for this. Lomborg's defense directly addresses Friel's rather serious claims (the same cannot be said for Friel). On the other hand, at least as this blog notes: http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/where_tone_torpedoes_c..., we now know quite clearly where Newsweek stands on the issue especially as they outsource their skepticism to foreign news services despite recent challenges to the "gold-standard" IPCC reports.

My problem with this is that in effect we are asking the young to pay for services that they will not ever see. There is a fundamental fairness problem here. It's also not as if governments (and many people who voted for them) never understood the demographics.

As for keeping Grandma alive, the closer we come to a government run system, the less you will be in control of what happens to your Grandma and instead subject to increasingly draconian policies of what is and isn't covered given that governments the world over are trying to do more with dwindling resources - something is going to give.

Profit is not the problem. For a site about startups/building businesses, that's a rather bizarre argument - ie this is asking how can anyone can care for their customers and their bottomline at the same time? (so is that an argument for effectively nationalizing everything?)

This assumes that the alternative maximizes efficiency - and can you honestly say that about how the US government administers Medicare? Look at education - sure it's not "for profit" if you ignore the ever increasing profits that accrue to teachers' unions.

Besides, despite all the handwringing over those profit maximizing bastards at private healthcare insurers, guess who is the largest denier of healthcare claims? http://biggovernment.com/ptuohe/2009/10/05/ama-endorses-larg...

I have no problems paying taxes - but let's not be disingenuous about it claiming that they are forcing the young to pay for insurance for their own good. If we need taxes to pay for services of the elderly, then let's call it like it is.

The screwed up part of the system is that the idea used to be that you'd pay into the system with an expectation that you would eventually get the same services as you got older - but have you even looked at the actuarial tables lately? Practically ever western country has massive unfunded liabilities especially as the baby boomers retire.

Personally I like Megan McArdle's solution - let people buy catastrophic loss insurance and fund the rest out of your own pockets. The premiums would be relatively minimal - but the idea that we have to have the government provide insurance / or that even what's proposed in the current legislation solves this problem is frankly nuts. I find it absolutely bizarre that as a Canadian, that while the US government spends more per capita on publicly funded Medicare/Medicaid than Canadians do, coverage for Americans is spotty at best - and you want the US government to get even more involved in healthcare through regulation and direct interventions?

Try http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Investors+Recruit+T... - and clicking on the first link... not sure if that still works

Thanks - didn't notice that it wasn't the original - it came through my rss feed / post of aggregate links.

Sounds like they fear the outcome of a 99designs.com type world - and legitimately so. But, why wouldn't they just refuse to pitch to clients who do this? Alternatively, as they suggest, they should spend less on pitching - but my guess is that if the prize is big enough they'd do it anyway.

A strike seems like a silly response that could also be interpreted to attempting to reduce competition in a specific region and in effect form a cartel - a cartel that would seem to be counterintuitive especially when the barrier to good ideas is no longer limited within borders.

I have to wonder if "major players came together to design rules of the game" in the US in any industry group that it wouldn't be considered to be anti-trust.

Originally published in 1993. While I think the value of good design is still discounted, it's being discounted to a much smaller degree (1) post-Apple and given (2) how much more critical good UI/design is to the web/software.

I found this rant a bit vapid - you'll find more usable information here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1041452 (or read Gary Taubes' Good Calories, Bad Calories).

I think Oliver clearly identifies a problem (and quite passionately believes in what he says), but the solution seems squishy - "fighting obesity" and "education" are great ideas but when you empower people with bad ideas that's probably worse than useless. Besides, the problem isn't educating the kids but the parents.

A similar but a bit less abstract post from Seth Godin: http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2010/02/the-brand-th...

There are numerous examples in developing countries/dictatorships/autocracies where wealth is physically taken away from the poor - and where the poor have no recourse because of poor legal systems/governance. However, this article is about a man in Austria who had some type of business not an autocrat stealing oil and brutalizing countrymen (for which hopefully such a man/woman ultimately does feel guilt).

Wealthy countries become wealthy not by harvesting natural resources but by harnessing entrepreneurs and generating ideas. It's why capital overwhelmingly gets invested in developed countries and not developing ones - ie the returns are simply better.

Poverty does destroy the environment. Look at the pattern of development for any country. The environment gets worse and then better because once people stop worrying about putting food on the table they start worrying more about the quality of the food they eat and the air they breath and are often willing to pay a premium (not to mention to protect their own property rights from polluters).

This is why East Germany was by far a worse polluter than West Germany, similarly for North and South Korea, etc. Thinking that virtually every productive activity has negative externalities may be true but should also take into account the much greater positive externalities.

"All the money will go into his microcredit charity, which offers small loans to Latin America and builds development aid strategies to self-employed people in El Salvador, Honduras, Bolivia, Peru, Argentina and Chile."

The sad irony is that microcredit/microfinance works best when it's not a charity - further there are numerous examples of microcredits that do operate as charities and who end up squandering money on inefficient operations than reaching the poor because of how their performance is measured.

As you point out, the idea that wealth comes from taking from the poor is not only wrong, but often harmful to the very people those like this donor claims he wants to help.

The issues in Congo are troubling/horrifying but as it pertains to Rwanda, the atrocities were made ever more stark by the fact that estimates place up to 1/5th of the population being murdered. Further, it didn't help that the Congolese government backed by France at the time backed the Hutu government in Rwanda that committed the atrocities. I admit I'm not as familiar with the details of what's happened in the DRC so I should have specified that it was what I found most troubling about the Rwandan massacres/genocide. I won't defend the atrocities in Rwanda (and committed by Rwanda in the DRC), though I will note that a key issue to peace has been that members of the former Hutu government fled into the Congo and have also launched attacks from there ever since.

I note further that it isn't just former members of the Hutu government that have seemed to run amok in the DRC, the LRA that has had a history of attacks into Uganda and kidnapped child soldiers have also found shelter in the DRC.

It is a complete mess though even in the Congo, the history of direct French involvement when it came to mercantilism can be traced to just prior to the recent civil war (ie oil contracts). A big part of French/Belgian legacy (and a recent one at that) has been the tribalism that was allowed to flourish if not even encouraged.

Other starting points for you to read: - http://www.afrol.com/articles/16082 - http://www.africa-confidential.com/article-preview/id/509/No... - http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/mitterrand-legacy-under... - http://crinfo.beyondintractability.org/case_studies/rwandan_...

Perhaps "conspiracy theory" was a poor choice of words since they're not so much theories. The approach of divide and conquer had long been used in Africa to manage populations within colonies. Further, the identity cards that marked large "H" and "T"'s to denote Hutu's and Tutsi's were both used and encouraged despite intermarriage between the two groups being "frequent" as documented by the UNHCR (http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/topic,463af2212,469f2d0c2,3df4...)

I note further that it is no secret that French colonies have significantly lower economic growth than their British counterparts: http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/G/Robin.M.Grier-1/religion.pdf (pdf). Africa in general has faced a number of difficulties - but even within Africa there are some much better examples of governance than others and in almost each (if not all) of those cases, those examples were not French colonies (there's a TED presentation by Hans Rosling if I recall, that speaks to economic growth/poverty in Africa)

Not sure I agree with that - certainly, radio became a catalyst to incite violence, but the problem wasn't radio, but that there weren't enough radio voices. Media was primarily state controlled as the article points out and Tutsis were used as scape goats for all manner of problems at the time.

The problem in believing that it's 'technology can be a negative' in this case is that the solution for some people would be to ration and control what technology gets distributed which perversely is the reasoning for the government run media and lack of competition ('the news is too important to let private enterprise bias the public').

Finally, while I can accept that radio was a catalyst, the groundwork for the genocide was laid long in advance and facilitated by France (http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/article.aspx?id=1940) in the last couple decades. The silly conspiracy theories the US gets frequently accused of, France actually did in Rwanda (and continues to attempt to do in many former colonies with their foreign policy based more on mercantilism than trade - only the most recent example being Cote D'Ivoire).

What is most troubling about Rwanda is how (at least until Sarkozy was elected), France defends its role and also members of the government that initiated this genocide at the UN. It's little wonder then when I visited Rwanda (possibly one of the biggest emotional experiences of my life was after hearing the director of a orphanage speak in graphic detail of some of the horrifying massacres and killings that took place), that everyone seemed to want to learn English.