Thursday, July 20, 2006
Causes of the Great Depression
I had a lousy night, and I'm not up to tackling writing projects today, so here's a quick write-up on the cause of the Great Depression. I don't know whether this idea has been mentioned before or not (perhaps it has a long bibliography) so I thought I'd write it up:
As I was reading a compilation of history essays about the nineteen-twenties, “Ain't We Got Fun?” edited by Barbara H. Solomon, I was struck by a large change in consumer behavior in the Roaring Twenties... the spread of product advertising, and the installment plan; fueled by (and fueling) increases in prosperity for ordinary people the like of which we've never seen in our lifetimes: “By 1923 factory workers were averaging twice the cash income they they had earned in 1914.” (page one) Apparently, this widespread acceptance of consumer credit represented an ethical sea change at the time. On page three of the introduction, the editor states that: “Prior to the 1920s the public had held generally negative attitudes toward credit purchasing. Young people were warned against burdening themselves with a lifetime of debt... In the Twenties all that was turned around... Millions of ready buyers were convinced that there was no need to deprive themselves of the magnificent new appliances...” She goes on to say that 15 percent of goods were sold on installment plans, which doesn't count other sources of loans for merchanise.
I wonder if this didn't contribute heavily to the Depression to come – two effects would have helped precipitate it. First, in a one-time shift, a huge number of purchases were moved forward by years, creating the illusion of enormous economic growth; but only an illusion because people weren't necessarily spending more over their lifetimes, it was only that a mass of people chose to spend sooner, creating a burst of growth that couldn't be sustained and didn't represent a growth in productivity or production. That acceleration of spending forward in time may have been trailing to an end by the time the decade was out. Secondly, this change in spending habits also represented a massive drop in savings. In previous decades, when hard times hit, nearly everybody had a substantial cash reserve. Even if they weren't consciously saving for bad times, the ethic passed down to everyone by their parents insisted that this was how one saved up for fairly large household purchases. Therefore, previously, during bad times consumer spending didn't instantly dry up – there was money for at least some goods, although larger purchases would be hit hard. That previous pattern was one which businesses and banks had great experience with, and could well plan for. But the new economy was just different. In a downturn, demand could now become very elastic indeed, plummeting earthward with astounding speed as large blocks of consumers found themselves without any ability to spend, period, since they now had no savings. Now, nearly the whole economy was on the roller-coaster.
Of course, this wasn't the first “Depression”. The very word “Depression” was introduced because it didn't sound quite so bad as the term “Recession”, since that had been used during the last memorable downturn around 1870. But those economic reversals were shorter, and not the same order of catastrophe. The Great Depression turned out to be a whole different sort of beast.
In time, arguably, other factors have ameliorated the greater elasticity of the consumer economy caused by consumer credit – Roosevelt introduced an equal and opposite countervailing force, the forward collection of taxes through payroll deductions during World War II as a cash grab; and increased (relatively inelastic) government spending has smoothed out some bumps as well. Now and then the Federal Reserve changes interest rates in the correct direction, too. In the Thirties, responsible officials understood before the crash that they “should” increase interest rates to curb enthusiasm, but by the time this was clear to them, it was also quite clear that there would likely be a very sharp downturn if they did increase interest rates, and that it was they who would be blamed for the resulting recession, and no-one else. They declined that honor, and let the problem build.
As I was reading a compilation of history essays about the nineteen-twenties, “Ain't We Got Fun?” edited by Barbara H. Solomon, I was struck by a large change in consumer behavior in the Roaring Twenties... the spread of product advertising, and the installment plan; fueled by (and fueling) increases in prosperity for ordinary people the like of which we've never seen in our lifetimes: “By 1923 factory workers were averaging twice the cash income they they had earned in 1914.” (page one) Apparently, this widespread acceptance of consumer credit represented an ethical sea change at the time. On page three of the introduction, the editor states that: “Prior to the 1920s the public had held generally negative attitudes toward credit purchasing. Young people were warned against burdening themselves with a lifetime of debt... In the Twenties all that was turned around... Millions of ready buyers were convinced that there was no need to deprive themselves of the magnificent new appliances...” She goes on to say that 15 percent of goods were sold on installment plans, which doesn't count other sources of loans for merchanise.
I wonder if this didn't contribute heavily to the Depression to come – two effects would have helped precipitate it. First, in a one-time shift, a huge number of purchases were moved forward by years, creating the illusion of enormous economic growth; but only an illusion because people weren't necessarily spending more over their lifetimes, it was only that a mass of people chose to spend sooner, creating a burst of growth that couldn't be sustained and didn't represent a growth in productivity or production. That acceleration of spending forward in time may have been trailing to an end by the time the decade was out. Secondly, this change in spending habits also represented a massive drop in savings. In previous decades, when hard times hit, nearly everybody had a substantial cash reserve. Even if they weren't consciously saving for bad times, the ethic passed down to everyone by their parents insisted that this was how one saved up for fairly large household purchases. Therefore, previously, during bad times consumer spending didn't instantly dry up – there was money for at least some goods, although larger purchases would be hit hard. That previous pattern was one which businesses and banks had great experience with, and could well plan for. But the new economy was just different. In a downturn, demand could now become very elastic indeed, plummeting earthward with astounding speed as large blocks of consumers found themselves without any ability to spend, period, since they now had no savings. Now, nearly the whole economy was on the roller-coaster.
Of course, this wasn't the first “Depression”. The very word “Depression” was introduced because it didn't sound quite so bad as the term “Recession”, since that had been used during the last memorable downturn around 1870. But those economic reversals were shorter, and not the same order of catastrophe. The Great Depression turned out to be a whole different sort of beast.
In time, arguably, other factors have ameliorated the greater elasticity of the consumer economy caused by consumer credit – Roosevelt introduced an equal and opposite countervailing force, the forward collection of taxes through payroll deductions during World War II as a cash grab; and increased (relatively inelastic) government spending has smoothed out some bumps as well. Now and then the Federal Reserve changes interest rates in the correct direction, too. In the Thirties, responsible officials understood before the crash that they “should” increase interest rates to curb enthusiasm, but by the time this was clear to them, it was also quite clear that there would likely be a very sharp downturn if they did increase interest rates, and that it was they who would be blamed for the resulting recession, and no-one else. They declined that honor, and let the problem build.
Saturday, July 08, 2006
Calling a thing by its name
"Penne Rigate will spontaneously insert itself into Rigatoni (order pasta) under liquid to gas transition conditions of H2O to create the previously unobserved species Noodleous doubleous. The estimated probability of this spontaneous generation event is too low to be explained by thermodynamics and therefore apparently represents intelligent design."
Intelligent Design is hilariously lampooned in the above link which details an experiment in the random self-organization of kitchen noodles. But ignorance of what is meant by the "theory of Natural Selection", has much more serious consequences.
ID and its ilk always trade on the use of the word "theory". (As in "theory of evolution" or "theory of gravity".)
Most of the time, scientists use the word "theory" to mean "General or Overarching Truth". NOT "something dubious", which is what it means in common english.
Of course, such scientific "General Truths" begin as "tentatively proposed general truths" - which is still the only translation laypeople can make of the word "theory." To quote Caltech Professor David L. Goodstein:
"There are theories in science, which are so well verified by experience that they become promoted to the status of fact. One example is the Special Theory of Relativity-it's still called a theory for historical reasons, but it is in reality a simple, engineering fact, routinely used in the design of giant machines, like nuclear particle accelerators, which always work perfectly. Another example of that sort of thing is the theory of evolution. These are called theories, but they are in reality among the best established facts in all of human knowledge."
- David L. Goodstein, 1985, Atoms to Quarks, video lecture 51 of "The Mechanical Universe ... and beyond"; California Institute of Technology/Intelecom
So it's time for scientists to change, so as not to mislead the public further. Use "the 'General Truth' about Gravity (as discovered by Newton)" and "the 'General Truth' of Evolution", etc, and leave the word theory for tentatively proposed General Truths such as String Theory (until some evidence piles up.) What can be simply fixed should be simply fixed.
Of course, all human truths might possibly be overturned - we know that Newton's General Truth about Gravity isn't quite true, post-Einstein, for example. But these scientific claims to truth have as much gravity as any others we know of.
Intelligent Design is hilariously lampooned in the above link which details an experiment in the random self-organization of kitchen noodles. But ignorance of what is meant by the "theory of Natural Selection", has much more serious consequences.
ID and its ilk always trade on the use of the word "theory". (As in "theory of evolution" or "theory of gravity".)
Most of the time, scientists use the word "theory" to mean "General or Overarching Truth". NOT "something dubious", which is what it means in common english.
Of course, such scientific "General Truths" begin as "tentatively proposed general truths" - which is still the only translation laypeople can make of the word "theory." To quote Caltech Professor David L. Goodstein:
"There are theories in science, which are so well verified by experience that they become promoted to the status of fact. One example is the Special Theory of Relativity-it's still called a theory for historical reasons, but it is in reality a simple, engineering fact, routinely used in the design of giant machines, like nuclear particle accelerators, which always work perfectly. Another example of that sort of thing is the theory of evolution. These are called theories, but they are in reality among the best established facts in all of human knowledge."
- David L. Goodstein, 1985, Atoms to Quarks, video lecture 51 of "The Mechanical Universe ... and beyond"; California Institute of Technology/Intelecom
So it's time for scientists to change, so as not to mislead the public further. Use "the 'General Truth' about Gravity (as discovered by Newton)" and "the 'General Truth' of Evolution", etc, and leave the word theory for tentatively proposed General Truths such as String Theory (until some evidence piles up.) What can be simply fixed should be simply fixed.
Of course, all human truths might possibly be overturned - we know that Newton's General Truth about Gravity isn't quite true, post-Einstein, for example. But these scientific claims to truth have as much gravity as any others we know of.
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
Shockley unmourned...
The New Statesmen loathes everything about him. Can't blame them, however that's not the whole story...
I saw Shockley in person arguing for his position at Harvard, and he was repellent at first glance, just striding onto the stage. My first impression was of a demented marine officer who just liked to bully. But his arguments and evidence, stripped of the intimidating body english, were pedestrian and correct. He wildly exaggerated the broad implications of his results, and the other side even more wildly exaggerated the implications of what they had found. Both sides simply spoke past each other, imagining that they were contradicting one another. What a pity that political correctness had so taken hold by then that almost no competent researcher then dared to do a better job, and it was left to Shockley, who was far more competent at the job than this article suggests, but not exactly a good mascot.
The real story is the cowardice of his contemporaries, which helped obscure (prevent the discovery of) fetal alcohol syndrome for many, many years, allowing the political correctness of the day to do untold damage.
I also saw Vernon at work, at the University of Calgary, talking about his studies, revealing what was really an epidemic of FAS amongst native populations in Alberta. Vernon, I'm sorry to say, did strike me as a racist, which was a tag I couldn't pin on Shockley's comments during his talk. But his results were not imaginary – just sorrowfully ignored as “unacceptable”. The consensus of those I went with was that Vernon shouldn't have been allowed to publish or to perform the studies at all – FAS was undreamt of then, and would remain "undicovered" for long years afterward. Venron's prejudice kept him from making the discovery, his audiences prejudices kept them from taking in the facts they were presented with at all. Many suffered terribly as a result.
Someday, maybe scientists will start to consider more than one opinion acceptable at a time before the evidence is in. Maybe – but don't bet your tenure on it.
I saw Shockley in person arguing for his position at Harvard, and he was repellent at first glance, just striding onto the stage. My first impression was of a demented marine officer who just liked to bully. But his arguments and evidence, stripped of the intimidating body english, were pedestrian and correct. He wildly exaggerated the broad implications of his results, and the other side even more wildly exaggerated the implications of what they had found. Both sides simply spoke past each other, imagining that they were contradicting one another. What a pity that political correctness had so taken hold by then that almost no competent researcher then dared to do a better job, and it was left to Shockley, who was far more competent at the job than this article suggests, but not exactly a good mascot.
The real story is the cowardice of his contemporaries, which helped obscure (prevent the discovery of) fetal alcohol syndrome for many, many years, allowing the political correctness of the day to do untold damage.
I also saw Vernon at work, at the University of Calgary, talking about his studies, revealing what was really an epidemic of FAS amongst native populations in Alberta. Vernon, I'm sorry to say, did strike me as a racist, which was a tag I couldn't pin on Shockley's comments during his talk. But his results were not imaginary – just sorrowfully ignored as “unacceptable”. The consensus of those I went with was that Vernon shouldn't have been allowed to publish or to perform the studies at all – FAS was undreamt of then, and would remain "undicovered" for long years afterward. Venron's prejudice kept him from making the discovery, his audiences prejudices kept them from taking in the facts they were presented with at all. Many suffered terribly as a result.
Someday, maybe scientists will start to consider more than one opinion acceptable at a time before the evidence is in. Maybe – but don't bet your tenure on it.
Sunday, July 02, 2006
Worms for asthma
One way to deal with your asthma seems to be to deliberately get yourself infested with hookworms. That story is at asthmahookworm.com
I'm trying a slightly different path - here's a reply I've sent to the guy behind asthmahookworm.com with a new hypothesis about why worms work to keep asthma under control:
I've also put this note to you up at completeconfusion.com:
Before anything else I should mention a truly excellent recent review article, that's up on the web (freely available to all):
Clinical & Experimental Allergy
Volume 36 Page 402 - April 2006
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2222.2006.02463.x
Volume 36 Issue 4
Review
Too clean, or not too clean: the Hygiene Hypothesis and home hygiene
S. F. Bloomfield, R. Stanwell-Smith, R. W. R. Crevel and J. Pickup
Use of the term 'hygiene hypothesis' has led to several interpretations, some of which are not supported by a broader survey of the evidence. The increase in allergic disorders does not correlate with the decrease in infection with pathogenic organisms, nor can it be explained by changes in domestic hygiene. A consensus is beginning to develop round the view that more fundamental changes in lifestyle have led to decreased exposure to certain microbial or other species, such as helminths, that are important for the development of immunoregulatory mechanisms.
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1365-2222.2006.02463.x
Fascinating, with lots that's new to me, such as:
"The reunification of Germany provided some new insights into the influence of lifestyle on atopic disease within relatively homogeneous populations. Von Mutius et al. [9] showed that hayfever and atopic sensitization among children in the former East Germany both significantly increased between 1991–1992 and 1995–1996, raising the issue of 'Western living' influences on children, as previous studies had shown lower rates in East Germany compared with West Germany."
It's a mixed review at best - helminths seem to be a rather lonely success for the hygiene hypothesis, so just maybe there's another reason why helminths work... for instance, maybe they're eating selectively, perhaps reducing the otherwise surprisingly large amount of neurotransmitters that are in modern, cultured foods. (If so, a glutamate restricted diet should work as well as worms do against asthma.)
(This is only part of what I'm trying, so even though I'm having real success against asthma, this diet may not be why. But I am free of asthma, just now.)
The amino acid Glutamate/glutamine is the main neurotransmitter for humans - while lower creatures cheerfully use it as a food and energy source. It is extremely abundant in many modern, cultured foods such as wheat, soy, peanut butter and beans - up to 3% by weight in modern foods! Since it passes easily into the brain. supply and transport of glutamate are obvious targets in order to control seizures/epilepsy (however most current epilepsy drugs boost the inihibitory neurotransmitter GABA to counter glutamate et al and so reduce hyperexcitability.)
So I'm following the lead of http://dogtorj.tripod.com/id2.html, a veterinarian who first found that glutamate restricted diets helped pets with seizures. (He's not your regular scientist, but he also may be onto something.) The result, within days of my adopting the diet - no more seizures, but also, a bit later, no more hyperexcitable airways either, so no more asthma.
Even so, I don't think glutamate is the whole story behind modern asthma (but the rest of the story I'm still trying to write up.)
I think helminths can pretty much be counted on to eat a whole lot of glutamate, it's a great energy source for them. Because glutamate (think monosodium glutamate) makes foods taste better, foods we've shaped through agriculture have undoubtedly been selected to have more and more of it over the years - maybe too much of it for some of us, now, particularly with modern agricultural breeding techniques.
Russell Johnston
I'm trying a slightly different path - here's a reply I've sent to the guy behind asthmahookworm.com with a new hypothesis about why worms work to keep asthma under control:
I've also put this note to you up at completeconfusion.com:
Before anything else I should mention a truly excellent recent review article, that's up on the web (freely available to all):
Clinical & Experimental Allergy
Volume 36 Page 402 - April 2006
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2222.2006.02463.x
Volume 36 Issue 4
Review
Too clean, or not too clean: the Hygiene Hypothesis and home hygiene
S. F. Bloomfield, R. Stanwell-Smith, R. W. R. Crevel and J. Pickup
Use of the term 'hygiene hypothesis' has led to several interpretations, some of which are not supported by a broader survey of the evidence. The increase in allergic disorders does not correlate with the decrease in infection with pathogenic organisms, nor can it be explained by changes in domestic hygiene. A consensus is beginning to develop round the view that more fundamental changes in lifestyle have led to decreased exposure to certain microbial or other species, such as helminths, that are important for the development of immunoregulatory mechanisms.
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1365-2222.2006.02463.x
Fascinating, with lots that's new to me, such as:
"The reunification of Germany provided some new insights into the influence of lifestyle on atopic disease within relatively homogeneous populations. Von Mutius et al. [9] showed that hayfever and atopic sensitization among children in the former East Germany both significantly increased between 1991–1992 and 1995–1996, raising the issue of 'Western living' influences on children, as previous studies had shown lower rates in East Germany compared with West Germany."
It's a mixed review at best - helminths seem to be a rather lonely success for the hygiene hypothesis, so just maybe there's another reason why helminths work... for instance, maybe they're eating selectively, perhaps reducing the otherwise surprisingly large amount of neurotransmitters that are in modern, cultured foods. (If so, a glutamate restricted diet should work as well as worms do against asthma.)
(This is only part of what I'm trying, so even though I'm having real success against asthma, this diet may not be why. But I am free of asthma, just now.)
The amino acid Glutamate/glutamine is the main neurotransmitter for humans - while lower creatures cheerfully use it as a food and energy source. It is extremely abundant in many modern, cultured foods such as wheat, soy, peanut butter and beans - up to 3% by weight in modern foods! Since it passes easily into the brain. supply and transport of glutamate are obvious targets in order to control seizures/epilepsy (however most current epilepsy drugs boost the inihibitory neurotransmitter GABA to counter glutamate et al and so reduce hyperexcitability.)
So I'm following the lead of http://dogtorj.tripod.com/id2.html, a veterinarian who first found that glutamate restricted diets helped pets with seizures. (He's not your regular scientist, but he also may be onto something.) The result, within days of my adopting the diet - no more seizures, but also, a bit later, no more hyperexcitable airways either, so no more asthma.
Even so, I don't think glutamate is the whole story behind modern asthma (but the rest of the story I'm still trying to write up.)
I think helminths can pretty much be counted on to eat a whole lot of glutamate, it's a great energy source for them. Because glutamate (think monosodium glutamate) makes foods taste better, foods we've shaped through agriculture have undoubtedly been selected to have more and more of it over the years - maybe too much of it for some of us, now, particularly with modern agricultural breeding techniques.
Russell Johnston
