Dante had this sign hanging on the gates of Hell. Then inside he had level after level of evil doers. I guess he missed one. As the BBC reports:
"There's a special place in hell for women who don't help each other,"
says former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. The comment was
supposed to help Hillary Clinton but it has also exposed her problem
appealing to women voters.
She must be the Czech version of Dante. Now I like Prague a great deal. It has one of the oldest Universities, founded in 1348, it was the home of Kafka, its people managed to knock off the number 2 in the SS, they make great beer, fantastic cars, brilliant minds. But this accusation of eternal damnation for voter's choice may be even a bit too much for even Dante.
The response from the international press was quite interesting. It is worth the read.
Oh yes, and Cerberus, perhaps for this candidate it was the Investment Bank and not the dog at the gate!
Monday, February 8, 2016
Saturday, February 6, 2016
MOOCS and The Disconnect
I figured I would try another MOOC, this time R, since I have been doing statistics for fifty years and would like to see what they are proposing.
Well like so many of these things, you download R, then see the video, which does not in any way tell you how to load the R windows. The woman giving the lesson just proceeds assuming you know how to work the software!
If you cannot load the required 4 windows how in God's name do you follow the instructions? Well this is a U Texas program so why expect any more. I guess these folks do not do any programming. Remember, avoid ambiguity of expectations folks!
What does some poor person in Romania do here....spend hours flicking keys! Well it is Texas after all. Back to the Alamo!
Well like so many of these things, you download R, then see the video, which does not in any way tell you how to load the R windows. The woman giving the lesson just proceeds assuming you know how to work the software!
If you cannot load the required 4 windows how in God's name do you follow the instructions? Well this is a U Texas program so why expect any more. I guess these folks do not do any programming. Remember, avoid ambiguity of expectations folks!
What does some poor person in Romania do here....spend hours flicking keys! Well it is Texas after all. Back to the Alamo!
So This is Getting Better?
The CBO reports:
The federal budget deficit was $165 billion for the first four months of fiscal year 2016, CBO estimates—$29 billion less than the shortfall recorded in the same span last year. Receipts were 3 percent higher than they were at this time a year ago, and outlays were about the same. If not for shifts in the timing of certain payments (which otherwise would have fallen on a weekend), the deficit for the first four months of fiscal year 2016 would have been $10 billion larger than it was last year. If lawmakers enact no further legislation affecting spending or revenues this year, the federal government will end fiscal year 2016 with a deficit of $544 billion, or 2.9 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), CBO estimates, up from $439 billion, or 2.5 percent of GDP, in 2015. An estimated $43 billion of this year’s projected increase in the deficit will result from a shift in the timing of some payments that the government would ordinarily have made in fiscal year 2017 but that will instead be made in fiscal year 2016, because October 1, 2016—the first day of fiscal year 2017—falls on a weekend. If not for that shift, the projected deficit in 2016 would be $500 billion, or 2.7 percent of GDP.
Not really an improving situation. Perhaps this is a driver of the current market.
The federal budget deficit was $165 billion for the first four months of fiscal year 2016, CBO estimates—$29 billion less than the shortfall recorded in the same span last year. Receipts were 3 percent higher than they were at this time a year ago, and outlays were about the same. If not for shifts in the timing of certain payments (which otherwise would have fallen on a weekend), the deficit for the first four months of fiscal year 2016 would have been $10 billion larger than it was last year. If lawmakers enact no further legislation affecting spending or revenues this year, the federal government will end fiscal year 2016 with a deficit of $544 billion, or 2.9 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), CBO estimates, up from $439 billion, or 2.5 percent of GDP, in 2015. An estimated $43 billion of this year’s projected increase in the deficit will result from a shift in the timing of some payments that the government would ordinarily have made in fiscal year 2017 but that will instead be made in fiscal year 2016, because October 1, 2016—the first day of fiscal year 2017—falls on a weekend. If not for that shift, the projected deficit in 2016 would be $500 billion, or 2.7 percent of GDP.
Not really an improving situation. Perhaps this is a driver of the current market.
Net Neutrality or Antitrust
As ArsTechnica reports:
Verizon Wireless is testing the limits of the Federal Communications Commission's net neutrality rules after announcing that it will exempt its own video service from mobile data caps—while counting data from competitors such as YouTube and Netflix against customers' caps. The only way for companies to deliver data to Verizon customers without counting against their data caps is to pay the carrier, something no major rival video service has chosen to do. While data cap exemptions are not specifically outlawed by the FCC's net neutrality rules, the FCC is examining these arrangements to determine whether they should be stopped under the commission's so-called "general conduct standard." The FCC is already looking into data cap exemptions—also known as zero-rating—implemented by Comcast, AT&T, and T-Mobile USA.
This is less of a Net Neutrality issue than possibly an Antitrust issue. The wireless channel is a distribution channel. It was "bought" at an auction but still is using a public airwaves. More importantly they are bundling or tying a purchase at the disadvantage of a competitor.
One wonders where the DoJ Antitrust Division is on this one. Some 20 years ago I addressed this specific point. But somehow the Government has spent 20 years in some alternate universe. My specific concern then was Verizon and access and it is essentially the same argument.
In addition some decade ago I also discussed Internet Neutrality in similar terms. The combination of the 1996 paper and the 2006 paper are ever so more relevant today.
Verizon Wireless is testing the limits of the Federal Communications Commission's net neutrality rules after announcing that it will exempt its own video service from mobile data caps—while counting data from competitors such as YouTube and Netflix against customers' caps. The only way for companies to deliver data to Verizon customers without counting against their data caps is to pay the carrier, something no major rival video service has chosen to do. While data cap exemptions are not specifically outlawed by the FCC's net neutrality rules, the FCC is examining these arrangements to determine whether they should be stopped under the commission's so-called "general conduct standard." The FCC is already looking into data cap exemptions—also known as zero-rating—implemented by Comcast, AT&T, and T-Mobile USA.
This is less of a Net Neutrality issue than possibly an Antitrust issue. The wireless channel is a distribution channel. It was "bought" at an auction but still is using a public airwaves. More importantly they are bundling or tying a purchase at the disadvantage of a competitor.
One wonders where the DoJ Antitrust Division is on this one. Some 20 years ago I addressed this specific point. But somehow the Government has spent 20 years in some alternate universe. My specific concern then was Verizon and access and it is essentially the same argument.
In addition some decade ago I also discussed Internet Neutrality in similar terms. The combination of the 1996 paper and the 2006 paper are ever so more relevant today.
Who Is Underwrting Whom?
The ACA and Medicare may very well have created a tremendous distortion in the payment for Health Care. In a Pro ACA puff piece in Modern Healthcare the author writes:
Here's what Manhattan freelance writer .... feared when she went to an Affordable Care Act enrollment counselor for 2016 health insurance: a “terrible premium with a terrible deductible for a plan that covered nothing.” Instead, she says she was “absolutely surprised” by an option she knew nothing about. ... signed up herself, her husband, who's a freelance artist, and their young son for New York State's new Essential Plan. Her family will pay $49 a month for a plan through Empire Blue Cross and Blue Shield that has no deductible and covers most of their regular providers. They were previously paying $500 a month for an exchange plan with a $3,500 deductible. “I can't tell you how relieved we were,” she said. On Jan. 1, New York became the second state to launch a version of the Basic Health Program (BHP) option authorized by the ACA, serving people with incomes between 138% and 200% of the federal poverty level, plus legal immigrants who don't immediately qualify for Medicaid. Consistent with .... experience, the state's advertising slogan for the Essential Plan is “You'd be surprised.”
Yes indeed, a young family in New York City with a child is paying just $49 per month. While a Medicare family with no medical bills pays $500 per month additional to Medicare, $8,000 per year to a Medicare gap Plan, then another $2,000 per year for a Medicare Part D, and then if they are lucky to work or have other income an added 3% tax on that plus 3% on any capital gains. That is on top of having paid into Medicare since 1965! And yes, we have not included the deductible.
So we now have a system where those who have contributed are underwriting and financing those who are NOT contributing.
This is not Socialism, it is "Let's let the old folks die off!" not realizing that it is still the old folks who are footing the bill!
So why no discussion about this inequity? Imagine, $49 per month and no deductible! Try and get that on Medicare!
Here's what Manhattan freelance writer .... feared when she went to an Affordable Care Act enrollment counselor for 2016 health insurance: a “terrible premium with a terrible deductible for a plan that covered nothing.” Instead, she says she was “absolutely surprised” by an option she knew nothing about. ... signed up herself, her husband, who's a freelance artist, and their young son for New York State's new Essential Plan. Her family will pay $49 a month for a plan through Empire Blue Cross and Blue Shield that has no deductible and covers most of their regular providers. They were previously paying $500 a month for an exchange plan with a $3,500 deductible. “I can't tell you how relieved we were,” she said. On Jan. 1, New York became the second state to launch a version of the Basic Health Program (BHP) option authorized by the ACA, serving people with incomes between 138% and 200% of the federal poverty level, plus legal immigrants who don't immediately qualify for Medicaid. Consistent with .... experience, the state's advertising slogan for the Essential Plan is “You'd be surprised.”
Yes indeed, a young family in New York City with a child is paying just $49 per month. While a Medicare family with no medical bills pays $500 per month additional to Medicare, $8,000 per year to a Medicare gap Plan, then another $2,000 per year for a Medicare Part D, and then if they are lucky to work or have other income an added 3% tax on that plus 3% on any capital gains. That is on top of having paid into Medicare since 1965! And yes, we have not included the deductible.
So we now have a system where those who have contributed are underwriting and financing those who are NOT contributing.
This is not Socialism, it is "Let's let the old folks die off!" not realizing that it is still the old folks who are footing the bill!
So why no discussion about this inequity? Imagine, $49 per month and no deductible! Try and get that on Medicare!
Thursday, February 4, 2016
Ockham and the Present
Ockham Explained by Keele is an excellent work describing
Ockham and his philosophical thought. It is worth reading for those who want an
introduction to Ockham and also for those who have spent time reading and
trying to understand Ockham.
The book is arranged chronologically with Ockham’s life and
it presents a well-orchestrated flow of the development of his philosophical
ideas, especially the development of his view of nominalism. What is important
to understand is that Ockham came from the culture of Scholasticism and form of
argument was often as important as content. The Scholastic was initially
trained in the Trivium (Grammar, Logic, and Rhetoric) which placed significant
emphasis on forms of usage and methods of argumentation. Breaking through that
cultural-temporal mask can oftentimes be difficult if not impossible but Keele
does a brilliant job in making is accessible to the present day audience.
The book is arranged by chronological segments in his life.
Chapter 2 is an excellent presentation of the education of a young Friar in the
Franciscans in England. pp 17-18 is one of the better presentations of the ten
Categories of Aristotle, as learned in the Trivium by all students in the day.
It would become one of the pillars that Ockham would chip away at. Aristotle,
the Philosopher, was regarded as a near divinity in understanding by many of
the Scholastics but it was Ockham who using the tools of Scholastic analysis
started to chip away at this then 1600 century façade. pp 21-22 discusses the
construct of Universals and its importance to the Church. This is acritical
factor to understand. Whereas much of Aquinas had been rejected shortly after
his death he was soon resurrected and canonized a Saint and his “logic” became
a bulwark for the Church. This is a problem for Ockham.
Chapter 3 takes the student as Ockham a bit further from the
basics of Grammar to the intricacies of logic. The author does a wonderful
presentation on terms and also on the basics of logic as engaged by Ockham at
the time. This is a critical chapter for the reader to understand the
transition of Ockham from a student who learns the tools to Ockham the
philosopher who starts to break them down. The summary on p 59 is excellent in setting
the stage for the development of what would be the rebel phases.
Chapter 4 discusses Ockham as a teacher. It is not clear
from the record as to whether Ockham was at Oxford of in London and what time
he may have been at each. In the records of Merton at Oxford there is even
ambiguity and uncertainty. However he did manage to go back and forth. This
Chapter does a brilliant job in explaining how Ockham took apart Aristotle’s
Categories and in the process sets the stage for nominalism. Starting on pp
63-64 he uses Porphyrian trees to demonstrate the categories and in turn the
individuals which we recognize. A good example of the problem is the statement
that “Roses are red”. We understand the universal species of a rose and the
predicate red. But what do we mean by red? Today we can a spectrophotometer and
present a detailed spectrum of a red rose. The problem is that each red rose
may very well have a slightly different spectrophotometer reading. So what are
we to believe; the facts of our “lying” eyes? That is a challenge for Ockham.
This Chapter ends on p 84 with a discussion of the connotation theory which is
essential to much of the further insight.
Chapter 5 starts the discussion of the attacks on Ockham.
One would have suspected attacks by the Dominicans but his attacks came from
Franciscans. Chapter 5 is an excellent discussion of those attacks and
especially the articulation of the “razor” principle and its explanation. The
author has a superb talent in explaining the razor with various twists and
turns and all in very readable style. Frankly this is one of the best I have
read over the years.
Chapter 6 discusses Ockham’s response. But what I found most
enlightening was the discussion on Ockham and motion. I have read some of
Ockham’s writings on motion and unless one truly understands the Scholastics
mind one can get quite confused. Motion to Ockham was not motion as we
understand it. pp 122-131 is a superb discussion
of this issue and the author presents the understanding of motion by the
Scholastic as something much different than what we do today. It does raise the
question, however, of what influence the work of Roger Bacon may have had since
Bacon “measured” things whereas Ockham remains in the world of Scholastic
abstraction. The reader less attuned to Scholastic thought and technique may
wonder what the fuss is all about; but read the material and it will easily
explain.
Chapter 7 takes Ockham to Avignon and in a sense this is the
beginning of the Renaissance and the end of the Middle Ages. Ockham is ordered
to report to Pope John XXII, the Avignon French Pope, no longer and the Bishop
of Rome. The initial demand to appear is over possible heretical implications
in his writings. Frankly this was not all that uncommon; many writings were
purged with no serious consequence to the author, Aquinas being one at times.
But Ockham was then drawn into the battle of poverty, the Spirituals in the
Franciscan order and the examination of the writings of John XXII. John XXII
was a regal pope and educated as a Canon Lawyer. Canon Lawyers and Theologians
were like plumbers versus vascular surgeons. No criticism on plumbers, but they
knew the code often as they wrote it. Theologians were few and far between
whereas Canon Lawyers ran rampant in Papal hallways. Thus the battle was
joined. Ockham read the writings on John XXII and to his surprise found them
heretical. Thus he saw the Pope as a heretic, since after he explained them the
Pope did not recant but attacked. One suspects that Ockham lacked some basic
Palace social skills!
In Chapter 8 the author briefly takes Ockham on his midnight
escape from Avignon to Munich. The chapter is brief and of all the writing in
the book I had hope for an equal amount of attention, at least on the Work of Ninety
Days, his political thesis. It was from 1328 through 1348 when he dies that
there was a mass of writings on political thought. In fact it was some of the
most powerful political writings and the beginning of what we now understand as
democratic liberalism (I use liberalism in the classic English political
sense). Thus the one thing I would have really like would be the author’s
writings on this period.
As noted, the book is not all of Ockham. To some degree that
is regrettable but understandable. What the author presents of Ockham and his
philosophical insight as explained above. What is missing are the other two
parts of Ockham’s writings; his theological works and most importantly his
political works. Theologically Ockham was in stark contradistinction to
Aquinas. As Aquinas saw logic and reason as a means to understand God we see
Ockham reintroducing faith. On the political front there is a significant amount
of Ockham introducing the concepts of individualism, the separation of Church
and State, and the limited powers of the ruling class. The author has no
mention of Marsilius of Padua who played a parallel role to Ockham in the
political area.
But why is Ockham so important today? His philosophy or theology is just fine. However his political philosophy is critical. He was the first true philosopher of individualism. He saw in a Pope a hertic and said so. Strange that John XXIII took a name to follow John XXII. But Ockham stated that Popes have at best some limited spiritual authority but no temporal. He also noted the essential nature of the individual and that the power of the ruler came from the people and not God. This is an excellent work and worthy of some thought.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
