.

Tuesday, April 17, 2012

Diversion:  Lakes and Oceans

Worth a study (click it and maximize your browser) ...

From Lakes and Oceans by Randall Munroe, April 10, 2012 at XKCD.com.

Lib/Con:  Liberals and Conservatives Don't Just Vote Differently. They Think Differently.

There's now a large body of evidence showing that those who opt for the political left and those who opt for the political right tend to process information in divergent ways and to differ on any number of psychological traits.

Perhaps most important, liberals consistently score higher on a personality measure called openness to experience, one of the Big Five personality traits, which are easily assessed through standard questionnaires. That means liberals tend to be the kind of people who want to try new things, including new music, books, restaurants and vacation spots — and new ideas.

Conservatives, in contrast, tend to be less open — less exploratory, less in need of change — and more conscientious, a trait that indicates they appreciate order and structure in their lives. This gels nicely with the standard definition of conservatism as resistance to change — in the famous words of William F. Buckley Jr., a desire to stand athwart history, yelling ‘Stop!'
Now consider another related trait implicated in our divide over reality: the need for cognitive closure. This describes discomfort with uncertainty and a desire to resolve it into a firm belief. Someone with a high need for closure tends to seize on a piece of information that dispels doubt or ambiguity, and then freeze, refusing to consider new information. Those who have this trait can also be expected to spend less time processing information than those who are driven by different motivations, such as achieving accuracy.

A number of studies show that conservatives tend to have a greater need for closure than do liberals, which is precisely what you would expect in light of the strong relationship between liberalism and openness.

For more, see Liberals and Conservatives Don't Just Vote Differently. They Think Differently. by Chris Mooney, April 12, 2012 at The Washington Post.

Monday, April 16, 2012

Education:  What's More Expensive than College? Not Going to College

For more, see What's More Expensive than College? Not Going to College by Derek Thompson, April 8, 2012 at The Atlantic.

Security:  The Dragon's New Teeth

A good article on China's military is The Dragon's New Teeth, April 7, 2012 at The Economist.

Friday, April 13, 2012

Diversion:  The 100-Year March of Technology in 1 Graph

For more, see The 100-Year March of Technology in 1 Graph by Derek Thompson, April 7, 2012 at The Atlantic.

International:  The Myth of America's Decline

The U.S. will still be a leading player, but in a septagonal, not a trilateral, world. In addition to Europe and Japan, China, India, Brazil and Turkey are now on Washington's speed dial. (Russia isn't sure whether it wants to join or sulk; negotiations continue.)

New partnerships make for rough sledding. Over the years, the trilateral countries [U.S., Europe, and Japan] gradually learned how to work with each other—and how to accommodate one another's needs. These days, the Septarchs have to work out a common approach.

It won't be easy, and success won't be total. But even in the emerging world order, the U.S. is likely to have much more success in advancing its global agenda than many think. Washington is hardly unique in wanting a liberal world system of open trade, freedom of the seas, enforceable rules of contract and protection for foreign investment. What began as a largely American vision for the post-World War II world will continue to attract support and move forward into the 21st century—and Washington will remain the chairman of a larger board.

For much more, see Walter Russell Mead: The Myth of America's Decline by Walter Russell Mead, April 8, 2012 at WSJ.com.

Tuesday, April 10, 2012

Health:  Can Chocolate Make You Thin?

In recent years, a growing body of research has pointed to the benefits of chocolate — it's loaded with antioxidants and improves everything from blood pressure to cholesterol levels — and now, according to a new study, it might also make you thinner.
Adults who consume chocolate more frequently had a lower BMI than those who consumed chocolate less often, note the authors, who were led by Dr. Beatrice A. Golomb at the University of California, San Diego. This is true for men and women of all ages, regardless of the amount of chocolate eaten, and wasn't linked to higher rates of exercise by the subjects.

Causation and correlation are two very different things, and the study's authors hedge their findings, saying that, causality in the observed association cannot be presumed.

But, in studies on mice, epicatechin, a compound in cacao, has been shown to increase lean muscle mass and to reduce weight without changing calories. Parallel processes in humans, if present, could underlie our findings, the researchers note.

From Can Chocolate Make You Thin? by Matt Skenazy, March 26, 2012 at Miller-McCune.

Lib/Con:  Is Conservatism Our Default Ideology?

A research team led by University of Arkansas psychologist Scott Eidelman argues that conservatism — which the researchers identify as an emphasis on personal responsibility, acceptance of hierarchy, and a preference for the status quo — may be our default ideology. If we don't have the time or energy to give a matter sufficient thought, we tend to accept the conservative argument.
We do not assert that conservatives fail to engage in effortful, deliberate thought, they insist. We find that when effortful thought is disengaged, the first step people take tends to be in a conservative direction.

The researchers describe four studies that provide evidence backing up their thesis. In each case, they used a different method to disrupt the process of deliberation, and found that doing so increased the odds of someone espousing conservative views.

Their first method was a time-tested one: inebriation. Researchers stood outside the exit of a busy New England tavern and offered to measure patrons' blood alcohol level if they would fill out a short survey. Eighty-five drinkers agreed, expressing their opinions of 10 statements such as production and trade should be free of government interference.

Bar patrons reported more conservative attitudes as their level of alcohol intoxication increased, the researchers report.

A second experiment featured 38 University of Maine undergraduates who filled out a similar survey. Half did so while working on a distraction task that required them to listen closely to a tape of tones that varied in pitch.

Those who had to do two things at once, and were thus under a heavier cognitive load, were more likely than their peers to endorse conservative attitudes, and less likely to endorse liberal positions.

In a third experiment, participants under time pressure were more likely to endorse conservative viewpoints than those who were not. In a fourth experiment, those asked to give your first, immediate response were more likely to express support for words and phrases linked to conservatism (such as law and order and authority) than those who were instructed to really put forth effort and consider the issue.

For more, see Is Conservatism Our Default Ideology? by Tom Jacobs, March 29, 2012 at Miller-McCune.

Sunday, April 8, 2012

Economics:  The Worst Part of Paul Ryan's Budget

Wow. Paul Ryan's budget tries to fund the govenment with almost the same percent of the GDP as it had in 1950, while continuing the Medicare and Medicaid programs, and also funding the increases in Social Security.

For more, see The Worst Part of Paul Ryan's Budget by Derek Thompson, March 21, 2012 at The Atlantic.

Politics:  Super Pacs, Donors Turn Sights on Judicial Branch

While deep-pocketed super PACs and ultra-wealthy donors have attracted plenty of attention in the presidential contest this year, they are also making waves further down the political food chain. The mere possibility that a rich benefactor or interest group with endless amounts of money could swoop in, write massive checks and remake an entire court for ideological reasons has prompted judges here in Florida and elsewhere to prepare for battles they never expected to fight.
Like judges elsewhere, those in Florida remain rattled by what happened two years ago in Iowa, where three state Supreme Court justices who had upheld a ruling in favor of same-sex marriage lost their jobs after a vitriolic million-dollar campaign to unseat them — money coming almost entirely from outside the state. In the preceding decade, not a single dollar had reportedly been spent on Iowa's high court elections.

Similar but lower-profile efforts have taken place in Alaska, Colorado and Illinois.

For more, see Super Pacs, Donors Turn Sights on Judicial Branch by Brady Dennis, March 29, 2012 at The Washington Post.

Saturday, April 7, 2012

Economics:  Is There a Fiscal Crisis in the United States?

Debt has surged, relative to G.D.P., six times in American history, during the War of Independence, the War of 1812, the Civil War, World War I, World War II and since 2000. In the first five instances, debt rose as the government scrambled to raise resources to pay for a war effort. After each of those wars, debt was steadily reduced relative to the size of the economy — over decades, not over months or even years.

The debt surge since 2000 is different — a point that James Kwak and I explain in detail in our book, published this week. To be sure, we have the two expensive wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But much more of the increase in the deficit was because of tax cuts under George W. Bush, Medicare Part D (which expanded coverage for prescription medicines) and — most of all — the financial crisis that brought down the economy and sharply reduced tax revenue starting in September 2008.

Our modern debt surge is much more about declining federal government revenue than it is about runaway spending. If you believe strongly that our fiscal issues are primarily about runaway spending, please read our book.

The smart approach is to begin the long and not-so-nice work of controlling deficits while allowing the economy to grow.

For more, see Is There a Fiscal Crisis in the United States? by Simon Johnson, April 5, 2012 at Economix.

Healthcare:  First the Mandate, Then All Tax Incentives

Martin Sullivan wrote in Tax Notes and on Tax.com Monday:
The only difference between the mandate and your common tax incentive is that Congress framed the incentive as a tax penalty instead of a tax break. I recognize there might be a legal difference between the two approaches that is beyond my comprehension. But the court, Congress, and the public should understand that economically the two approaches are exactly the same. Any tax penalty can easily be redesigned as a tax incentive. So, for example, a $1,000 tax penalty for not doing X could be replaced by a tax policy whereby all individuals' taxes are raised by $1,000 and then they are given a tax credit of $1,000 for doing X. ...

For more, see First the Mandate, Then All Tax Incentives by Catherine Rampell, April 2, 2012 at Economix.

Thursday, April 5, 2012

Health:  Doctor Panels Recommend Fewer Tests for Patients

In a move likely to alter treatment standards in hospitals and doctors' offices nationwide, a group of nine medical specialty boards plans to recommend on Wednesday that doctors perform 45 common tests and procedures less often, and to urge patients to question these services if they are offered. Eight other specialty boards are preparing to follow suit with additional lists of procedures their members should perform far less often.
The specialty groups are announcing the educational initiative called Choosing Wisely, directed at both patients and physicians, under the auspices of the American Board of Internal Medicine and in partnership with Consumer Reports.
Some experts estimate that up to one-third of the $2 trillion of annual health care costs in the United States each year is spent on unnecessary hospitalizations and tests, unproven treatments, ineffective new drugs and medical devices, and futile care at the end of life.

Some of the tests being discouraged — like CT scans for someone who fainted but has no other neurological problems — are largely motivated by concerns over a malpractice lawsuits, experts said. Clear, evidence-based guidelines like the ones to be issued Wednesday will go far both to reassure physicians and to shield them from litigation.

For more, see Doctor Panels Recommend Fewer Tests for Patients by Roni Caryn Rabin, April 4, 2012 at NYTimes.com.

Economics:  No, the Affordable Housing Push Didn't Cause the Subprime Crisis

It's one of the biggest misconceptions about the housing crisis: the belief that the government's policies to promote affordable housing — particularly through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — fanned the flames of the subprime mortgage market, ultimately bringing down the entire economy.
Affordable housing goals may have introduced some distortions and created perverse incentives in the mortgage market but these were not the driving force behind the tremendous growth of subprime and Alt-A loans in the private market, explains Cristian deRitis, a director at Moody's Analytics. Fannie and Freddie pursued what turned out to be the riskiest loans not to meet the affordable housing mandate, but instead to increase profit, as they were assumed to be higher yield, deRitis tells me.

For more, see No, the Affordable Housing Push Didn't Cause the Subprime Crisis by Suzy Khimm, March 29, 2012 at Wonkblog.

Wednesday, April 4, 2012

Classes:  Census Data Reveals Elder Women's Poverty Crisis

The majority of older women in America are unable to cover their basic living expenses, and the percentage of those in distress is 50% higher than that of men, according to a new analysis of U.S. Census Department data conducted by Wider Opportunities for Women, a nonprofit organization based in Washington, D.C., that focuses on women and workforce issues.

Three out of five women over 65 have incomes that won't cover their most basic daily needs, whereas among men it's 40%, says Donna Addkison, president and CEO of the organization. Older women are at much greater risk of economic insecurity than older men.

For many the consequences are serious. We are seeing evidence that older women are making choices that are untenable, Addkison reports. They're very quietly, at home, deciding to choose between having heat in the wintertime or putting nutritious food on the table, or they're choosing between food and the medications they need. They make choices that get them by, but they're very dangerous choices to be making. We're not talking about eating out, or buying birthday presents for grandchildren, or any of those extras. We're talking about shelter, food, clothing, and transportation—the basics we need to survive in this country, let alone thrive.

For more, see Census Data Reveals Elder Women's Poverty Crisis by Leslie Bennetts, March 28, 2012 at The Daily Beast.

Politics:  Elephants down Under

... there is a place in the world where moderate Republicans still exist — unfortunately, you have to take a 13-hour flight from Los Angeles to get there.
Looking at America from [Australia], makes me feel as though we have the worst of all worlds right now. The days when there were liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats, who nudged the two parties together, appear over. We don't have compulsory voting. Special interest money is out of control, and we lack any credible Third Party that could capture enough of the center to force both Democrats and Republicans to compete for votes there. So we've lost our ability to do big, hard things together. Yet everything we have to do — tax reform, fiscal reform, health care reform, energy policy — is big and hard and can only be done together.

A lot of us who love your country, said Johansson, do not see where change can come from in America these days. We see all the barriers you have now to structural and fundamental change. It feels like you've lost your amazing ability to adapt politically.

For more, see Elephants down Under by Thomas L. Friedman, March 27, 2012 at NYTimes.com.

Monday, April 2, 2012

Diversion:  Figuring Out Which Way the Wind Blows

... here's a fantastic animated map showing how the wind's flowing across the United States at any given moment.

For more, see Figuring Out Which Way the Wind Blows by Brad Plumer, March 30, 2012 at Wonkblog.

Politics:  The Nurture of Nuclear Power

Remember the brouhaha about $563 million in Obama administration loan guarantees to Solyndra, the solar panel manufacturer that went belly up last fall? Neither President Obama nor Republicans in Congress have voiced opposition to an expected $8.3 billion Energy Department guarantee to help the Southern Company, a utility giant, build nuclear reactors in Georgia.

For more, see The Nurture of Nuclear Power by Nancy Folbre, March 26, 2012 at Economix.

Sunday, April 1, 2012

Politics:  Obama: Not Quite the Most Fiscally Conservative President in Modern History

Maybe not. It looks like Clinton's got him beat.

For more, see Obama: Most Fiscally Conservative President in Modern History? by Derek Thompson, March 16, 2012 at The Atlantic.

Healthcare:  Paying for Value Instead of Volume

In February 2009, Michael Zucker told a group of high-paid surgeons something they did not want to hear: The way they earned a salary was about to change.

Zucker is the chief development officer at Baptist Health System, a five-hospital network in San Antonio. For 37 common surgeries, such as hip replacements and pacemaker implants, it would soon collect bundled Medicare payments. Traditionally, hospitals and doctors had collected separate fees for each step of such procedures; now they would get a lump sum for treating everything related to the patient's condition.

If a hospital delivered care for less than the bundled rate, while hitting certain quality metrics, it would keep the difference as profit. But if costs were high and quality was too low, Baptist would lose money. For the first time in their careers, the doctors' paychecks depended on the quality of the care they provided.

Four surgeons quit in protest.

I'd describe the reception as lukewarm at best, Zucker says. There was a lot of: ‘How could you do this?' and ‘I'm not going to participate.'

The program launched in June 2009 with a checklist of quality metrics. To earn a bonus, surgeons would, among other things, need to ensure that antibiotics were administered an hour before surgery and halted 24 hours after, reducing the chances of costly complications.

Only three doctors hit the metrics that first month, but their bonuses caught the attention of others. There was a lot of, ‘Why are those doctors getting more, and I'm not? Zucker says. Eight doctors got bonus payments in July; two dozen got them in August. Compliance with certain quality metrics steadily climbed from 89% to 98% in three months.

Two-and-a-half years later, Baptists' surgeons have earned more than $950,000 in bonuses. Medicare, meanwhile, has netted savings: Its bundled rate is about 5% lower than all the fees it used to pay out for the same services. It wasn't a home-run, says Zucker, noting the start-up costs in administering the program — not to mention a handful of lost employees. But I'd call it a solid triple.

For much more, see Health Reform at 2: Why American Health Care Will Never Be the Same by Sarah Kliff, March 23, 2012 at Wonkblog.