Stocks Close Lower Tuesday, Trade Gap Finally Narrows on Weak Dollar
The bond market continued a troubling trend, with the benchmark 10-year long bond rising in price as investors pulling their money out of stocks loaded up on long-term debt issues. The price pressure upward caused the yield on the 10-year Treasury to drop to 4.20 percent. Early Wednesday trading indicated that the yield was continuing to ease, meaning that long-term debt instruments are coming that much closer to going below short-term yields, a phenomenon that almost always indicates a recession will occur within several quarters.
While the Federal Reserve has been driving short-term interest rates upward in its fight against inflationary expectations building into the American economy, the market-driven long rates are not responding as the Fed would like. Although Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan has expressed his dismay with the situation regarding an impending inverted yield curve, he and his fellow Governors of the Federal Reserve have virtually no tools of monetary policy at their disposal to change the situation.Dark Wraith CyberGloss
The Federal Reserve affects short-term interest rates primarily by buying or selling short maturity government Treasury debt, which alters the prices, and therefore the yields, of that debt.
In other news Wednesday morning, the government reported that the trade deficit for April narrowed to $55 million dollars, a notable drop from the record $60.6 billion dollar red ink in March. The narrowing of the trade gap occurred mainly because consumers and businesses imported considerably less, even as the cost of petroleum was skyrocketing. The explanation for this is that the weakening U.S. dollar has had precisely the effect of pushing up the prices of all imports, energy and otherwise, and this has killed a significant amount of domestic interest in purchasing those imports. This scenario is partially confirmed by reports over the past few days that inventories of crude oil are rising, which would mean that, even though producers are still pulling the crude out of the ground at a relatively steady pace, the demand at the end of the line isn't drawing it to the refineries and then to the gas stations as quickly as it's coming into the inventories.
As far as the weakening dollar altering the relative balance of imports versus exports, not only were imports down in April, but exports were up, as well. This would indicate that the Bush Administration's strategy of publicly stating that it wants a strong dollar, while doing nothing to actually strengthen it, might be working to boost the American exports sector. Unfortunately, there are two downsides to this.
The first is that the drop in purchases of imports is could be tied to slackening consumer demand for all goods and services because of an overall weakening of the U.S. economy. The other problem with this strategy is that, as the Federal Reserve continues its record string of short-term interest rate increases, the value of the dollar will strengthen, meaning that imports to the United States will become cheaper, once again, and American exports to other countries will become more expensive: these combined forces will cause the trade deficit to resume its upward climb, and the Bush Administration's hope that domestic exports will keep the U.S. economy from dropping into recession will be thwarted.Dark Wraith CyberGloss
Interest rates are the price of money. When domestic interest rates rise, the value of the U.S. currency does so, as well, thus making foreign imports cheaper and American exports more costly.
<< 37 Comments Total
Dang! From $60.6 billion to $55 million? That IS huge!
Cripes Mr. Wraith, the Board of Directors of Goat and Bugle may have to reconsider their acceptance of your offer if you are going adopt Bush league reporting standards.
Watch it there, Mr. Goat.
We were considering keeping you on for a while in some kind of role as the corporate spokesgoat; but this kind of anti-takeover rhetoric could sour what would otherwise be a friendly hostile takeover.
Next thing I know, you'll start making up some nonsense about how we plan to lay off eighty percent of the staff when you know very well we plan to eliminate only seventy percent of the workers.
The Dark Wraith needs that pension money freed up to pay off some of the debt this whole takeover is creating.
LOL - maybe I'd better change my employee name to Forfeiture Account.
Although this is off topic I need to vent by calling attention to these two topics. Not only is the economy in the toilet, but so is this administration, but then we knew that.
Bush Lied - Well, DUH!
And Kept Lying - Well, DUH!
In the older SNL Mary Kathleen Gallagher skits, she always liked to quote from a movie when something hit some chord with her. I'm going to quote a part of a song that the current admin reminds me of:
You suck my blood like a leach,
break the law and you breach,
screw my brain til it hurts,
you've taken all my money...
and you want more.
I really feel that the govt is doing this to us. They want more and more. Our social security money is needed to prop up these stocks and bonds, you talk about, so the rich don't flounder. To hell with the poor. They don't have the money to put in stocks and bonds, and they sure as hell don't have money to put in the campaign coffers.
the government reported that the trade deficit for April narrowed to $55 million dollars, a notable drop from the record $60.6 billion dollar red ink in March.
Woo - hoo: We're number 1. We're number 1.
But it appears we are no longer necessarily the preferred destination of the world's best & brightest graduate students.
- oddjob
Good afternoon, OddJob.
The good news is that all of those educated graduates with their atheistic ideas about evolution, liberal democracy, egalitarianism, and history will be gone so the children of right-thinking Biblical literalists will no longer have their minds polluted.
Yes, OddJob, it's time once again for...
Grandma Wraith Sez:
When choosing between ignorance and stupidity as your ally, always choose stupidity:
Ignorance, you see, is vulnerable;
stupidity, on the other hand, is invincible.
Words to live by, OddJob. Words to live by.
The Dark Wraith needs to get Grandma back to the Old Age Home, now.
Good afternoon, Old White Lady.
Not so fast, there. These numbers that get all the press are the preliminary estimates. When the final numbers come out, hardly a peep is heard in the press. In fact, I sometimes forget to check back to see the final numbers, then I get surprised later when I glance through data. I think to myself, "Wait a minute. That wasn't the number I saw the last time I checked." It just annoys the heck out of me, especially when the preliminary number is noticeably off the mark from the final result.
In this case, I suspect the final number will be somewhat higher because of the way the big price swings affect the accounting for values of petroleum inventory changes in the sampling for the initial results, but I just can't be sure.
Gawd, I just talked about accounting, and now I feel kind of dirty.
The Dark Wraith goes to scrub his hands.
Good Afternoon, Dark Wraith.
You've spoken often on this blog about how you feel that the government's CPI numbers are severly skewed to the downside. I read an interesting article* in the Wall Street Journal the other day about the practice of Hedonics - a rather controversial methodology that the government's number crunchers use to discount an item based on the technological advancements it possesses.
So, for example, if last month Sony's basic TV set cost $1,000, and this month they introduce a new model for the same price that features a better screen, the CPI guys will say that the price of this television set has decreased. They do this because theoretically the new model is worth more with the addition of the nicer screen, but is selling for the same price.
Is it just me or does this sound like the worst sort of subjective number sophistry in history? I mean, it doesn't matter how nice the blinking screen is; if I want to buy a frickin' television it will cost me the same this month as it did last month, and that's the whole goddamned point of measuring inflation, is it not?
Also, if wage growth has been outpacing inflation all these years, then how come 30 years ago a family could live well on the income of one blue collar worker, and today a family with 2 white collar wage earners can often struggle to stay afloat; usually in an ocean of debt? Isn't that a bit of a red flag for those CPI guys?
Eugh!!
*For some reason WSJ won't supply a permalink, but if you put "Hedonics" into the article search at the top of the page the one I read is the only one that appears (subscription required).
But then how do you evaluate the difference between a black&white television set and a color one? That switchover happened when I was a child, but I remember it clearly. What is the best to account for that when one version of a techonology comes into vogue, but is also more expensive because its quality is higher?
I know what you're saying, but I don't know the answer to this relevant question, either.
- oddjob
OT, but too good to insert down in the Open Forum (hat tip, Red State Blues on a discussion thread at Blonde Sense):
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1954
Eisenhower Presidential Papers,
Document #1147; November 8, 1954
The Papers of Dwight David Eisenhower, Volume XV - The Presidency: The Middle Way
Part VI: Crises Abroad, Party Problems at Home; September 1954 to December 1954
Chapter 13: "A new phase of political experience"
- oddjob
Hi, oddjob.
From what I could gather from the article, it sounded as though they would discount the color TV in your example, because of the increased quality. So if the B&W model is $500, and then the next month they add a color screen and charge $1,000, they might say that the addition of that color screen adds $200 of value to the new set. So by their logic the new TV has only gone up to 1,000-200 = $800.
At least, that's the way it looked to me. Muddy, muddy, muddy stuff. Not to mention: bloody scandalous. They actually dropped the methodology from their PC pricing calculations last year because it oculdn't keep up with the advances in tech. Didn't bother mentioning that to the investing public, though - until recently.
Seriously, they may as well throw darts at a printout of random numbers.
It IS muddy, but if they continue to sell the b&W, but people don't want it anymore, what's the point of measuring its price?
That's the nub of my unanswered question, and I'd love to know what economists do when evaluating such matters as they collect their data.
DW?
- oddjob
Also, if wage growth has been outpacing inflation all these years, then how come 30 years ago a family could live well on the income of one blue collar worker, and today a family with 2 white collar wage earners can often struggle to stay afloat; usually in an ocean of debt? Isn't that a bit of a red flag for those CPI guys?
There's no doubt that the cost of living has increased, but I think part of it is due to the complexity associated with society's evolution and the perception of needing to keep pace. In other words, a dollar doesn't go as far (in part) due to the fact that it must purchase more to maintain what is perceived to be a basic standard of living.
Think back 30 years and consider some of the things that were available then, compared to those "needed" today.
Then: TV? B&W or Color?
Today: How many? Big Screen? HD ready? TIVO? DVD player? Cable? PPV?
Then: Computer? Internet? WTF is that?
Today: PC, printer, iPod, DSL, email, wireless, etc.
Then: Telephone? Probably (ours was a party line w/ four digit numbers).
Now: How many? Cordless, answering machines/voice mail, Caller ID, Cell Phones, etc.
Then: Medicines? Pretty simple.
Now: Boner pills, blood pressure, cholestrol, etc.
And on and on...
The bean counters can sit around playing PeeWee Herman with the numbers all they want. The bottom line is what was basic then isn't reality today for a lot of people.
The American consumer has become obese.
Mr. Goat,
"Boner Pills"?
Something you take for arthritis?
Good one Peter, quite humerus.
Both of you!
"Boner pills" and arthritis, indeed.
The Dark Wraith knows very well that Viagra is not for bone density, at all: it's for muscle enhancement.
Heavens to Betsy, people.
And now, Mr. Shakes, I need to warn you that I've been gearing up all afternoon for a major rantfest about "hedonic pricing."
I've finally calmed down almost enough to address the matter without blowing a brain vein; but I'm not quite there, yet.
The Dark Wraith still feels his eyes dilating at different apertures.
my pet goat said There's no doubt that the cost of living has increased, but I think part of it is due to the complexity associated with society's evolution and the perception of needing to keep pace.
Yes, the perception of needing to keep pace + the "gotta have it now" mentality. Back when I was growing up, we did without a lot of things because my parents didn't believe credit cards, etc. was a good idea. My mother stayed home with 5 children and my father went to work every day (laborer). He complains about the wages the construction workers get nowadays, because when he finally retired, he was probably making a 4th of what they get now.
I have a co-worker who was wondering what to get her children for X-mas because they have everything. TV, Telephone, Computer, Play Stations, etc... I guess if she sends a kid to his/her room as punishment, it really wouldn't be punishment.
Boner pills *smirk*
For the record, although I may take blood pressure and cholesterol medication, I've never needed those muscle enhancement drugs. They make your eyes do funny things.
OT again (but still waiting for DW's rant on hedonic pricing, as well as a calmer explanation of what procedures are regarded by economists as approproiate when evaluating changing consumer desires when evaluating inflation):
I don't know which cartoon in today's Boston Globe is better,
this one by the Globe's Dan Wasserman,
or this one from Tom Toles.....
(I don't think it's Toles's best cartoon, but I still like it. :))
- oddjob
Oh, PS: This column by Jeff Jacoby was immediately below Toles's cartoon. I'm not generally a fan of Jacoby by any means, but I think his points here are well taken.
I kind of like this one myself: Never!
--------
Fush is a Bucking Liar
Good evening, Mr. Shakes. This is going to be a long and somewhat technical brawl of a comment, so brace yourself. To anyone else brave enough to keep going past this first paragraph, be forewarned that, although I can make just about any subject reasonably interesting and fairly understandable, below I am dealing with economics, real estate, and statistics. If that doesn't deter you from proceeding, you have more guts than most folks on this good Earth. Be forewarned that I shall probably be too worn out by the end of writing this comment to go back and review it for grammar and spelling. I ask that you forgive me for that breach of usual protocol.
Here we go, Mr. Shakes.
When I saw you bring up that term "Hedonics," I nearly went into a rantfest right there on the spot. I know very well that the federal government economists are using hedonic pricing models, but I try to put it out of my mind. It just defies reason that something that has been roundly set aside as useless could be utilized by people who should know better. Allow me to give you a little background on "hedonic pricing models" by way of example where they were in use and in vogue at one time.
Consider a real estate economist who is trying to understand how house prices form. Now, a "house price" is the actual closing price upon sale. It is not the asking price that you might see in Multiple Listing Service (MLS) databases; it is, instead, the final transaction price.
Think about what a "house" really is: you have a structure built from one material or another; you have a lot of some size; and you have rooms inside the house, each given to a designed purpose, some altered from original purpose. You also have a combination of original features and "improvements." You have fixtures, which are permanent; and you have furnishings, some of which will transfer upon sale, some of which will not. Returning to the lot, that real property isn't merely a piece of land, it's a piece of land in a specific, unmoveable location, and that location significantly affects its value and the values of improvements upon it.
What I'm trying to convey, Mr. Shakes, is that the "price" of a house is the aggregate value of a complicated and complex array of physical goods and the utility that flows from them.
Wouldn't it be useful if we could take the price of a house and from it tease out how each and every feature contributed to that price? Such knowledge would be not just interesting; it would be downright valuable, since we could then convey to real estate professionals, tax assessors, home sellers, and home buyers a precise guide to house pricing based upon the specifics of a given property.
Enter the science and art of statistics, which has as one of its fortés tools that can pull apart aggregates to find out how they were created by the components of the aggregates. One of the best of these tools is called "regression analysis," which uses repeated examples of the result of some process, together with the values of suspected causal variables that occurred with each instance of a result, to find out how much impact each of the causal agents really had. So, as a really, really simplified example, we might believe that the price of houses is affected by how big the lots are and by how many rooms the houses have. We would then write a model of the form
House Price = (Price per square foot of land)x(# square feet of land) + (price per room)x(# rooms).
We would then go out and get the closing prices of some houses, and record how many square feet of land and how many rooms were associated with each one. We would then throw these into our computers (in the old days, we had to do the pain-in-the-rear-end calculations by hand), to see what the regression analysis found for the values of price per square foot of land and price per room. Now, you must understand that these won't be exact values because random pricing noise will always be present that will blur the picture. That's what the regression analysis is all about: cutting through the random noise that always attends real-world process so that we can see the core, "pure" process underlying the somewhat blurry picture presented by the real-world data. (Think about it like this: the final price of a house might be affected by random factors like the relative negotiating skills of the buyer and seller, or by some other things that really don't matter in the grand scheme of what we're trying to learn about).
Anyway, suppose our regression analysis tells us that the price of each square foot of land is about $3.00, and the price of each room in a house is $15,000. We now have a way to predict the price at which a house will sell:
Closing Price = $3.00 x(# square feet of land) + $15,000x(# rooms)
Oh, cool! Now I can say with some greater or lesser degree of confidence that a house with seven rooms on 10,000 square feet of land will sell for
$3.00x10,000 + $15,000x7 = $135,000.
Pretty neat, yes?
What we have just done is a very primitive form of hedonic pricing of each factor that contributes to a final price. In the real world, of course, there would be literally dozens of factors that could potentially affect the closing price of a house, so the hedonic pricing model would have to break that closing price down along all of the potentially causal dimensions: lot size, location, materials used in house (brick, wood, mud, etc.), number of bathrooms, number of bedrooms, finished versus unfinished basement, garage, size of garage, attached or non-attached garage, size of kitchen, age of structure, etc.
Note that you can probably think of quite a few more. Note also that many of the features are themselves arrayed into nuances of one kind or another. Note also that factors beyond the property itself play a role: what is the state of the community, how good is the jobs market in the area, what kind of property taxes are in play, how are the schools, what's the crime rate, is the neighborhood on the upswing, or is it deteriorating?
Ah, yes, but statistical analysis can take all of these into account; and we should be able to tease out a hedonic price for each feature, even finding the negative prices of features that actually lower the price of a given home.
You know what? We can't. And I can tell you right here and now that I, myself, tried to use hedonic pricing models to get prices for housing features. I ran into exactly the same problem as everyone else who got excited about trying out this cool idea: there were way, way too many features we needed to have in the equation for the actual number of homes for which we had closing price data at any given time. Statistics just can't give answers of any meaning whatsoever when the number of values you're trying to find is large compared to the size of the sample. I might have a hundred closing prices and all of the data on every possible feature for every last one of those hundred homes. But if I'm trying to find even a mere two or three dozen hedonic prices that I thought were the primary factors driving the closing price, I'm dead! To have any reliability at all, statistical analysis needs a huge sample size compared to the number of unknowns you're trying to get values for. Literally, Mr. Shakes, to get meaningful hedonic prices, I would have needed thousands of closing prices, and I would have needed those closings to all have happened in a pretty short time frame so I didn't get macroeconomic variable changes affecting the housing market.
It just can't be done without a whole lot of disingenuity. But that's the kind of sloppy stuff that's going on all the time, these days, in the world of statistical analysis: sample sizes that are so small that the so-called "confidence level" of the resulting values is in the toilet. And yet, the results of this crap are pumped out in the media as if, somehow, some "truth" has been revealed. Nothing of the kind has occurred: the conclusions have no reliability whatsoever.
Hedonic pricing is a dead-end. In hard-core economics, the action has moved to some really, really tough mathematical methods that demand heavy theoretical modeling of the kind that physicists do. The seemingly easy route of hedonic pricing models just fails, seductively easy and obvious as it might appear on the surface.
Hedonic pricing was cast aside by serious economists years ago. It's too simplistic, and the results might look good in a sort of down-home, amateurish sort of way; but the entire method is fatally flawed, and it's not just on the practical level of the statistical methodology. It goes deeper, all the way down to the very basis of how prices really form in real-world markets. You see, Mr. Shakes, people don't add up the prices of the components of a complex good to arrive at the price they are willing and able to pay. Companies don't set their prices based merely on the component costs of the production of the wares. Economic agents don't work that way, either consciously or unconsciously. They just don't; and we cannot simply set that reality aside, and say, "Well, nevertheless, we can get good, reliable understanding by modeling their behaviors as if they did it that way." Although in some very important contexts, this is precisely the right way to do theory, it just fails miserably when we're talking about the fundamental mechanism by which markets clear supply with demand through the capitalistic means of free-market prices.
The Dark Wraith has worn himself out from writing. More later... perhaps.
Oddjob understands quite well and thanks you for the explanation!
- oddjob
Gee Dark Wraith, you did something wrong-I'm still awake, and at the end was looking for where else you were going with it.
Good Morning, Dark Wraith.
Seriously, we should all be paying you for this stuff. Thank you for taking the time to explain Hedonics in such detail. I have dabbled a little with regression analysis in the past, and so I was able to follow you fairly well (I hope!).
Now, I hesitate to ask what is probably yet another question that demands an answer more complex than I realize, but here goes nuthin'.
The government obviously has a vested interest in keeping the CPI as low as possible, since so many of their obligations are tied to it in some way; especially now that TIPS have been introduced, and that Social Security benefits will probably be getting tied to it, also. So my question is this: are there any other numbers we should be looking at, that give a better estimation of the real rate of inflation?
I also have a follow up question, but mine is etymological, and therefore likely to be trashed as boring.
Why is called "hedonic" analysis, when the root of that word is Greek and means "pleasure" (thus, "hedonism")?
- oddjob
Hey oddjob.
maybe DW can give us more detail, but I was able to scrounge this off the WSJ article for you:
Hedonics , which literally means the "doctrine of pleasure," was a term first adopted by a General Motors economist, Andrew Court, who studied auto prices in the 1930s. He had created a method of linking car prices over time to features such as weight and horsepower, and wanted a name for the statistical method that emphasized the link between features and consumer utility.
Hedonics , which literally means the "doctrine of pleasure"...
In layman terms that meaning screwing with numbers.
Thanks Mr. Shakes!
Mr. Goat, I believe your layman's definition is generally regarded as the layman's definition of thw word "statistics", is it not?
- oddjob
I suppose you're right Oddjob. That probably also means an economist is a statistician on Viagra.
Awright, everybody, I'm back.
"Hedonic pricing" is the statistical analysis of valuing the pleasure (or in economics terminology, the "utility") derived from the last unit of a feature of a complex good.
The housing example I gave above used hedonic pricing to distill from the closing price what each part of the house contributed to the total value.
Hedonic pricing in current vogue claims to be able to tease out the features of a product to get at the components of an overall price. The presumption is that we can then determine how improvements are affecting price; but more importantly, we are pretending that we can see how incremental technological innovations are affecting value!
Oh, goodie! That means even if the price of a product is rising, these government economists are claiming that the value might be rising faster, so the unit price is really falling if we take "value" into account.
This whole mess gets back to the exchange in which Messrs. Goat and Shakes were engaging, above. "Value" is subjective unless we put really, really tight definitional reigns on it, which we do in financial analysis, and which we're supposed to do in economics.
The term "market value" has a very specific meaning: it's the total price that the market sets for a good or service. For example, a company might have sold a million shares of stock for $20 per share. On the corporation's balance sheet, the "book value" of that stock will forever be $20 million (taking $20 per share times a million shares).
However, suppose the stock price in the market goes to $10 per share. The "market value" (or the "market cap," as we sometimes call it) would be $10 million (taking $10 per share times those million shares outstanding).
You see, it is the market that determines "value," and it lays this value down on the product—simple, complex, or whatever—that is presented to it and traded through it. To subdivide the product, to claim that statistics can isolate the prices as if each were occurring successively at the margin of the transaction, is fallacious. Even a good econometrician knows better than to buy into a model of pricing that assumes there isn't insurmountable "multi-colinearity" (deep interconnectedness) among the factors. Pulling each one out does nothing to determine the value of each factor in isolation.
I remember a friend of mine who was in grad school many years ago getting a research assistanceship in which she was helping a researcher find out what it was in composted hardwood bark that suppressed certain plant pathogens. The idea was that, if the active substance could be isolated, it could be synthesized and used to great effect for preventing certain types of crop disease.
After months of teasing out every compound (and there were literally dozens and dozens) in that composted hardwood bark, and testing every one of them in isolation to see if plant pathogen suppression was going on, she came up snake eyes. Not one of the substances extracted from that composted hardwood bark did much of anything.
What they concluded was that it was many of the substances acting synergistically and in concert that were creating the pathogen suppression effect. Adding up the effects of each one's individual contribution wasn't even worth mentioning compared to what they were all doing together as a whole.
Naturewhether it be biological, chemical, physical, or economichas a way of combining forces, which individually have little meaning, into meta-structures that have profound impact.
And it is the follie of these economists who use "hedonics" that they cannot grasp that, even though the universe is, indeed, a clockwork thing of beauty, the clock is an instrument that cannot be disassembled and still be expected to work as a thing of beauty.
The Dark Wraith has groused, and having groused, will grouse further at a later time.
Adding up the effects of each one's individual contribution wasn't even worth mentioning compared to what they were all doing together as a whole.
Nature—whether it be biological, chemical, physical, or economic—has a way of combining forces, which individually have little meaning, into meta-structures that have profound impact.
A description very applicable to the neocons too, just like a pack of rats.
Speaking of rodents, I see John McCain is slinking along on his furry belly again. McCain: I don't agree with British war memo
I would like to know just what so called promises were made to McCain when Rove & co cut him off at the knees. He has successfully slinked for them ever since. He must think he can't get re-elected without their support. Recently have found that Hagel has more cajones than he does. But the GOP is now going after him for it as well. For some reason this makes me remember when Ronnie and Nancy came into "power". How everyone in the GOP started wearing red. But all I can think of is Brown Shirts.
And with the base closures we will be witness to a military much more remote from the public..I suppose someone with a sense of imagination could do something with this scenario. And of course the "red" states will be profiting from this. I guess it's a "Cut 'em ALL off at the knees" approach in this administration's view of economic sanctions for certain sections of the U.S.
I see comments above speculating that the military is being set up as the only viable option for most of the younger people today. I actually started saying that over two years ago. It gets pretty scary when my darkest fears about this country start being reported by others.
My country tis of thee... I am weeping for you.
Even a good econometrician knows better than to buy into a model of pricing that assumes there isn't insurmountable "multi-colinearity" (deep interconnectedness) among the factors. Pulling each one out does nothing to determine the value of each factor in isolation.
How interesting, and apt, of you to mention the plant pathology anecdote you did! Ecology (and what they were examining was an ecological system) is just replete with the very same difficulties as economics and for exactly the same reasons. The take home message of ecology is not unlike one of the take home messages of ecnomics --- EVERYTHING AFFECTS EVERYTHING ELSE.
And if everything affects everything else, how does one meaningfully analyze it? Yet if we do not analyze it, we are left with arm waving and uprovable dogma.
And so the ecologists continue to nibble around the edges as best they can.
This also applies to the other sciences intimately connected to ecology, such as environmental and wildlife science.
- oddjob
The proposed base closings are going down especially poorly in New England. Last week's political analysis column by the Boston Globe's DC Bureau Chief, Peter Canellos, made the observation that as time goes on military bases are getting concentrated in the South & Southwest, and that one of the unavoidable side effects of this is that military values more and more become the same as Southern values. He rightly observed that this isn't healthy for the country in the long run.
So what happens? One of the two submarine bases on the East Coast is slated for closure (and of course it isn't Charleston's, but New London's), and one of the country's few remaining large ship building yards is recommended for closing (Portsmouth, NH/Bath, ME)!
That second in particular is a bitter pill to swallow for those folks. They believe they have solid evidence proving that they provide a better value to the Navy than their competitors. They even got a Navy commendation only a week or two ago.
That's not a particularly prosperous area, so that closing will devastate it. (That isn't supposed to be a factor the military considers, and I don't really have a problem with that - as long as they are truly doing it and doing it consistently!)
- oddjob
(No, I was wrong about it not being prosperous, and Bath isn't part of the Portsmouth Naval Yard, so I guess I'm mixing stuff together that ought not be. However, the rest of that economy is much more geared to tourists, so it lacks the year-round steady relatively high pay that is represented by the shipyard. Here's a link explaining what it will feel like locally. It also explains that the Maine town affected is not Bath, but Kittery. Kittery has TONS of retail discount outlet stores, but as I said, that's a very different, and lower paying kind of work.)
- oddjob
Afternoon Oddjob,
Here in Connecticut, the Groton base closing is not going down very well. In that area, the only other jobs are in the Casinos, and the Indians are importing Chineese and other (pretty much)slave laborers, so working there is no longer considered a good job...
This seems depressingly familiar.
Meanwhile, the number of people that I know personally who are unemployed is rising.
And the airforce academy is allowing proselytizing, and hazing those who do not care to convert to evangelical cristianity http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/12/education/12academy.html
The repugs are spanking the blue states.