Ms. Eclectic thinks a recent photo at Apod might be seen as pornographic by some viewers. I disagree. Did anyone else see it as either Freudian or pornographic?
Ms. Eclectic thinks a recent photo at Apod might be seen as pornographic by some viewers. I disagree. Did anyone else see it as either Freudian or pornographic?
The HCAGR are (is?) really pissed off. Here’s why. And here are the first three paragraphs of their public declaration [thanks to BenS for the pointer]:
In recent years the reputation of Hamilton College has been hurt by a series of events that have resulted in severely negative press in the national media. The College hired a professor who was a member of the Raelian cult that claimed to be pursuing the cloning of human beings. Former college president Gene Tobin engaged in plagiarism and resigned. The College Honor Code specifies that academic dishonesty is a serious offense that “will often result in removal from the course, assignment of an XF for the course, or separation from the College community, or some combination of these.”
Nonetheless, Tobin received a generous severance package and an endowed professorship in his name. In recent months, the Director of the Kirkland Project unilaterally appointed to the faculty Susan Rosenberg, a convicted felon whose sentence was commuted by Bill Clinton during the last days of his administration and then selected and paid an honorarium to Ward Churchill who has written and spoken that the victims of 9/11 deserved their fate as “little Eichmanns.” This Director’s acts have created an unprecedented wave of negative publicity that damaged the integrity and scholarly reputation of the school.
These events and the College’s response to them share a common thread: a failure of the school’s internal controls, policies and procedures. To our knowledge, the College has made only minor changes to the way it conducts business. We believe that more fundamental changes are necessary if the College wishes to prevent the mistakes of the recent past from being repeated. To support this goal we have formed Hamilton College Alumni For Governance Reform. Our goal is to establish that Hamilton’s primary mission is to educate its students by focusing all its energy and resources to scholarly research and pedagogical application.
Those who subscribe to The Economist can receive a weekly e-mail called, “The Global Agenda.” It usually concludes with an interesting column, called “Buttonwood,” the most recent of which is about Oil Prices:
… The surprise is not that the price of oil is rising. It has been doing so, broadly speaking, for a year.
… The surprise is rather that it took share prices so long to fall in response. In the month from May 22nd, oil prices rose by 21% yet the S&P 500 went up by 2.1%—a respectable clip. When oil first touched $60 it knocked share prices back a bit for three days, but they resumed their climb thereafter. True, some of that gain is accounted for by oil companies and their suppliers, who are suddenly being touted as a buy all over town. But what about other sectors?
One theory is that both shares and oil have been rising in response to common factors: buoyant economic growth and profits, and low interest rates.
She continues, citing research showing
that oil-price changes and stockmarket returns are linked but lagged: if oil prices rise, shares do fall, but not right away. Shares of obviously energy-related firms adjust at once, but broad stockmarket returns fall only during the following month or even two months—a pattern that is clearest with biggish oil increases and in countries that are most dependent on energy. This, if true, suggests a genuine market inefficiency. [emphasis added]
On that model, expect shares to fall next month—or at least fail to make the gains they would otherwise have made.
… Oil bears, conversely, see demand for oil slowing as economic growth slows, especially in China (whose imports dropped slightly in the first five months of this year, says Andy Xie of Morgan Stanley). And alternative sources of oil—Canada’s tar sands, Africa’s deepwater reserves—are nearer than many think: Cambridge Energy Research Associates, a think-tank, predicts that these and other developments will provide some 6m-7.5m bpd more capacity than the world needs by the end of the decade.
If there really is a lagged adjustment of share prices to oil prices, it is time to go liquid if you expect oil prices to continue to rise. But if you expect oil prices to fall, maybe the equity market is due for another rise. So, according to this hypothesis, how you treat the equity market might also be a reflection of your oil price expectations.
But why does the inefficiency exist?
And if it does still exist, will it soon be arbitraged away?
Phil Miller also has some material about oil prices at Market Power.
I posted yesterday about a survey showing [among many other things] that a majority of Canadians is dissatisfied with the direction their country is taking. Here are some more results of the PEW survey about attitudes in Canada [thanks, again, to John Chilton for the pointer].
Image of the United States and Canada
- Favorable ratings for the U.S. continue to slip in Canada; 59% have a positive view of the U.S., down from 63% in 2003, and 72% in 2002.
- Favorable views of Americans have also declined. Two-thirds of Canadians (66%) have a positive view of Americans, compared with the 77% in 2003 and 78% in 2002.
- About three-quarters of Canadians associate Americans with the positive characteristics“inventive” (76%) and “hardworking” (77%), but just 42% say Americans are “honest.” Majorities of Canadians also associate the negative traits of “rude,” “violent” and “greedy” with Americans.
- U.S. attitudes toward Canada remain positive, with 76% of the American public holding a favorable view of Canada. This is up from 65% in 2003, yet not quite as high as it was in 2002 (83% favorable).
Canadian opinions of their own country
- Nearly all Canadians (94%) believe that their country is well-liked by other nations. This is the highest percentage among the 16 nations surveyed.
- Canadians are increasingly dissatisfied with the way things are going in their country. Fewer than half (45%) say they are satisfied with national conditions, down from 60% in 2003 and 56% in 2002.
- Canadians have strongly positive opinions of the impact of immigration; 77% say Asian immigrants are a good thing, and 78% say that about immigrants from Mexico and Latin America.
The Iraq War and U.S. Policies
- Eight-in-ten Canadians believe their government made the right decision not to use military force against Iraq. This is up significantly from 65% in 2003.
- A majority of Canadians believe the world is a more dangerous place as a result of the war in Iraq that removed Saddam Hussein from power; 37% believe it is safer. And, just 24% say Iraq will be more stable in the wake of the January elections there while a 61% majority thinks the situation in Iraq will not change much.
- Just 19% of Canadians feel the U.S. takes Canadian interests into account at least a fair amount when making foreign policy.
- A majority of Canadians (57%) now favor Canada taking a more independent approach from the U.S. to security and diplomatic affairs, up from 43% two years ago.
- Canadians, once among the strongest U.S. allies in the war on terror, are now about evenly split on the issue, with 47% opposing the U.S.- led effort and 45% in favor. That represents a significant reversal from May 2003, when more than two-thirds of Canadians backed the war on terror (68%).
Note that the survey is small-sample:
The Global Attitudes Project conducted telephone interviews with a random sample of 500 Canadians from May 6- 11, 2005. For results based on the total sample, one can say with 95% confidence that the error attributable to sampling is plus or minus 4 percentage points.
I posted yesterday about a survey showing [among many other things] that a majority of Canadians is dissatisfied with the direction their country is taking. Here are some more results of the PEW survey about attitudes in Canada [thanks, again, to John Chilton for the pointer].
Image of the United States and Canada
- Favorable ratings for the U.S. continue to slip in Canada; 59% have a positive view of the U.S., down from 63% in 2003, and 72% in 2002.
- Favorable views of Americans have also declined. Two-thirds of Canadians (66%) have a positive view of Americans, compared with the 77% in 2003 and 78% in 2002.
- About three-quarters of Canadians associate Americans with the positive characteristics“inventive” (76%) and “hardworking” (77%), but just 42% say Americans are “honest.” Majorities of Canadians also associate the negative traits of “rude,” “violent” and “greedy” with Americans.
- U.S. attitudes toward Canada remain positive, with 76% of the American public holding a favorable view of Canada. This is up from 65% in 2003, yet not quite as high as it was in 2002 (83% favorable).
Canadian opinions of their own country
- Nearly all Canadians (94%) believe that their country is well-liked by other nations. This is the highest percentage among the 16 nations surveyed.
- Canadians are increasingly dissatisfied with the way things are going in their country. Fewer than half (45%) say they are satisfied with national conditions, down from 60% in 2003 and 56% in 2002.
- Canadians have strongly positive opinions of the impact of immigration; 77% say Asian immigrants are a good thing, and 78% say that about immigrants from Mexico and Latin America.
The Iraq War and U.S. Policies
- Eight-in-ten Canadians believe their government made the right decision not to use military force against Iraq. This is up significantly from 65% in 2003.
- A majority of Canadians believe the world is a more dangerous place as a result of the war in Iraq that removed Saddam Hussein from power; 37% believe it is safer. And, just 24% say Iraq will be more stable in the wake of the January elections there while a 61% majority thinks the situation in Iraq will not change much.
- Just 19% of Canadians feel the U.S. takes Canadian interests into account at least a fair amount when making foreign policy.
- A majority of Canadians (57%) now favor Canada taking a more independent approach from the U.S. to security and diplomatic affairs, up from 43% two years ago.
- Canadians, once among the strongest U.S. allies in the war on terror, are now about evenly split on the issue, with 47% opposing the U.S.- led effort and 45% in favor. That represents a significant reversal from May 2003, when more than two-thirds of Canadians backed the war on terror (68%).
Note that the survey is small-sample:
The Global Attitudes Project conducted telephone interviews with a random sample of 500 Canadians from May 6- 11, 2005. For results based on the total sample, one can say with 95% confidence that the error attributable to sampling is plus or minus 4 percentage points.
I posted yesterday about a survey showing [among many other things] that a majority of Canadians is dissatisfied with the direction their country is taking. Here are some more results of the PEW survey about attitudes in Canada [thanks, again, to John Chilton for the pointer].
Image of the United States and Canada
- Favorable ratings for the U.S. continue to slip in Canada; 59% have a positive view of the U.S., down from 63% in 2003, and 72% in 2002.
- Favorable views of Americans have also declined. Two-thirds of Canadians (66%) have a positive view of Americans, compared with the 77% in 2003 and 78% in 2002.
- About three-quarters of Canadians associate Americans with the positive characteristics“inventive” (76%) and “hardworking” (77%), but just 42% say Americans are “honest.” Majorities of Canadians also associate the negative traits of “rude,” “violent” and “greedy” with Americans.
- U.S. attitudes toward Canada remain positive, with 76% of the American public holding a favorable view of Canada. This is up from 65% in 2003, yet not quite as high as it was in 2002 (83% favorable).
Canadian opinions of their own country
- Nearly all Canadians (94%) believe that their country is well-liked by other nations. This is the highest percentage among the 16 nations surveyed.
- Canadians are increasingly dissatisfied with the way things are going in their country. Fewer than half (45%) say they are satisfied with national conditions, down from 60% in 2003 and 56% in 2002.
- Canadians have strongly positive opinions of the impact of immigration; 77% say Asian immigrants are a good thing, and 78% say that about immigrants from Mexico and Latin America.
The Iraq War and U.S. Policies
- Eight-in-ten Canadians believe their government made the right decision not to use military force against Iraq. This is up significantly from 65% in 2003.
- A majority of Canadians believe the world is a more dangerous place as a result of the war in Iraq that removed Saddam Hussein from power; 37% believe it is safer. And, just 24% say Iraq will be more stable in the wake of the January elections there while a 61% majority thinks the situation in Iraq will not change much.
- Just 19% of Canadians feel the U.S. takes Canadian interests into account at least a fair amount when making foreign policy.
- A majority of Canadians (57%) now favor Canada taking a more independent approach from the U.S. to security and diplomatic affairs, up from 43% two years ago.
- Canadians, once among the strongest U.S. allies in the war on terror, are now about evenly split on the issue, with 47% opposing the U.S.- led effort and 45% in favor. That represents a significant reversal from May 2003, when more than two-thirds of Canadians backed the war on terror (68%).
Note that the survey is small-sample:
The Global Attitudes Project conducted telephone interviews with a random sample of 500 Canadians from May 6- 11, 2005. For results based on the total sample, one can say with 95% confidence that the error attributable to sampling is plus or minus 4 percentage points.
If you [or more likely a pre-teen or teenager you know] have warts, here is some interesting advice from Medscape [h/t to BenS]: See your pharmacist, not your physician!
A substantial part of the U.S. population has warts at any one time. Fortunately, most warts are of no consequence, other than being unsightly, although some cause pain or embarrassment. You may want to treat warts with OTC products rather than seeing a physician. Although some people try to ignore warts, this is not always a good idea for several reasons. First, warts will spread into new uninfected tissue without warning. They may also spread to other people if warts are damaged. For instance, a wart may interfere with work and be torn slightly, allowing the virus to escape. Children may pick or scratch at warts, allowing them to spread. Warts on the foot can be spread to other people who use the same bathing facilities. For these reasons, it is usually better to remove warts.
Should I Go to the Doctor?
Visiting a physician for treatment of a common wart (one with a cauliflower look to the surface) or plantar wart (a wart on the bottom of the foot) before trying a nonprescription product is not always the best move. Physicians remove warts through freezing, surgery, electrical methods, caustic chemicals, or lasers. Generally, these methods are expensive and painful. Treating a single wart with freezing can take nine weeks, with each treatment causing pain that lasts for several days.
Fortunately, your pharmacist can recommend several nonprescription products that have some important advantages over methods your physician may use[Emphasis added]. They contain salicylic acid, either in the form of liquids or pads. Salicylic acid products will be less expensive than physician methods such as electricity, surgery, lasers, and freezing. They produce little or no pain, as opposed to freezing or lasers (which may require general anesthesia in children). Salicylic acid products are also safer to use, as evidenced by the fact that they may be sold for home use. Finally, they are equally effective as some physician methods such as freezing, according to the latest evidence. Given all of these advantages, it makes sense to try to treat the plantar or common wart with these products before resorting to physician care.
Especially in Canada, where the waiting time to see a pharmacist is usually no more than five minutes, but the waiting time to see a dermatologist is often 5 months!
When BenS sent this to me, he added, “Pharmacists triumph over dermatologists. Score one wart (or more). Take aspirin and duct-tape and call me (your friendly local pharmacist) in the morning.”
If you [or more likely a pre-teen or teenager you know] have warts, here is some interesting advice from Medscape [h/t to BenS]: See your pharmacist, not your physician!
A substantial part of the U.S. population has warts at any one time. Fortunately, most warts are of no consequence, other than being unsightly, although some cause pain or embarrassment. You may want to treat warts with OTC products rather than seeing a physician. Although some people try to ignore warts, this is not always a good idea for several reasons. First, warts will spread into new uninfected tissue without warning. They may also spread to other people if warts are damaged. For instance, a wart may interfere with work and be torn slightly, allowing the virus to escape. Children may pick or scratch at warts, allowing them to spread. Warts on the foot can be spread to other people who use the same bathing facilities. For these reasons, it is usually better to remove warts.
Should I Go to the Doctor?
Visiting a physician for treatment of a common wart (one with a cauliflower look to the surface) or plantar wart (a wart on the bottom of the foot) before trying a nonprescription product is not always the best move. Physicians remove warts through freezing, surgery, electrical methods, caustic chemicals, or lasers. Generally, these methods are expensive and painful. Treating a single wart with freezing can take nine weeks, with each treatment causing pain that lasts for several days.
Fortunately, your pharmacist can recommend several nonprescription products that have some important advantages over methods your physician may use[Emphasis added]. They contain salicylic acid, either in the form of liquids or pads. Salicylic acid products will be less expensive than physician methods such as electricity, surgery, lasers, and freezing. They produce little or no pain, as opposed to freezing or lasers (which may require general anesthesia in children). Salicylic acid products are also safer to use, as evidenced by the fact that they may be sold for home use. Finally, they are equally effective as some physician methods such as freezing, according to the latest evidence. Given all of these advantages, it makes sense to try to treat the plantar or common wart with these products before resorting to physician care.
Especially in Canada, where the waiting time to see a pharmacist is usually no more than five minutes, but the waiting time to see a dermatologist is often 5 months!
When BenS sent this to me, he added, “Pharmacists triumph over dermatologists. Score one wart (or more). Take aspirin and duct-tape and call me (your friendly local pharmacist) in the morning.”
If you [or more likely a pre-teen or teenager you know] have warts, here is some interesting advice from Medscape [h/t to BenS]: See your pharmacist, not your physician!
A substantial part of the U.S. population has warts at any one time. Fortunately, most warts are of no consequence, other than being unsightly, although some cause pain or embarrassment. You may want to treat warts with OTC products rather than seeing a physician. Although some people try to ignore warts, this is not always a good idea for several reasons. First, warts will spread into new uninfected tissue without warning. They may also spread to other people if warts are damaged. For instance, a wart may interfere with work and be torn slightly, allowing the virus to escape. Children may pick or scratch at warts, allowing them to spread. Warts on the foot can be spread to other people who use the same bathing facilities. For these reasons, it is usually better to remove warts.
Should I Go to the Doctor?
Visiting a physician for treatment of a common wart (one with a cauliflower look to the surface) or plantar wart (a wart on the bottom of the foot) before trying a nonprescription product is not always the best move. Physicians remove warts through freezing, surgery, electrical methods, caustic chemicals, or lasers. Generally, these methods are expensive and painful. Treating a single wart with freezing can take nine weeks, with each treatment causing pain that lasts for several days.
Fortunately, your pharmacist can recommend several nonprescription products that have some important advantages over methods your physician may use[Emphasis added]. They contain salicylic acid, either in the form of liquids or pads. Salicylic acid products will be less expensive than physician methods such as electricity, surgery, lasers, and freezing. They produce little or no pain, as opposed to freezing or lasers (which may require general anesthesia in children). Salicylic acid products are also safer to use, as evidenced by the fact that they may be sold for home use. Finally, they are equally effective as some physician methods such as freezing, according to the latest evidence. Given all of these advantages, it makes sense to try to treat the plantar or common wart with these products before resorting to physician care.
Especially in Canada, where the waiting time to see a pharmacist is usually no more than five minutes, but the waiting time to see a dermatologist is often 5 months!
When BenS sent this to me, he added, “Pharmacists triumph over dermatologists. Score one wart (or more). Take aspirin and duct-tape and call me (your friendly local pharmacist) in the morning.”
One of the books we all had to read/work our way through as graduate students in most major economics programmes in the 1960s was Paul Samuelson’s Foundations of Economic Analysis. I note with some pleasure that none — not one — of the economists’ book-tag responses that I have read mentions this book [Though I did see that Craig Newmark listed Samuelson's intro text].
There is a reason Samuelson’s Foundations isn’t listed. As I recently wrote to Walt, who asked me why so many modern grad schools emphasize math instead of economic logic,
I would say the bad aspects of the trend came with Samuelson’s Foundations of Economic Analysis. Math was used in economics long before then, but his dissertation/book seemed to set the discipline off in a direction that was not very productive.
Math is good. Math has helped me. Math has helped others straighten me out. I was once a macho-math man. But math isn’t worth much without a good appreciation of the Economic Way of Thinking.
