Rubberized dandelions

Dandelion tires? It’s not a Beatles lyric, it’s biotech
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/14/tech/dandelion-tires-latex-biotech/index.html?hpt=hp_c3

This is another one of those ideas that I wish I had thought of, though realistically, I have too ideas I am already thinking about to add any more. Rubber tree plantations (really! they still use natural rubber!) take quite a while to establish themselves and harvesting is highly labor intensive. To have something that can grown and be mechanically harvested in a single year would be a huge breakthrough, I am quite sure. Plus the little devils grow just about everywhere!

More on the importance of the microbiome

Connection between dirty diapers, childhood health
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/14/health/time-bacteria-children/index.html?hpt=hp_bn13

I wrote earlier about the potentially huge issues regarding the microbiome, this article shows its importance starts at the very earliest days. Normal birth (i.e., vaginal) gives a ‘gift’ of a bacterial culture inoculation from mom (thanks mom!) that might be pivotal to life long health. Being born via Cesarean sections (C-section) deprives the newborn with this rather discusting inoculation, but I bet in a decade or so children born via C-section will get a mouthful of ‘inoculum’ (sounds sanitary that way, eh?) to give them their best start in life. It wouldn’t surprise me if they looked at how mom was born (and potentially her mom before that, C-sections have been around for a good long while) there might be some even more interesting correlations. Once a person has a certain microbiome it can be very challenging to alter it, even for short periods of time. Maybe if mom was born via C-section then even her kids born vaginally might not get the protection they need.

Diet soda just as deadly as the real thing

Study: Diet Soda Increases the Risk of Diabetes. Why Do We Still Drink This Stuff?
http://shine.yahoo.com/healthy-living/study-diet-soda-increases-risk-diabetes-why-still-192600358.html

Earlier I mentioned some science that shows that diet sodas make you drunker than regular soda, this time it is research that indicates that diet sodas don’t provide any protection from diabetes. I got a holt of the primary literature (see here if you want to try to access it) and read through it. The numbers are interesting, but since it is self-reported there are all sorts of possible confounding issues to keep the conclusion from being so clear cut as the popular press likes to make it. However, when compared to 100% fruit juice as a control measure, there was a substantial correlation that showed use of diet sodas contributed to diabetes. The article mentioned that some experiments have been done that show Aspartame flavored drinks actually triggered the same physiological effects as sugar did with regard to insulin. Since most diet drinks use Aspartame that could explain why there is this correlation.

So all you diet soda fiends might want to reconsider your motivation for drinking them.

Our ‘great’ healthcare system

Prices For Hip Replacement In US Vary Hugely
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/256222.php

Which is worse? That the estimated cost (surely underestimated!) varied by over an order of magnitude or that half couldn’t even provide an estimate? If this weren’t such a tragic commentary on our POS healthcare system it would be amusing a hell. Other than government contracting, where else can you enter into an agreement to spent a lot of money and have not one single clue on how much money you are going to spend until after you are obligated to spend it? At least when a car dealer jacks up the price at the last minute you can still walk away, but in health care, you have already spent the money before you know the price!

Of course, all this is hidden from the average Joe. For the poor people, they aren’t paying anyway so couldn’t care less. For most of the rest, the health insurance company pays, so what do the patients care? It sort of reminds me of the farcical paperwork purporting to estimate the charges when closing on a mortgage, but at least there we are talking about a small fraction of the overall price, not an order of magnitude variation in price!

And people continue to insist that we have the best healthcare system in the world! I guess sheeple will repeat whatever they hear…

Our regressive tax system

Americans’ 90% tax rate
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/08/opinion/mccaffery-marginal-tax-rates/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7

I knew things were bad at the lowest level, but I always get surprised at how bad it really is. In particular the rather substantial economic disincentive to getting married. There has always been talk about the ‘marriage penalty’, but it seems the poorer you are the bigger the penalty. To be poor isn’t to be stupid, indeed in many respects you have to be very canny to operate at that socioeconomic level because the cards are so carefully stacked against you. Lots of conservatives (I am related to several) blame the poor for sucking off the government tit instead of getting out there and getting a job. They ignore, of course, the massive disconnect between the assistance flooded to the elite in our country and the tiny dribs and drabs afforded the least fortunate and completely wipe from their minds that the shenanigans (to put it politely, really they broke all sorts of laws and aren’t likely to ever see any consequences) of the elite were largely (if not exclusively) the result of these people being unemployed to begin with.

Our society seems to thrive on providing the illusion that we give a damn about anyone besides the elite. Sometimes I get a bit confused why the elite give a damn how taxes are spent since they pay so little (as a percentage), but I guess any taxes paid to support society is that much less taxes they can rob for their own enjoyment.

As long as getting in legally is easy

Path to citizenship should be a long hike
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/08/opinion/navarette-path-to-citizenship/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

This is another article I expected to vehemently disagree with when I read the title. I conflated the idea of citizenship with immigration. Immigration does not need to be tied to citizenship (indeed, after reading the article, I think it shouldn’t be); I do think it should be simple to immigrate and become legally able to be a member of our society. A relative (wife’s cousin removed a couple of times) of mine who has been in the US for 20+ years (legally, with a green card) has been too lazy to apply for citizenship (based on our discussions, I see very little value in him becoming a US citizen since it seems clear he expects to spend his retired years back ‘home’). However, he has been a contributing member of society for two+ decades because it was fairly simple back then to immigrate and become a resident alien. There would be no incentive (for law abiding people, anyway) to enter the US illegally if all they had to do was give some biographical info and maybe some fingerprints and then be welcome to join our society. Sure, make it a serious effort to become a citizen (though I would have to say, if you serve honorably in our military then you should get citizenship automatically), I don’t have any objection to that. In order to vote and hold office you should have to make a serious commitment (sadly, it seems, most born into citizenship fail to do so). But to live and work here, I think should be easy.

Robomnycare

Obamacare: A Deception
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2013/02/03/obamacare-a-primer/

For those of you liberals who think that Obamacare is the greatest thing since sliced bread (you are totally wrong) and for those conservatives that think Obamacare is a socialist gift to the poor (ditto), here is the dish on the reality. As I have said a number of times, Obamacare (which is indistinguishable from Romneycare and for all intents and purposes _exactly_ the same thing that the GOP pushed when Clinton was trying to do universal health care) is nothing more than a MASSIVE gift to the health insurance industry, a transfer of taxpayer dollars from the pockets of the poor into the pockets of the rich, no different at all than the transfer of taxpayer dollars to pockets of Wall Street, agriculture, oil, etc. Oh, to you conservatives out there railing against that damn socialist in office, first, look up the definition of socialist and stop using that term and second, there is no way the insurance industry is going to let the GOP take away their new candy, not without a fight that will no doubt cost the GOP the house. This is a quote from the beginning of the article (which is down a bit from the introduction) that sort of says it all:

The ACA was not selflessly designed with the intent of providing affordable and equitable medical services to those in need, but rather to acquire taxpayer money for the private insurance companies under the seemingly helpful guise of health care and the ideological excuse of personal responsibility. It takes money from ordinary people and gives it to a medical insurance industry that profits handsomely from this legally-enforced corporate welfare – all while keeping Americans locked in the same broken system that puts profit before patients. The law was essentially written by business executives from the industry so that special interests would not be upset and profits assured.

For those of you who think that Obamacare is the first step to socialized medicine (i.e., universal health care via Medicaid), you need to learn about the cute topic of “estate recovery”. If you use Medicaid (ever!), when you die the state has the ‘option’ (who thinks that that option won’t be exercised?) to recover what it spent on you from your estate when you die. So really, this is a way to get around that pesky estate tax exemption for poor people (‘poor’ being relative, of course, since the exemption is currently $5 million) which allows the state to go after the assets of the poor people forced (yes, you heard that right; read the article!) on to Medicaid. Of course, a lot of poor people won’t have any assets left, so really this is yet another ding against the middle class (who often become poor with few assets by the time they kick off, due to escalating medical costs, etc.) and will target that vast swath of humanity that has estates less than $5 million.

I am pretty much in the camp of Obamacare being worse than nothing. People are forced into paying for a product they have no control over, it is essentially put in place to fleece them (look at the deductibles!) and ultimately (in my mind) is nothing more than a regressive tax on poor (where ‘poor’ is at our median income or less; really! median income! half of our population is now ‘poor’!) with the proceeds going (via the wonderful IRS) _prepaid_(!) to the healthcare insurance industry. There is fine print that allows the health care insurance exchanges to dump people who have pre-existing conditions (you can, btw, pretty much ignore _anything_ you have heard about Obamacare from any politician or anyone inside the beltway (good or bad)), so basically only healthy people will be allowed to be insured. It is a great scam! The government mandating that you pay money to a for-profit entity. Socialism for capitalistic companies, no different than the bank bailouts! Don’t give no stinkin money to those devastated from the crisis fabricated by Wall Street titans, give that money instead to those ‘titans’ so they can do this all over again in just a few years.

Apprentice is as apprentice does

The Youth Unemployment Crisis: A Fix that Works and Pays for Itself
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/businessdesk/2013/02/the-youth-unemployment-crisis.html

Apprenticeship can be a great idea. However, it is not very different in concept from indentured servitude and that is subject to a lot of potential for abuse. If there were regulations put in place to ensure that the apprentices were paid a living wage (it doesn’t all have to be cash, I recall stories from a German friend of mine who worked as an apprentice as a youth that he got room and board as part of his compensation) and had the ability to seek assistance when they felt they were being taken advantage of, then I could get wholly behind the idea. I think for lots and lots of trades (even a lot of ‘cerebral’ ones such as engineering) could greatly benefit from on the job training. After all, isn’t that what co-ops are supposed to be in a lot of programs? Why not formalize that and put the horse before the cart? Instead of letting lazy students avoid co-ops and play all summer, make that the key point of the educational process and ensure that they have practical real-world experience before they graduate.

Riding the cash cow

I read about Dell’s decision to take his company private and did some head scratching over it. Generally speaking, the only point in going private is to be able to avoid the costs of regulation (which are non-trivial; for a Fortune 500 company they could easily be $20+ million a year) and/or to avoid the necessity of herding all those cats when rapid and profound changes are planned. This article outlines a third option I hadn’t considered:

Will Michael Dell become the Marlboro man of the PC age?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/02/06/dell_private_like_tobacco/

There are certain industries that are considered ‘cash cows’ (meaning they produce cash like cows produce milk) where there is very little room for growth, but their margins (either through economies of scale, regulation or barriers to entry) are nice and fat (‘nice and fat’ translates to profit greater than 15% after taxes, tags, title and destination charges). In the business world companies are considered to be in one of three stages: growth, sustainment or harvest. In the growth stage you expect the stock to trade at substantial multiples of its earnings (though not, I believe, as high as 45+ unless there is some explosive growth posited for the near future), perhaps ‘infinite’ if there are no earnings (lots of dot coms (dot bombs?) did so, never to every make a dime, so you are taking a lot of risk when you do that). In the sustainment stage your multiples drop down to the 15 range as you are expected to grow a bit better than inflation and are generally expected to put most of your earnings back into the company (hence no dividends). In the harvest stage the stock price is generally flat against inflation, multiples are right around 10 (meaning you expect to get a 10% return on your stock purchase investment, i.e., right around the long-term average of the stock market) and they pay reliable dividends because the expectation is that investors can do better with that money than the company can. Harvest companies, though, are not sexy and as such tend to be ignored by investors and with a little research you can find undervalued ones (meaning that they will return more than 10%). They are, however, a really good place to put your money as long as you are careful to evaluate the length of harvest time available (some can harvest ‘forever’ while others have a very fixed horizon). Indeed, I recently read an article (didn’t seem to blog on it, though) that indicated that more volatile stocks were actually paying _less_ than their less volatile compatriots, meaning that investors were paying a substantial risk premium instead of obtaining a superior return. My point is that ‘boring’ can be beautiful if you want stable returns over the long run. Unless you get lucky (and face it, if you are making trades more often than once a decade, you are trying to time the market, hence gambling), you can’t beat a well diversified portfolio that has a selection of growth, sustainment and harvest stocks.

So, perhaps Dell is interested in riding the cash cow without being constantly nagged by stock holders to get into this or that ‘next great thing’. I doubt it, but it could be happening.

I am not sure about this…

The End of the Web, Computers, and Search as We Know It
http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/02/the-end-of-the-web-computers-and-search-as-we-know-it/

The author makes it sound like there is a looming revolution in the way things are done. Perhaps so, but to me this seems like an evolution rather than a revolution. A revolution, in my mind, is where the old ways of doing things cease altogether. An example would be cell phones which pretty much made pay phones obsolete, or the WWW and Wikipedia that made encyclopedias a quaint relic of a bygone era. I do see handheld, tablet and personal computers going away once implants are perfected (I figure the next two decades at most), so see that as revolutionary, but when they finally get the really cheap paper-thin TV screens I don’t see that as a revolution, but as an evolution (though moving from tubes to flat screen is arguably a revolution). As such, I don’t see a ‘switch’ to a time-based web as a revolution; in my mind it is simply evolving. Just as the very early WWW was all about static pages which then evolved into dynamic pages that allowed access to databases and rapidly evolving information. Facebook has certainly had a major impact on the life of the average web surfer (zip to me, though; since I know how to write HTML as well as program CGIs, all Facebook could offer me is contact with people I got no interest in interacting with), but really, can a rational person consider that a revolution? Even Google wasn’t a revolution in my mind. There were plenty of search engines that could have easily gone their route, but the managers lacked the requisite vision.

Anyone care to share their thoughts?