I wonder what the working conditions of Foxconn in Brazil will be like

Foxconn to build 5 new Brazilian factories to help make Apple products [u]
[Via AppleInsider]

Apple product assembler Foxconn plans to build five additional factories in Brazil to help cater to demand iPads and other tablets, which are expected to combine for an annual run rate of nearly 400 million units within five years.

[More]

Lots of jobs there and we should get an idea of how much the culture in CHina uniquely drives Foxconn or not.

In other news, a huge crowd turned up outside a Foxconn site when it was leaked that there might be a doubling of the number of available jobs.

We spend too much on warfare-welfare and not enough on innovation

Why America Needs To Be An Innovation Nation
[Via American Times]

America needs to build more iPhones and fewer tanks.

The American people bankroll the federal government’s four biggest spending items to the tune of $2.2 trillion annually. Medicare, Medicaid, Defense, and Social Security make up over two thirds of the federal budget.

By contrast, the slivers of the federal budget that go toward innovation are drops in a very big bucket. “We like to think of ourselves as an innovation nation,” writes Alex Tabarrok in The Atlantic, “but our government is a warfare-welfare state.”

The federal government does spend some money on innovation, but mostly for innovation in warfare. The Department of Defense, for example, spends $78 billion on R&D. Good for the DoD, at least they are thinking about the future. But most defense R&D is for weapons research that is unlikely to generate significant spillovers to other areas of the economy. The basic and applied non-weapons research that has the best chance of creating beneficial spillovers is a small minority of defense R&D. DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, for example, helped to develop the Internet but DARPA’s budget is only $3 billion. Even when we lump all federal R&D spending together regardless of quality it amounts to just $150 billion, a mere 4 percent of the budget.

Putting innovation at the center of our national vision is not simply about spending more money. An innovation nation would think about all problems differently. The long debate over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka: Obamacare) for example, was almost entirely about welfare and redistribution, about dividing the pie. During this debate how much did we hear about health innovation?

[More]

Kain is another conservative I find myself agreeing with. Wish there were more of him in the media.

At the end of the 19th century, they had the transcontinental railroad. Early in the last century they had the Panama Canal. The next generation had the Grand Coulee Dam, the Manhattan Project and nuclear power. The next generation had the race to the moon.

There has not been a single project driving innovation like those examples since. Where is our Big Project to get behind?

Perhaps it is because we are spending money on the wrong things. Here is a figure from the post:

Innovations don’t come from Medicaid, Medicare or Social Security and those from Defense are often of only secondary benefit to society.

We need a big project for most American;s to get behind, and get away from our ever-enlarging welfare-warfare state.

I think I will check out  Tabarrok’s book Launching the Innovation Renaissance,at Amazon, and read in on my Kindle app on my iPad.

It’s not the Teleprompters

Delusions of Obama the Idiot
[Via Ta-Nehisi Coates : The Atlantic]

Jonathan Chait on Republican amnesia:

The idea that Romney can “think on his feet,” and that Obama is all “flash,” expresses a common right-wing trope that Obama is actually an idiot: a charismatic speaker but helpless when not reading from prepared text. That is the basis for the GOP’s otherwise inscrutable obsession with TelePrompTer jokes – the TelePrompTer is an extremely common political tool, but many conservatives have come to believe that Obama would be helpless without it. That belief accounts for a major portion of Gingrich’s appeal — he has painted an appealing picture of himself exposing the stammering dope in a lengthy series of debates. Among other problems, this fantasy ignores the actual history of Obama’s debate performances …

It’s amazing that the GOP has somehow convinced itself that Obama is some kind of beguiling intellectual lightweight. I fully expect him to take Mitt Romney apart in the debates.

[More]

And as he displayed on his Google+ hangout, he can speak extemporaneously on a wide range of topics in a manner that is both engaging and educational.

Anyone who thinks that Obama can not speak without a teleprompter or requires one in any sense to speak is in for a devastating surprise.

If either Mitt or Newt underestimate his abilities, they will be in real trouble.

This talk reminds me of people who think Apple is where it is purely through marketing or through Job’s charisma. Companies who felt that way have been left on the ash heap of history over the last decade.

Better than any debate so far

I’m not a big fan of Google and Google+ but they certainly helped their brand her – demonstrating that average Americans can ask much better and tougher questions than our idiot media elites.

I’d love to see a GOP debate run similarly. Or even just a similar interview. It is simply wonderful seeing regular Americans get a chance to hear directly from a politician this way.

Misrepresentation from the WSJ or lies?

Dismal Science at the Wall Street Journal
[Via The Equation]

UPDATE January 30th 2:50 PM (see at bottom of post)

The Wall Street Journal today published an opinion piece from 16 scientists urging candidates for public office to ignore the looming threat of climate change. While it’s entirely appropriate for scientists, like all citizens, to voice their personal opinions on public policy, the op-ed repeated a number of deeply misleading claims about climate science.

To take just one example, the authors claim there has been a “lack of warming” for 10 years. Here’s what we know: 2011 was the 35th year in a row in which global temperatures were above the historical average and 2010 and 2005 were the warmest years on record. Over the past decade, record high temperatures outpaced record lows by more than two to one across the continental United States, a marked increase from previous decades.

[snip]

UPDATE January 30th 2:50 PM:  The WSJ op-ed has unleashed a torrent of further criticism from scientists (see, for example here and here). More are forthcoming. Most notable, in my view, is the response from Yale economist William Nordhaus, whose work was described in the WSJ piece as follows:

“ A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet.

Here’s Nordhaus’ response, published in Andrew Revkin’s Dot Earth blog:

“The piece completely misrepresented my work. My work has long taken the view that policies to slow global warming would have net economic benefits, in the trillion of dollars of present value. This is true going back to work in the early 1990s (MIT Press, Yale Press, Science, PNAS, among others)…I can only assume they [are] either completely ignorant of the economics on the issue or are willfully misstating my findings.”

[More]

So, the WSJ opinion piece totally misrepresented the work of an economist. Even when they supposedly present a fact, it is wrong.

Why should anyone accept anything that is written by these 16 scientists? Twisting facts, outright misrepresentation and the espousal of easily debunked statements are suitable for whom?

Maybe these guys – “Peer-reviewed science is the Kool-Aid of the left-wing liberal conspiracy” People who run away screaming from critical thinking are, I hope, a small fraction of our population. Because if they are not, then we stand a good chance of having a much smaller population a century or so from now.

Lies, damned lies, statistics and truths that make me feel uncomfortable

My little addition to the classic line.

People refuse to believe empirical data all the time. When it comes to things like climate change, they see truths as lies and lies as truth. They often grab convenient  lies spouted from almost any source to make themselves feel more comfortable. Thus the WSJ opinion piece full of debunked myths.

Just to add some context to the opinions of the Murdoch-owned WSJ, this from England:

British police arrested four current and former staff of Rupert Murdoch’s best-selling Sun tabloid plus a policeman on Saturday as part of an investigation into suspected payments by journalists to officers, police and the newspaper’s publisher said.

Police also searched the paper’s London offices at publisher News International, News Corp’s British arm, in a corruption probe linked to a continuing investigation into phone hacking at its now closed News of the World weekly tabloid.

News of the World shut down. The Sun is in trouble. The Times is being investigated.

One needs to understand that convenient lies are often spouted by someone who often has an inconvenient reason to twist the truth – power and money are the two most obvious. Convenient lies only help a few while harming many.

Anyone who learns their science from the WSJ opinion page is an idiot

Panic Attack: Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal Finds 16 Scientists to Push Pollutocrat Agenda With Long-Debunked Climate Lies
[Via ThinkProgress]

A lot of folks have asked me to debunk the recent anti-truthful Wall Street Journal article with the counterfactual headline, “No Need to Panic About Global Warming.”  I’ll combine my debunking with the rapidly growing list of debunkings from scientists and others.  And I’ll update this as new debunkings come in.

[More]

The article does a great job debunking the falsehoods from the WSJ. As with most things, it takes 2-3 times more words to present facts than it does to present lies.

The world has been warming and it continues to incorporate excess energy from the sun. Just one way we know this is that – with satellites we can get good data on the energy entering the Earth and the energy leaving. A lot of the energy entering is not leaving and thus has to go somewhere.

Turns out that even when there are lulls in the atmospheric warming, that the oceans continue to absorb large amounts of energy. And that is changing the oceans.

This follows the standard efforts of denialists – simply continue to sprout the same misstatements again and again, even after these statements have been shown to be false. You know what we call people who keep spouting things after those things have been shown to be wrong? Liars.

There are so many liars today, ones with an agenda that usually involves making themselves wealthier at the expense of the rest of us. I just wonder why so many people who will not get wealthier listen to the continuing lies from known liars?