A decade ago, the fade for home builders who wanted to be at the cutting edge of the information age was to prewire the house with network cables for your home's computers and peripherals. In retrospect, they got it wrong. The rat's nest of wires associated with your typical computer system is on its way out.
The Demise of Talking Wires
Your keyboard and mouse may be wireless, with a blue tooth wireless connection to the unit that contains your CPU. The connection between your printer and your computer no longer needs a wire. Many people have replaced their fax machine with a number at some anonymous service center that converts a fax into an e-mail attachment and sends it to you over the Internet, and a scanner (which can also be wirelessly attached to your computer and is often part of your printer/copier/fax machine).
There is a good chance that as you read this post over the Internet that you are doing so over a local area wireless connection, and if you are in Cherry Creek North or the 16th Street Mall in Denver, you may even be doing so over a neighborhood wireless connection. Cell phones are, of course, wireless, and even if you still have a landline phone (many college dormitories are considering given up landlines as a standard feature of student rooms), the handset is probably cordless. There are speakers and headphones with wireless connections to your stereo. You might watch cable television, which is, of course, wired, but you might instead watch comparable satellite television, which is, of course, wireless.
Even my bedroom clock has wireless connections. It reads the outdoor temperature from a wireless transmitter in the backyard, and sets itself daily using a radio signal from an atomic clock in Fort Collins.
The basic trend is clear. Information transfer is overwhelmingly moving to a wireless standard. Even the holdouts from the wirless trend, like USB connections and "firewire" connections, prove the rule. They have held out largely because they transfer power as well as information.
Rethinking Power Outlets
Alternating current power systems won the "War of the Currents" back in the late 1800s, because it is easier to transform to high voltages for efficient transmission of power over long distances. But, some recent developments may lead to a direct current counter-revolution a century later.
Change Driving Developments
First, lots of things we power with electricity are becoming more efficient. Compact florescent bulbs and light emitting diodes use much less electricity to produce than same amount of light than traditional incandescent bulbs.
This impact isn't limited to light bulbs either. My cathode ray tube television from thirteen years ago draws 130 watts. My newest computer monitor, a flat screen LCD, draws just 18 watts and isn't all that different in size or function from the television. Computers are also growing less power hungry.
Second, lots of household electrical devices run on low voltage direct current, and require bulky converters to turn household 110 volt alternating current into something it can use. Almost every home computer, ever cordless razor, every cordless drill, every mini-vacuum cleaner runs on DC power. Your phone also runs on DC power transmitted through the phone lines. Everything electrical but the alternator in your car also runs on DC power, and there is a move on to switch car batteries from 12 volts to 36 volts to handle increased power loads in cars. And, every conversion from AC to DC results in lost energy, which is why recharging units get hot (and also a major reason that computers need fans).
In most homes the only electrical devices that still run on AC without converting it to DC power first are the kitchen appliances, the laundry appliances, the fans and the air conditioner.
Third, many of the DC powered electrical items need to be protected from power outs, brownouts and power surges, which are a fact of life if your power comes directly from the power grid. Thus, computer owners routinely purchase surge protectors and uninterruptable power supplies for their computers and peripherals.
In contrast, most of the AC powered electrical items in a typical house, which also tend to be the real power hogs, like ovens and dryers and air conditioners, are not nearly so sensitive to brief power interruptions and irregularities. If the power to your computer goes out for a minute and you don't have some form of battery backup, you lose all your work. If the power to your air conditioner goes out for a minute, you still receive 98% of the cooling you would have otherwise that hour, maybe more because thermostats keep air conditioners from working continuously anyway and it may just adjust the thermostat timing without changing the total cooling.
Fourth, as decades of gradual improvements in consumer and workplace safety have accrued, the danger associated with using high voltage household current AC outlets, instead of low voltage DC power connections, looms larger than it did a century ago when life in general was far more dangerous. Risk apply both to electricians and do it yourselfers working on the systems, and to children and fools at risk of electrocuting themselves through an unholy combination of household power outlets, conductors and water.
Fifth, wireless power supplies at anything more than a few millimeters distance (e.g. inductive heating elements) are pie in the sky technology.
Taken together these facts suggest that it might make sense to rethink how homes, offices and retail businesses are wired.
The Case For AC/DC dual power systems
Instead of a single AC household current system, most homes and businesses might benefit from a dual AC/DC power system. In this system, a couple of rooms, like the kitchen and utility room, would continue to have traditional AC power outlets. But, the rest of the house, would not.
A central household rectifer would convert AC power from the grid (or DC power from local solar panels or fuel cells or windmills or what have you), into DC power which would feed into an uninterruptable power supply for the entire household DC power system. Bedrooms, living rooms, dining rooms, and bathrooms would then have low voltage DC power outlets that would power computers, low watt lights, televisions, stereos, alarm clocks, shavers, mini-vacuum cleaners, electronic ignition systems for natural gas appliances, and the like.
The DC powered gadgets could be smaller, since they would no longer have to have AC to DC power converters or uninterruptable power supplies. The safety risk at DC outlets would be smaller, making child proofing easier. And, energy loss from AC to DC conversion would be eliminated. Yet, since the distances involved from the rectifier to the DC power outlets would be small and take place after local transformers had converted high voltage AC power to low voltage AC power, the transmission effiicency benefits associated with AC power would be largely irrelevant.
The Buried Wire Trend
The hottest issue before the city council in Denver this week was a fight over whether Xcel Energy, the local power company, should bury new lines in the Ruby Hill neighborhood, are put in new overhead lines at greater cost.
As population density increases (reudcing the cost per customer of buried lines), and new subdivisions mandate buried lines, the buried line camp is gaining ground. Overhead power lines are cheaper to put up in the first place (by almost an order of magnitude), but they are much more expensive to maintain through tree trimming and repairs required by weather conditions, and when overhead lines go down in storms, they put lives at risk and disrupt the power grid.
The X Factors
One development could dramatically impact the future of power lines. The holy grail for inventors these days is not a better mousetrap, but a better battery.
Better batteries are the key technology necessary to create competitive electric car, to allow ephemeral renewable power sources like wind and solar power to be useful for meeting base power needs, and to allow the easy development of off the grid homes. Better batteries would eliminate the need for many rooms in a home to be wired at all. Already, you can buy wireless lightbulbs that are battery powered -- you replace the battery when you replace the burnt out bulb.
A second development that could dramatically impact the future of power lines is the evolution of the high temperature superconductor.
Room temperature superconductors will probably never be developed. But, even the highest temperature superconductors today, with a well insulated cooling system, could allow utilities to generate power for the grid much further from the places where it will be used, with less energy loss in transmission, allowing utilities to engage in such tricks as turning solar power into a 24 hour a day energy source. Superconducting loops could also act as a form of energy storage. And, by eliminating the raison d'etre of AC transmission lines, which is low power loss during transmission through the use of easy transformations to high voltage, superconductors could even fundamentally upset the status quo in the war of the currents, making DC power more attractive in a wide range of applications.
Conclusion
Wired magazine may soon find that its name no longer captures the leading edge of technology. The only real question is how far the wireless trend will go.
12 July 2007
In Praise of Complete Computing
One of my mottos is that people hire lawyers to do impossible things (actually, things that are impossible to accomplish without a lawyer). But, we're not the only profession in the Mission Impossible business.
Today, I write to praise my office's outsourced computer guru Complete Computing whose principal is Peggy Pitchford. Her latest campaign to bring order to an unruly cyber universe has been a great success accomplished with dogged determination, in the face of deliberate indifference from megacorporations like Hewlett Packard, mysterious error messages, and limited hardware and financial resources.
Among other things, she has solved a problem of seemingly endless error messages in my Internet connections when scripts arose, that had eluded me despite countless hours spent trying to track down their source, with the result that my laptop is now far more functional.
She's got a heavy load of clients, but she, and her associates, are worth it.
Today, I write to praise my office's outsourced computer guru Complete Computing whose principal is Peggy Pitchford. Her latest campaign to bring order to an unruly cyber universe has been a great success accomplished with dogged determination, in the face of deliberate indifference from megacorporations like Hewlett Packard, mysterious error messages, and limited hardware and financial resources.
Among other things, she has solved a problem of seemingly endless error messages in my Internet connections when scripts arose, that had eluded me despite countless hours spent trying to track down their source, with the result that my laptop is now far more functional.
She's got a heavy load of clients, but she, and her associates, are worth it.
Only Nixon Less Popular Than W
According to a recent opinion poll, only Nixon has a lower overall unfavorable rating than George W. Bush, among all historical U.S. Presidents. The unfavorable rating for Nixon is 60%, for George W. Bush it is 59%. But, Bush still has 18 months to further tarnish his historical legacy, so Nixon may yet leave the woodshed of historical shame.
The least well known President, John Tyler, also deserves some downgrading. He brought us Texas, failed to broker a compromise to end the Civil War, and served in the Confederate legislature. We'd have been better off without him.
The least well known President, John Tyler, also deserves some downgrading. He brought us Texas, failed to broker a compromise to end the Civil War, and served in the Confederate legislature. We'd have been better off without him.
Powder v Crack Revisited
Those familiar with the debate over harsh sentences for crack cocaine use can skip this post. This is a recap for newbies via the American Prospect:
Of course, crack penalties aren't the only problematic mandatory minimum sentences in the federal criminal code, just the most clearly problematic.
Now over 20 years old, the sentencing guidelines set forth in the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 mandate a minimum incarceration of five years for possession of five grams of crack cocaine -- the same penalty that is triggered for the sale of 500 grams of powder cocaine, or 100-times the minimum quantity for crack. . . .
While drug use rates are similar among all racial groups, African American drug offenders have a 20 percent greater chance of being sentenced to prison than white offenders, according to Commission statistics. In 2005, more than 80 percent of crack cocaine defendants were black. . . .
[A] sampling of those incarcerated under the guidelines in 2000 showed roughly 66 percent were low-level street dealers, while only half-of-one percent qualified as "high-level" suppliers. . . .
The Bureau of Justice Statistics found that between 1994 and 2003, the average time African American drug offenders served in prison increased by 77 percent, compared to an increase of 28 percent for white drug offenders. . . .
This year, as it has four times in the past two decades, the Commission recommended that lawmakers repeal the crack sentencing mandate. . . .
Currently there are six bills making their way through Congress aimed at addressing the disparity . . . H.R. 79 . . . would apply the same five-year minimum to powder cocaine . . . Biden's Drug Sentencing Reform and Cocaine Kingpin Trafficking Act of 2007, which would repeal the mandatory minimum for simple possession of crack and focus federal attention away from street-level dealers and onto so-called "cocaine kingpins." . . . the bipartisan Fairness in Drug Sentencing Act of 2007 . . . would only reduce the crack/powder disparity to a ratio of 20-to-1, not eliminate it altogether.
Of course, crack penalties aren't the only problematic mandatory minimum sentences in the federal criminal code, just the most clearly problematic.
Bankruptcy and Juvenile Restitution
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a case of first impression, has ruled that restitution orders arising from juvenile delinquency proceedings are dischargable in bankruptcy under Chapter 13.
Starting in 1990, criminal restitution orders were made non-dischargable in Chapter 13, but the Court held that a juvenile delinquency determination was a status, rather than a crime, and that the ban on discharge of criminal restitution therefore, did not apply.
Starting in 1990, criminal restitution orders were made non-dischargable in Chapter 13, but the Court held that a juvenile delinquency determination was a status, rather than a crime, and that the ban on discharge of criminal restitution therefore, did not apply.
11 July 2007
The Motherhood Divide In Denver
Denver is a highly segregated city. The divide between its mostly well off Anglo and Asian populations, and its relatively less well off Hispanic, black and Native American populations can be stark.
The divide is particularly notable when looking at the characteristics of mothers who give birth in Denver by ethnicity. Consider the following statistics (all of which are percentage of births to mothers in the ethnicity stated in 2005 from Health Statistics Section, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment):
Mother Age 10-17*
Anglo: 0.9%
Asian: less than 0.5%
Hispanic: 7.8%
Black: 6.4%
Native American: 11.1%
Mother Age 18-19
Anglo: 2.2%
Asian: 1.3%
Hispanic: 10.1%
Black: 10.7%
Native American: 9.9%
Mother Age 30+
Anglo: 62.7%
Asian: 57.3%
Hispanic: 25.3%
Black: 27.4%
Native American: 29.6%
Mother Not Married
Anglo: 17.1%
Asian: 12.6%
Hispanic: 42.2%
Black: 60.6%
Native American: 66.7%
Mother Not A High School Graduate
Anglo: 6.3%
Asian: 11.6%
Hispanic: 60.3%
Black: 24.8%
Native American: 34.6%
No First Trimester Prenatal Care
Anglo: 11.5%
Asian: 17.2%
Hispanic: 36.6%
Black: 26.9%
Native American: 42.3%
Smoked During Pregnancy
Anglo: 5.9%
Asian: 4.1%
Hispanic: 5.3%
Black: 9.1%
Native American: 12.3%
*Births to mothers age 10-17 who were Denver residents without regard to ethnicity were divided as follows: Mother age 10-12: 1, Mother age 13-14: 27, Mother Age 15-17: 473.
Total number of live births to Denver resident mothers in 2005 by category: Anglo 3707, Hispanic 5035, Black 1028, Asian 372, Native American 81.
The numbers tell the tale of two very different patterns of motherhood in Denver. I don't have the cross-tabs, but it is safe to guess that there is a great deal of overlap between teen mothers, unmarried mothers, mothers who haven't graduated from high school, mothers who lack prenatal care, and mothers who smoked during pregnancy.
The divide is not absolute. It is fair to guess that one in seven or eight Anglo or Asian mothers fit the "at risk" profile, with at least one of the risk favors identified above, while perhaps 40% of mothers who are Hispanic, black or Native American are in no way "at risk" by the measures shown above.
In this post, I called it the Motherhood Divide, because more than marriage divides the "at risk" mothers from those whose prospects seem secure, but more often it is called the Marriage Gap.
While these seems like the same old bad news, it is worth remembering that this phenomena is not as old as one might think, according to this analysis from Reason magazine discussing hte national trend:
The Reason article speculates at length about the consequences these trends may have in the future. I've limited the quotation to the status quo and recent history, and have skipped the sticky issue of cohabitation v. single parenting v. marriage in this post.
Denver is also, like many central cities, atypical of the state or nation at large. Many middle class minorities and many working class whites don't live in central Denver. They are prone to live in the suburbs. But, Denver's divide is still worth noting.
The divide is particularly notable when looking at the characteristics of mothers who give birth in Denver by ethnicity. Consider the following statistics (all of which are percentage of births to mothers in the ethnicity stated in 2005 from Health Statistics Section, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment):
Mother Age 10-17*
Anglo: 0.9%
Asian: less than 0.5%
Hispanic: 7.8%
Black: 6.4%
Native American: 11.1%
Mother Age 18-19
Anglo: 2.2%
Asian: 1.3%
Hispanic: 10.1%
Black: 10.7%
Native American: 9.9%
Mother Age 30+
Anglo: 62.7%
Asian: 57.3%
Hispanic: 25.3%
Black: 27.4%
Native American: 29.6%
Mother Not Married
Anglo: 17.1%
Asian: 12.6%
Hispanic: 42.2%
Black: 60.6%
Native American: 66.7%
Mother Not A High School Graduate
Anglo: 6.3%
Asian: 11.6%
Hispanic: 60.3%
Black: 24.8%
Native American: 34.6%
No First Trimester Prenatal Care
Anglo: 11.5%
Asian: 17.2%
Hispanic: 36.6%
Black: 26.9%
Native American: 42.3%
Smoked During Pregnancy
Anglo: 5.9%
Asian: 4.1%
Hispanic: 5.3%
Black: 9.1%
Native American: 12.3%
*Births to mothers age 10-17 who were Denver residents without regard to ethnicity were divided as follows: Mother age 10-12: 1, Mother age 13-14: 27, Mother Age 15-17: 473.
Total number of live births to Denver resident mothers in 2005 by category: Anglo 3707, Hispanic 5035, Black 1028, Asian 372, Native American 81.
The numbers tell the tale of two very different patterns of motherhood in Denver. I don't have the cross-tabs, but it is safe to guess that there is a great deal of overlap between teen mothers, unmarried mothers, mothers who haven't graduated from high school, mothers who lack prenatal care, and mothers who smoked during pregnancy.
The divide is not absolute. It is fair to guess that one in seven or eight Anglo or Asian mothers fit the "at risk" profile, with at least one of the risk favors identified above, while perhaps 40% of mothers who are Hispanic, black or Native American are in no way "at risk" by the measures shown above.
In this post, I called it the Motherhood Divide, because more than marriage divides the "at risk" mothers from those whose prospects seem secure, but more often it is called the Marriage Gap.
While these seems like the same old bad news, it is worth remembering that this phenomena is not as old as one might think, according to this analysis from Reason magazine discussing hte national trend:
69. That is the percentage of black children born out of wedlock in 1999. The good news is that the illegitimacy ratio for blacks stopped rising in the 1990s; the bad news is that it stabilized at more than triple the illegitimacy ratio of 1960. Today, about two-thirds of all black families are headed by a single parent (usually the mother), and a majority of all black children live in fatherless households. . . .
Until the 1950s, blacks were more, rather than less, likely than whites to be married. . . .
In 1960, about 2 percent of white children were born out of wedlock; in 1999, the comparable figure was 27 percent--and the figure for whites, unlike the one for blacks, continues to grow. . . . the great engine of single-parenthood is no longer divorce, as it was in the 1960s and 1970s; it is the rising share of births to people who never marry to begin with. . . .
America's families and children may be splitting into two increasingly divergent and self-perpetuating streams--two social classes, in other words--with marriage as the dividing line. Some children would grow up in a culture where marriage is taken for granted and parents worry about sport utility vehicles and quality day care, others in a culture where marriage is a pipe dream and deadbeat dads and impoverished kids are the norm.
The Reason article speculates at length about the consequences these trends may have in the future. I've limited the quotation to the status quo and recent history, and have skipped the sticky issue of cohabitation v. single parenting v. marriage in this post.
Denver is also, like many central cities, atypical of the state or nation at large. Many middle class minorities and many working class whites don't live in central Denver. They are prone to live in the suburbs. But, Denver's divide is still worth noting.
10 July 2007
Traditional Marriage Between A Man and A Woman
Traditional marriage between a man and a woman isn't always such a great thing:
Marriage based on the mutual consent of both the man and the woman marrying based on the wishes and choice of the members of the couple isn't all that old.
Arranged marriages weren't terribly uncommon 150 years ago among European immigrants to the United States, and were common more recently than that in much of Asia, although outright trading of women like chattle as described above has not been common in Europe for a longer time, and probably never really took hold on a widespread basis in the United States (widespread literacy for women also came sooner to the U.S. than in Europe or Asia). In some places, like Afghanistan, arranged marriage remains common.
Afghanistan's model is the real traditional marriage, and I see few reasons to stick up for that institution.
By ALISA TANG, Associated Press Writer
Mon Jul 9, 4:19 PM ET
JALALABAD, Afghanistan - Unable to scrounge together the $165 he needed to repay a loan to buy sheep, Nazir Ahmad made good on his debt by selling his 16-year-old daughter to marry the lender's son.
"He gave me nine sheep," Ahmad said, describing his family's woes since taking the loan. "Because of nine sheep, I gave away my daughter." . . .
[G]irls are traded like currency in Afghanistan and forced marriages are common. Antiquated tribal laws authorize the practice known as "bad" in the Afghan language Dari — and girls are used to settle disputes ranging from debts to murder.
Such exchanges bypass the hefty bride price of a traditional betrothal, which can cost upward of $1,000. Roughly two out of five Afghan marriages are forced. . . .
Millions of girls now attend school and women fill jobs in government and media.
There are also signs of change for the better inside the largest tribe in eastern Afghanistan — the deeply conservative Shinwaris.
Shinwari elders from several districts signed a resolution this year outlawing several practices that harm girls and women. These included a ban on using girls to settle so-called blood feuds — when a man commits murder, he must hand over his daughter or sister as a bride for a man in the victim's family. The marriage ostensibly "mixes blood to end the bloodshed." Otherwise, revenge killings often continue between the families for generations. . . .
[The Women and Children Legal Research Foundation] investigated about 500 cases of girls given in marriage to settle blood feuds and found only four or five that ended happily. Much more often, the girl suffered for a crime committed by a male relative. . . . A girl is often beaten and sometimes killed because when the family looks at her, they see the killer. "Because they lost someone, they take it out on her" . . .
Several years ago in nearby Momand Dara district, a taxi driver hit a boy with his car, killing him. The boy's family demanded a girl as compensation, so the driver purchased an 11-year-old named Fawzia from an acquaintance for $5,000 and gave her to the dead boy's relatives . . . Three years ago, Fawzia was shot to death . . . .
The story of Malia and the nine sheep illustrates the suffering of girls forced into such marriages.
Malia listened as her father described how he was held hostage by his lender, Khaliq Mohammad, because he could not come up with the money to pay for the sheep, which Ahmad had sold to free a relative seized because of another of Ahmad's debts.
Ahmad was released only when he agreed to give Malia's hand in marriage to the lender's 18-year-old son. Asked how she felt about it, Malia shook her head and remained silent. Her face then crumpled in anguish and she wiped away tears.
Marriage based on the mutual consent of both the man and the woman marrying based on the wishes and choice of the members of the couple isn't all that old.
Arranged marriages weren't terribly uncommon 150 years ago among European immigrants to the United States, and were common more recently than that in much of Asia, although outright trading of women like chattle as described above has not been common in Europe for a longer time, and probably never really took hold on a widespread basis in the United States (widespread literacy for women also came sooner to the U.S. than in Europe or Asia). In some places, like Afghanistan, arranged marriage remains common.
Afghanistan's model is the real traditional marriage, and I see few reasons to stick up for that institution.
Lead Poisoning and Crime
One man's studies suggests that lead poisoning rates are closely linked to violent crime rates twenty years later. More analysis of the study by Rick Nevin is found here, and an abstract of the May 2000 article is found here.
He attributed the big 1990s drop in violent crime to the end of leaded gasoline, and previous crime surges to increased use of lead. He argues that lead is the lead exposure is a leading cause of violent crime.
The link isn't obvious, but a route of causation is plausible, and the data are rather strong. The alternative, of course, is that lead exposure could be a proxy for other variables that are actually causes, like poverty.
The news is basically good, because lead exposure reductions have been one of the great success stories of recent environmental history. The primary exposure rate at this point is through old lead pipes in older cities (Washington DC among them).
He attributed the big 1990s drop in violent crime to the end of leaded gasoline, and previous crime surges to increased use of lead. He argues that lead is the lead exposure is a leading cause of violent crime.
The link isn't obvious, but a route of causation is plausible, and the data are rather strong. The alternative, of course, is that lead exposure could be a proxy for other variables that are actually causes, like poverty.
The news is basically good, because lead exposure reductions have been one of the great success stories of recent environmental history. The primary exposure rate at this point is through old lead pipes in older cities (Washington DC among them).
Against CAFE Standards
The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) regulations are the primary governmental means used in the United States designed to encourage fuel efficiency. I’m all for fuel efficient vehicles, but I don’t like the CAFE standards.
What is it?
The principal problem with CAFE standards, other than the new footprint standards, is the fleet orientation. Simply put, fuel efficiency should be an individual vehicle based regulation, and not based upon the mix of vehicles that a company happens to sell. For example, while General Motors can meet CAFE standards by lumping fuel guzzling Cadillac sales, with sales of compact cars in its Chevy line, were it to spin off Cadillac, the separate luxury car company would struggle to meet the standards.
The Case For A Predicted Lifetime Fuel Consumption Excise Tax
One possible alternative would be an upfront tax on anticipated fuel useage. First, the EPA fuel ratings would be modified to make them more accurate (something already scheduled to happen in 2008). Second, a predicted fuel consumption over some approximation of the lifetime of the vehicle, say 100,000 miles, would be calculated. Third, a tax rate, perhaps $1 per gallon, would be applied to this lifetime consumption. Fourth, a flat, per vehicle purchase tax rate would be applied to against this tax.
For example, suppose that you had a 25 mpg vehicle. The predicted fuel consumption (prominently displayed along with a predicted lifetime fuel purchase cost based upon current prices – more if the vehicle needed premium fuel) would be 4,000 gallons. The basic tax would be $4,000. A credit might be based on say 33.3 mpg, or 3,000 gallons over the life of the car. So, maybe the credit would be $3,000 and the car purchaser would pay a $1,000 tax on the car.
Now, suppose that you buy a 50 mpg hybrid vehicle. The predicted fuel consumption would be 2,000 gallons. The basic tax would be $2,000. But, after applying a $3,000 credit, maybe you would receive a $1,000 fuel efficiency tax refund with the purchase.
Why?
1. It puts the incentives and information in place at the time when the economic decision is made, when the vehicle is purchased, unlike a gas tax which comes up at a time when vehicle owners have only a limited ability to change their gasoline use – fuel consumption is very inelastic due to the demands of work and home and shopping locations.
2. The tax is collected at a time when the buyer can’t afford it, when a new car is purchased. Unlike gas tax increases, it doesn’t burden people based on economic decisions made before the tax was enacted, which simply burden the poor.
3. It simultaneously encourages buyers to purchase smaller vehicles and to purchase more fuel efficient vehicles. To the extent that lower income people tend to purchase smaller, more fuel efficient cars anyway, because they are cheaper, the tax will be less regressive than gas taxes. Likewise, taxes will tend to be high on fuel inefficient big SUVs and luxury cars, which tend to be purchased by the affluent.
4. The tax is indifferent to fleet mix. If you want to sell exclusively luxury cars, exclusively small cars, or a mix of both, the law doesn’t car.
5. The tax recognizes that secondary market sales of vehicles have only a modest impact on the environment. Once a new vehicle has been sold, somebody is going to drive it until it breaks down and has to be scrapped. An individual’s trade up to a more fuel efficient new vehicle is only good for the environment at the macro-level only if the vehicle is not resold to someone else. The problem of removing fuel inefficient vehicles from the national fleet of vehicles before they are mechanically exhausted is a problem that will have to be solved separately.
6. The tax is closely linked to the impact that the tax seeks to influence. It is closely linked to fuel consumption.
7. The tax subtly favors conservation. Those who conserve simply by driving less will still pay less in the long run, because they will pay the tax on fewer vehicles over time. If you drive 5,000 miles a year, you may buy 1 vehicle every twenty years, rather than 1 vehicle every ten years, and so you will pay the tax once instead of twice. Likewise, a business that is given a choice between an eight passenger vehicle with less fuel efficiency and a four passenger vehicle with more fuel efficiency will have an incentive to choose the larger vehicle only if the business really needs the eight passenger capacity.
8. The tax encourages economically sensible fuel efficiency innovation in a non-arbitrary way. If a technology that costs less than $1 per gallon of lifetime fuel savings, there is an economic incentive to include it, and the cheaper the technology, the stronger the incentive is to use it. If the technology costs more than $1 per gallon of lifetime fuel savings, it is subsidized, but not strongly encouraged, and the subsidy is weaker as the cost/benefit ratio falls. Rather than amend CAFE standards on a regular basis as new technologies make fuel efficiency technologies feasible, falling technology prices encourage their use.
What is it?
The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) . . . is the sales-weighted average fuel economy, expressed in miles per gallon (mpg), of a manufacturer's fleet of current model year passenger cars or light trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 8,500 pounds (3,856 kg) or less, manufactured for sale in the United States. This system will change with the introduction of "Footprint" regulations for light trucks binding in 2011. Light trucks that exceed 8,500 lbs gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) do not have to comply with CAFE standards; SUVs and passenger vans are exempt up to 10,000 lbs. In 1999, over half a million vehicles exceeded the GVWR and the CAFE standard did not apply to them. In 2011, the standard will change to include many larger vehicles. . . . If the average fuel economy of a manufacturer's annual fleet of car and/or truck production falls below the defined standard, the manufacturer must pay a penalty, currently $5.50 per 0.1 mpg under the standard, multiplied by the manufacturer's total production for the U.S. domestic market, a fine which not all car makers avoid. . . . .
For the purposes of CAFE, a manufacturer's car output is divided into a domestic fleet (vehicles with more than 75% U.S., Canadian or (after the passage of NAFTA) Mexican content) and a foreign fleet (everything else). Each of these fleets must separately meet the requirements. . . .The two fleet rule for light trucks was removed in 1996.
Fuel economy calculation for alternative fuel vehicles multiplies the actual fuel used by a "Fuel Content" Factor of 0.15 as an incentive to develop alternative fuel vehicles. Dual-fuel vehicles, such as E85 capable models, are taken as the average of this alternative fuel rating and its gasoline rate. Thus a 15 mpg dual-fuel E85 capable vehicle would be rated as 40 mpg for CAFE purposes, in spite of the fact that less than 1% of the fuel used in E85 capable vehicles is actually E85.
Manufacturers are also allowed to earn CAFE "credits" in any year they exceed CAFE requirements, which they may use to offset deficiencies in other years. CAFE credits can be applied to the three years previous or three years subsequent to the year in which they are earned. The reason for this requirement is so that manufacturers are not penalized for occasionally (due to market conditions, for example) failing the targets, but only for persistent failure to meet them. . . .
Cars and light trucks are considered separately for CAFE and are held to different standards. As of early 2004, the average for cars must exceed 27.5 mpg and the light truck average must exceed 20.7 mpg. Trucks under 8500 lb must average 22.5 mpg in 2008, 23.1 mpg in 2009, and 23.5 mpg in 2010. After this, new rules set varying targets based on truck size "footprint". . . . As of model year 2002, BMW, DaimlerChrysler (import fleet only), Ferrari, Lotus and Porsche failed the automobile CAFE requirement, while BMW and Volkswagen failed to meet the light truck requirement. . . .
Under the new final light truck CAFE standard 2008-2011, fuel economy standards are restructured so that they are based on a measure of vehicle size called "footprint," the product of multiplying a vehicle's wheelbase by its track width. A target level of fuel economy is established for each increment in footprint using a continuous mathematical formula. Smaller footprint light trucks have higher fuel economy targets and larger trucks lower targets. Manufacturers who make more large trucks are allowed to meet a lower overall CAFE target, manufacturers who make more small trucks must meet a higher standard. Unlike previous CAFE standards there is no requirement for a manufacturer or the industry as a whole to meet any particular overall actual MPG target.
The principal problem with CAFE standards, other than the new footprint standards, is the fleet orientation. Simply put, fuel efficiency should be an individual vehicle based regulation, and not based upon the mix of vehicles that a company happens to sell. For example, while General Motors can meet CAFE standards by lumping fuel guzzling Cadillac sales, with sales of compact cars in its Chevy line, were it to spin off Cadillac, the separate luxury car company would struggle to meet the standards.
The Case For A Predicted Lifetime Fuel Consumption Excise Tax
One possible alternative would be an upfront tax on anticipated fuel useage. First, the EPA fuel ratings would be modified to make them more accurate (something already scheduled to happen in 2008). Second, a predicted fuel consumption over some approximation of the lifetime of the vehicle, say 100,000 miles, would be calculated. Third, a tax rate, perhaps $1 per gallon, would be applied to this lifetime consumption. Fourth, a flat, per vehicle purchase tax rate would be applied to against this tax.
For example, suppose that you had a 25 mpg vehicle. The predicted fuel consumption (prominently displayed along with a predicted lifetime fuel purchase cost based upon current prices – more if the vehicle needed premium fuel) would be 4,000 gallons. The basic tax would be $4,000. A credit might be based on say 33.3 mpg, or 3,000 gallons over the life of the car. So, maybe the credit would be $3,000 and the car purchaser would pay a $1,000 tax on the car.
Now, suppose that you buy a 50 mpg hybrid vehicle. The predicted fuel consumption would be 2,000 gallons. The basic tax would be $2,000. But, after applying a $3,000 credit, maybe you would receive a $1,000 fuel efficiency tax refund with the purchase.
Why?
1. It puts the incentives and information in place at the time when the economic decision is made, when the vehicle is purchased, unlike a gas tax which comes up at a time when vehicle owners have only a limited ability to change their gasoline use – fuel consumption is very inelastic due to the demands of work and home and shopping locations.
2. The tax is collected at a time when the buyer can’t afford it, when a new car is purchased. Unlike gas tax increases, it doesn’t burden people based on economic decisions made before the tax was enacted, which simply burden the poor.
3. It simultaneously encourages buyers to purchase smaller vehicles and to purchase more fuel efficient vehicles. To the extent that lower income people tend to purchase smaller, more fuel efficient cars anyway, because they are cheaper, the tax will be less regressive than gas taxes. Likewise, taxes will tend to be high on fuel inefficient big SUVs and luxury cars, which tend to be purchased by the affluent.
4. The tax is indifferent to fleet mix. If you want to sell exclusively luxury cars, exclusively small cars, or a mix of both, the law doesn’t car.
5. The tax recognizes that secondary market sales of vehicles have only a modest impact on the environment. Once a new vehicle has been sold, somebody is going to drive it until it breaks down and has to be scrapped. An individual’s trade up to a more fuel efficient new vehicle is only good for the environment at the macro-level only if the vehicle is not resold to someone else. The problem of removing fuel inefficient vehicles from the national fleet of vehicles before they are mechanically exhausted is a problem that will have to be solved separately.
6. The tax is closely linked to the impact that the tax seeks to influence. It is closely linked to fuel consumption.
7. The tax subtly favors conservation. Those who conserve simply by driving less will still pay less in the long run, because they will pay the tax on fewer vehicles over time. If you drive 5,000 miles a year, you may buy 1 vehicle every twenty years, rather than 1 vehicle every ten years, and so you will pay the tax once instead of twice. Likewise, a business that is given a choice between an eight passenger vehicle with less fuel efficiency and a four passenger vehicle with more fuel efficiency will have an incentive to choose the larger vehicle only if the business really needs the eight passenger capacity.
8. The tax encourages economically sensible fuel efficiency innovation in a non-arbitrary way. If a technology that costs less than $1 per gallon of lifetime fuel savings, there is an economic incentive to include it, and the cheaper the technology, the stronger the incentive is to use it. If the technology costs more than $1 per gallon of lifetime fuel savings, it is subsidized, but not strongly encouraged, and the subsidy is weaker as the cost/benefit ratio falls. Rather than amend CAFE standards on a regular basis as new technologies make fuel efficiency technologies feasible, falling technology prices encourage their use.
09 July 2007
13%
Dick Cheney, the Vice President and source of all things evil in the administration has a 13% approval rating, while I saw somewhere today that President Bush is at 29%. Even the right hates Cheney: "Just 31 percent of Republicans and 26 percent of conservatives say they have a favorable opinion of Mr. Cheney." Some democracy we've got here. I wouldn't want to copy it, if I were an outsider. There needs to be some sort of more decisive way of securing a midterm correction than the status quo.
Why does this horrible and unpopular person have power? Because the President is too weak to ignore him. Why is the President so weak? One commentator at Obsidian Wings thinks its because the campaign media narrative focuses to much on personality and too little on policy competence.
Why does this horrible and unpopular person have power? Because the President is too weak to ignore him. Why is the President so weak? One commentator at Obsidian Wings thinks its because the campaign media narrative focuses to much on personality and too little on policy competence.
Mr. Trademark Abuse
Leo Stoller is the poster child for trademark abuse. Most recently, he received a rebuke in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a decision so lacking in traditional judicial opinion style that it is tolerable only because Stoller's conduct is so egregious and needs to be stopped.
The bigger problem, of course, is how he managed to get so many frivilous trademark applications past the patent and trademark office. These need to be cancelled not piecemeal, but en masse, and accompanying by criminal prosecutions for filing false trademark applications.
Notice: The title of this post "Mr. Trademark Abuse", should in no way be confused with the firm "Mr. Trademark® Inc." which has no relation to Mr. Stoller, according to its representative Joe Strahl VP. Of course, if you had a brain, you would have realized that simply from the context of the post, but I'm putting it here for anyone too thick headed to understand that point on July 16, 2007 in response to a cease and desist e-mail I received today when I opened my work e-mail this morning. (A further response is here.)
The bigger problem, of course, is how he managed to get so many frivilous trademark applications past the patent and trademark office. These need to be cancelled not piecemeal, but en masse, and accompanying by criminal prosecutions for filing false trademark applications.
Notice: The title of this post "Mr. Trademark Abuse", should in no way be confused with the firm "Mr. Trademark® Inc." which has no relation to Mr. Stoller, according to its representative Joe Strahl VP. Of course, if you had a brain, you would have realized that simply from the context of the post, but I'm putting it here for anyone too thick headed to understand that point on July 16, 2007 in response to a cease and desist e-mail I received today when I opened my work e-mail this morning. (A further response is here.)
Who Litigates Cases?
The Colorado Bar Association has about 14,000 members. There are more than 20,000 attorneys licensed to practice law in Colorado.
Every criminal cases is prosecuted by an attorney in the U.S. Attorneys Office for Colorado (about 49 attorneys), the Colorado Attorney General's Office (about 41 attorneys), or one of the 21 District Attorney's offices in the state (about 450 attorneys), so in all there are about 540 attorneys who prosecute criminal cases in the state. These numbers are derived from the Colorado legal directory, which provides a nearly complete list of prosecuting attorneys in the state, excluding only lower ranking deupty district attorneys in the 19th and 20th Judicial Districts for which I have made estimates based on the staffing in districts of similar population.
There are about 228 attorneys in the Colorado public defenders office (both trial and appellate combined), and about 17 federal public defenders in Colorado (a public defenders jurisdiction that also includes Wyoming) (federal numbers from the Colorado legal directory). Thus, there are 245 public defenders in the state. Nationally, public defenders handle about 75%-80% of criminal cases, and there is no reason to think that Colorado is atypical in this regard.
There were 1,916 criminal jury trials in Colorado in 2006, making up about 85% of jury trials in the state each year. There were another 809 criminal bench trials in Colorado that year (excluding infraction final hearings), which constitute about a third of all non-jury trials in the state (other than small claims hearings) each year. This includes both state and federal cases, but excludes muncipal ordinance cases which are generally prosecuted by county attorneys in municipal court, and overwhelmingly consist of traffic cases.
There were also about 1,568 civil trials to the court in Colorado (excluding 3,485 small claims hearings generally conducted without attorneys), and 372 civil jury trials in Colorado, in 2006 (federal and state combined).
Thus, about two-thirds of the jury trials in the state, and about a quarter of bench trials are handled entirely by just 785 attorneys, which make up less than 4% of the licensed attorneys in the state, and another 20% or so of jury trials (about 380) and 8% of bench trials (about 160) in the state are handled by a public prosecutor who is among that 4%, and a private criminal defense attorney. A large share of all criminal cases are handled by attorneys who special in criminal defense, and they tend to have trials more frequently than civil litigators, often several a year.
It is a fair guess that the vast majority of criminal cases in Colorado, probably 80% of jury trials and 30% of bench trials, at least, are handled by roughly 1,000-1,400 criminal lawyers who make up about 5-7% or less (the 20,000 number above is probably an underestimate) of the lawyers licensed to practice in Colorado.
This leaves only about 1,900 trials a year for the other 19,000 lawyers in Colorado, which means that the average non-criminal lawyer in Colorado handles just one trial every ten years or so, an average of just 4 or so trials per career per lawyer. The average non-criminal lawyer in Colorado handles less than one civil jury trial in an entire career.
In fact, some lawyers have relatively active civil trial practices (a busy civil trial lawyer with a personal injury practice does a couple of jury trials a year), while others don't do any litigation -- instead handling contract drafting and negotiation, real estate deals, corporate paperwork, estate planning, and other transactional practice specialties. Also, most lawyers that participate in civil litigation are specialized -- some handle mostly large volume, small dollar amount collection and eviction cases, some bring personal injury and consumer suits, some defend suits for insurance companies or corporations, some handle family law cases, and some handle all or a portion of a government entity's litigation.
In the two-thirds of civil trials in county court, the vast majority are handled by large volume, small dollar amount collections and evictions lawyers, often with pro se defendants. The vast majority of these cases are probably litigated by fewer than 200 attorneys (at 6 trials a year). This leaves only about 600 trials a year for upwards of 18,000 Colorado lawyers.
Ironically, so called "trial lawyers," a term usally applied to attorneys who bring personal injury suits, consumer protections suits and civil rights suits, make up a relatively small share of the total share of trial litigators in the state.
Every criminal cases is prosecuted by an attorney in the U.S. Attorneys Office for Colorado (about 49 attorneys), the Colorado Attorney General's Office (about 41 attorneys), or one of the 21 District Attorney's offices in the state (about 450 attorneys), so in all there are about 540 attorneys who prosecute criminal cases in the state. These numbers are derived from the Colorado legal directory, which provides a nearly complete list of prosecuting attorneys in the state, excluding only lower ranking deupty district attorneys in the 19th and 20th Judicial Districts for which I have made estimates based on the staffing in districts of similar population.
There are about 228 attorneys in the Colorado public defenders office (both trial and appellate combined), and about 17 federal public defenders in Colorado (a public defenders jurisdiction that also includes Wyoming) (federal numbers from the Colorado legal directory). Thus, there are 245 public defenders in the state. Nationally, public defenders handle about 75%-80% of criminal cases, and there is no reason to think that Colorado is atypical in this regard.
There were 1,916 criminal jury trials in Colorado in 2006, making up about 85% of jury trials in the state each year. There were another 809 criminal bench trials in Colorado that year (excluding infraction final hearings), which constitute about a third of all non-jury trials in the state (other than small claims hearings) each year. This includes both state and federal cases, but excludes muncipal ordinance cases which are generally prosecuted by county attorneys in municipal court, and overwhelmingly consist of traffic cases.
There were also about 1,568 civil trials to the court in Colorado (excluding 3,485 small claims hearings generally conducted without attorneys), and 372 civil jury trials in Colorado, in 2006 (federal and state combined).
Thus, about two-thirds of the jury trials in the state, and about a quarter of bench trials are handled entirely by just 785 attorneys, which make up less than 4% of the licensed attorneys in the state, and another 20% or so of jury trials (about 380) and 8% of bench trials (about 160) in the state are handled by a public prosecutor who is among that 4%, and a private criminal defense attorney. A large share of all criminal cases are handled by attorneys who special in criminal defense, and they tend to have trials more frequently than civil litigators, often several a year.
It is a fair guess that the vast majority of criminal cases in Colorado, probably 80% of jury trials and 30% of bench trials, at least, are handled by roughly 1,000-1,400 criminal lawyers who make up about 5-7% or less (the 20,000 number above is probably an underestimate) of the lawyers licensed to practice in Colorado.
This leaves only about 1,900 trials a year for the other 19,000 lawyers in Colorado, which means that the average non-criminal lawyer in Colorado handles just one trial every ten years or so, an average of just 4 or so trials per career per lawyer. The average non-criminal lawyer in Colorado handles less than one civil jury trial in an entire career.
In fact, some lawyers have relatively active civil trial practices (a busy civil trial lawyer with a personal injury practice does a couple of jury trials a year), while others don't do any litigation -- instead handling contract drafting and negotiation, real estate deals, corporate paperwork, estate planning, and other transactional practice specialties. Also, most lawyers that participate in civil litigation are specialized -- some handle mostly large volume, small dollar amount collection and eviction cases, some bring personal injury and consumer suits, some defend suits for insurance companies or corporations, some handle family law cases, and some handle all or a portion of a government entity's litigation.
In the two-thirds of civil trials in county court, the vast majority are handled by large volume, small dollar amount collections and evictions lawyers, often with pro se defendants. The vast majority of these cases are probably litigated by fewer than 200 attorneys (at 6 trials a year). This leaves only about 600 trials a year for upwards of 18,000 Colorado lawyers.
Ironically, so called "trial lawyers," a term usally applied to attorneys who bring personal injury suits, consumer protections suits and civil rights suits, make up a relatively small share of the total share of trial litigators in the state.
CSAR-X Lessons Not Learned?
The winner of the contest to be the Air Force's next search and rescue helicopter was won by the a version of the HH-47 Chinook helicopter. But, moderate Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu isn't impressed with the choice for what seems on the surface, at least, like a very good reason:
Meanwhile, moderate (on some issues anyway) Republican Senator John McCain had this to say about the choice:
The Chinook also isn't very agile as a result of its size. Here is what I said about the Chinook at dkospedia:
The current helicopter used for the purpose, the HH-60, has an 11 passenger capacity.
Since the CSAR-X is an Air Force program, the job basically often involves rescues in cases of downed aircraft, not stranded Army units.
While the Air Force may have made the right choice, the arguments made on a bipartisan basis against its choice sound very thoughtful and appropriate to me, so the Air Force certainly has some explaining to do beyond what it has offered so far.
In their desire to rescue as many citizens as possible off the rooftops in and around New Orleans, rescuers unknowingly put citizens at greater risk by simply using the CH-47 Chinook helicopters. Due to the downwash created by the Chinook’s twin rotors, these helicopters had to be removed from conducting rescue missions. Instead the CH-47 Chinooks were reassigned to conduct missions such as transporting survivors, food, medical support and sandbags to repair levees. In this capacity, the CH-47 Chinook performed well, but the downwash made them dangerous in direct rescue missions[.]
Meanwhile, moderate (on some issues anyway) Republican Senator John McCain had this to say about the choice:
It is my understanding that the HH-47 was awarded the contract largely on the basis of its advantage over the US101 and S92 in range and payload. That is to utterly miss the point of combat rescue. First, unrefueled range is a non-issue in the age of helicopter air-to-air refueling.
Second, above and beyond the ability to carry a basic crew, defensive armament, limited armor protection, and a reasonable number of survivors—which all three contenders can do—payload is not a critical issue for a CSAR helicopter and never has been. The HH-47's advantage in payload is a direct reflection of its size, and size is a liability not an advantage.
The Chinook also isn't very agile as a result of its size. Here is what I said about the Chinook at dkospedia:
The CH-47 Chinook, introduced in 1961, is the Army's tandem rotor heavy lift helicopter. It carries up to 44 troops (an Army platoon) or about 19,000 pounds of cargo. It has a speed of 136 miles per hour and a range of about 300 miles.
The current helicopter used for the purpose, the HH-60, has an 11 passenger capacity.
Since the CSAR-X is an Air Force program, the job basically often involves rescues in cases of downed aircraft, not stranded Army units.
While the Air Force may have made the right choice, the arguments made on a bipartisan basis against its choice sound very thoughtful and appropriate to me, so the Air Force certainly has some explaining to do beyond what it has offered so far.
The long Padilla trial
The trial of Jose Padilla, highlighted today in the New York Times, which provides more context than most coverage, has been going on a long time, nine weeks so far, with the prosecution still trying to make its case and weeks to go.
While many high profile trials do last a long time, this is not typical. Two-thirds of federal criminal jury trials in Colorado last three days or less. Only about two out of 37 federal criminal jury trials in Colorado, in the most recent year for which numbers are available, last over four weeks. Nationwide, only 2% of federal criminal jury trials last more than four weeks.
This doesn't mean that Padilla can expect an acquittal, but it does indicate just how tenuous the government's case is here. The more you have to say to prove your case, the less likely it is that it is a solid one.
While many high profile trials do last a long time, this is not typical. Two-thirds of federal criminal jury trials in Colorado last three days or less. Only about two out of 37 federal criminal jury trials in Colorado, in the most recent year for which numbers are available, last over four weeks. Nationwide, only 2% of federal criminal jury trials last more than four weeks.
This doesn't mean that Padilla can expect an acquittal, but it does indicate just how tenuous the government's case is here. The more you have to say to prove your case, the less likely it is that it is a solid one.
08 July 2007
The Founder Effect
One of the basic principles of population genetics is the founder effect. Basically, if an isolated population has its roots in a small number of founding members, later generations will look a lot like the founding members genetically. So, if the people who broke away from another group to found the new population were atypical of the people they left in some random way, those anomolies will persist in the founding group's descendants.
The classic isolated population is the population of an island. Also, small populations are also more prone to random variations than large populations. So, we expect small isolated groups of people, like the 17,000 people of the island nations of Palau to have quirky population genetics.
There is strong evidence that this is the case when it comes to schitzophrenia incidence in Palau.
If the effective founding group of Palau was just 50-100 people, just one or two founders with schitzophrenia could account for this high incidence of schitzophrenia now. Similar results have been seen in the case of achromatopsia incidence on the Micronesian atoll of Pingelap.
Hat Tip to Science News.
The classic isolated population is the population of an island. Also, small populations are also more prone to random variations than large populations. So, we expect small isolated groups of people, like the 17,000 people of the island nations of Palau to have quirky population genetics.
There is strong evidence that this is the case when it comes to schitzophrenia incidence in Palau.
Genetic transmission plays a major role in the pathogenesis of schizophrenia. Family, twin, and adoption studies have consistently shown that risks in relatives are many times greater than the general population risk of 1%. McGue, Gottesman, and Rao (1983; Am J Hum Genet 35:1161-1178) calculated risk estimates of 12.8% for offspring and 3.5% for nieces/nephews of schizophrenia patients based on a large data set of Western European families. The present study evaluated corresponding risk levels in Palau, an isolated population in Micronesia where the prevalence of narrowly (broadly) defined schizophrenia is 1.99% (2.67%) and cases cluster in extended pedigrees, 20 of which contain 80% of affected individuals. . . . Risks to 1st- and 2nd-degree offspring were approximately double the rates found in the smaller Western European families: 23.4% in the offspring of an affected parent, 6.4% in offspring with one affected aunt/uncle, and 15.0% in offspring with two or more affected aunts/uncles. Recurrence rates in offspring of an affected parent were 1.6 times higher in males (27.9%) than in females (17.7%). The high risk levels we found in Palauan offspring reflect the elevated population prevalence, strong familial aggregation, and multi-lineal transmission pattern of schizophrenia in Palau.
If the effective founding group of Palau was just 50-100 people, just one or two founders with schitzophrenia could account for this high incidence of schitzophrenia now. Similar results have been seen in the case of achromatopsia incidence on the Micronesian atoll of Pingelap.
Hat Tip to Science News.
06 July 2007
Income Taxes On Multinationals
This article makes a solid argument that the current U.S. tax system for multinational companies is broken. Right now, income is apportioned by country, foreign income in a country can be offset by taxes paid locally in that country, and income taxation from foreign subsidiaries can be deferred utnil repatriated. The result is low tax collections from foreign income that is perpetually deferred, and an incentive to create an appearance that income comes from sources abroad.
The alternative proposal suggested would be to have multinational enterprises report worldwide income on a consolidated basis, and then, allocated income internationally in proportion to the ultimate sales the company makes in each country.
The alternative proposal suggested would be to have multinational enterprises report worldwide income on a consolidated basis, and then, allocated income internationally in proportion to the ultimate sales the company makes in each country.
Judicial Vacancies
Some Republicans are upset that the White House has nominated only 25 people to fill the 47 vacancies now on the federal judiciary.
From here.
There are about 800 Article III judges, so about 6% of judgeships are vacant, and about 3% of judgeships are both vacant and have no nominee. Bush has already nominated and confirmed 224 judges to district courts, 54 judges to the courts of appeal, and 2 U.S. Supreme Court Justices.
Keep Out = Consent Search
A 2006 ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court says that if you are present at your home and object to a search, that your fellow resident can't overide your lack of consent. The 10th Circuit yesterday, held that if you are barricading yourself in your home to avoid arrest, that this doesn't count as an objection to a search. So, your fellow resident can consent to a search after you are gone.
So, note to all you idiots out there who are barricading yourself in your homes to avoid arrest: You also need to put a sign out saying, please don't search my home, if you don't want to police to search your home when the barge in and arrest you.
I'm not sure that the U.S. Supreme Court's initial ruling is either sensible or obvious. But, given that rule, it is hard to make since of the 10th Circuit's unanimous ruling on that point yesterday.
So, note to all you idiots out there who are barricading yourself in your homes to avoid arrest: You also need to put a sign out saying, please don't search my home, if you don't want to police to search your home when the barge in and arrest you.
I'm not sure that the U.S. Supreme Court's initial ruling is either sensible or obvious. But, given that rule, it is hard to make since of the 10th Circuit's unanimous ruling on that point yesterday.
Lawyers and judges behaving badly.
There is a law professors blog devoted almost entirely to chronicling cases where judges and lawyers are accused of being unethical or incompetent. Some of my readers have shown an interest in such things (comments are generally restricted to law professors only).
Civil Appeals
New empirical research on appeals in civil cases is interesting:
A subsidiary finding of the study is also interesting. Only about 12% of trials verdicts were appealed in civil cases, and only 57% of those appeals produced an appellate court opinion (presumably the other 43% of cases appealed either settled or had appeals abandoned, intentionally or due to attorney mistakes). Thus, the trial court verdict was the last word from the judicial system in about 93% of cases. More than two-third of the appellate court decisions in the 7% of cases where there were completed appeals affirmed the trial court ruling, so only about 2% of trial court verdicts are reversed on appeal. While judges verdicts are appealed more often than jury vedicts, when all is said and done the reversal rate for jury verdicts due to appeals (2.2%), is very similar to that of verdicts by judges (2.1%).
Appeal rates and appellate reversals are lowest in motor vehicle cases where only about 0.5% of trial court verdicts are reversed on appeal. Appellate reversals are highest in employment cases and professional malpractice (other than medical malpractice) cases where about 9% of all trial verdicts are reversed on appeal.
Verdicts against defendants are reversed at least half the time in cases where appeals are completed in intentional tort cases (including libel), non-medical professional malpractice cases, employment cases, lease cases, and contract cases that involve neither a vendor nor a purchaser. Product liability cases are the only kind of cases where plaintiffs do better on appeal than defendants, and even there the difference is not statistically significant.
Plaintiffs win about 55% of cases that go to trial, but this varies greatly by case type from 73% of contested mortgage foreclosure cases (where the bank is the plaintiff) to 27% of medical malpractice cases (where the injured party is the plaintiff). Defendants and plaintiffs appeal adverse decisions and prosecute those appeals to conclusion at similar rates; 6.6% for defendants and 7.1% for plaintiffs.
The gap in reversal rates on appeal is not sufficient to overcome the general win rate edge that plaintiffs have at trial.
Two findings dominate prior empirical studies of federal civil appeals. First, appeals courts are more likely to disrupt jury verdicts than bench decisions. Second, trial court defendants fare better than plaintiffs on appeal. . . . Using data from 46 large counties consisting of 8,038 trials and 549 concluded appeals, we find that state court appellate reversal rates for jury trials and appeals by defendants exceed the reversal rates for bench trials and appeals by plaintiffs. The reversal rate for trials appealed by plaintiffs is 21.5% compared to 41.5% for trial outcomes appealed by defendants. The reversal rate for jury trials is 33.7% compared to 27.5% for judge trials.
A subsidiary finding of the study is also interesting. Only about 12% of trials verdicts were appealed in civil cases, and only 57% of those appeals produced an appellate court opinion (presumably the other 43% of cases appealed either settled or had appeals abandoned, intentionally or due to attorney mistakes). Thus, the trial court verdict was the last word from the judicial system in about 93% of cases. More than two-third of the appellate court decisions in the 7% of cases where there were completed appeals affirmed the trial court ruling, so only about 2% of trial court verdicts are reversed on appeal. While judges verdicts are appealed more often than jury vedicts, when all is said and done the reversal rate for jury verdicts due to appeals (2.2%), is very similar to that of verdicts by judges (2.1%).
Appeal rates and appellate reversals are lowest in motor vehicle cases where only about 0.5% of trial court verdicts are reversed on appeal. Appellate reversals are highest in employment cases and professional malpractice (other than medical malpractice) cases where about 9% of all trial verdicts are reversed on appeal.
Verdicts against defendants are reversed at least half the time in cases where appeals are completed in intentional tort cases (including libel), non-medical professional malpractice cases, employment cases, lease cases, and contract cases that involve neither a vendor nor a purchaser. Product liability cases are the only kind of cases where plaintiffs do better on appeal than defendants, and even there the difference is not statistically significant.
Plaintiffs win about 55% of cases that go to trial, but this varies greatly by case type from 73% of contested mortgage foreclosure cases (where the bank is the plaintiff) to 27% of medical malpractice cases (where the injured party is the plaintiff). Defendants and plaintiffs appeal adverse decisions and prosecute those appeals to conclusion at similar rates; 6.6% for defendants and 7.1% for plaintiffs.
The gap in reversal rates on appeal is not sufficient to overcome the general win rate edge that plaintiffs have at trial.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)