Recession watch: Grad Schools are Pyramid Schemes

"Brazen Careerist", Penelope Trunk, has great advice on why it is a bad idea to think of grad school as a way to escape the recession. I particularly liked:

Applications to the military increase in a bad economy in a disturbingly similar way that applications to graduate school do. For the most part, both alternatives are bad. They limit your future in ways you can’t even imagine, and they are not likely to open the kind of doors you really want. Military is the terrible escape hatch for poor kids, and grad school is the terrible escape hatch for rich kids.

Another gem in that piece: "PhD programs are pyramid schemes". Awesome :-)

F%&*ed up in Sri Lanka

I suppose it is a F%&*ed up Friday.

I blogged about the deteriorating situation in Sri Lanka, where neither side in the 26-year old civil war seemed to be concerned about civilians and, are instead, gladly bombing away. CNN reports that:

Both sides "appear to be engaged in a perverse competition to demonstrate the greatest disregard for the civilian population," according to the Human Rights Watch, in a 45-page report dated Thursday about warfare in the Vanni region of northern Sri Lanka.
"This 'war' against civilians must stop," said James Ross, legal and policy director at Human Rights Watch.
The group said that both sides are "responsible for the dramatic increase in civilian
casualties during the past month." Independent monitors say around 2,000 have been killed and another 5,000 have been wounded.
"In the last two months alone, both sides have committed numerous violations of international humanitarian law, the laws of war. While not all loss of civilian life is a
laws-of-war violation, the failure of the government forces and the LTTE to meet their international legal obligations has undoubtedly accounted for the high death tolls."

F%&*ed up in Pakistan

I earlier blogged about reports that the pilotless drones that the US was using to bomb militants in the Pakistan/Afghanistan border were flying out of bases in Pakistan. And my fear was that crap will start flying all over the place.

Now, there is more evidence of our base(s) in Pakistan. Yes, real photo evidence. Thanks to Google Earth!

The Times (London) reports with photos that the US has been flying drones from the Shamsi airbase in Baluchistan--as early as 2006. Does the acronym FUBAR come into your mind?

An investigation by The Times yesterday revealed that the CIA was secretly using Shamsi to launch the Predator drones that observe and attack al-Qaeda and Taleban militants around Pakistan's border with Afghanistan.
US special forces used the airbase during the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, but the Pakistani Government said in 2006 that the Americans had left. Both sides have since denied repeatedly that Washington has used, or is using, Pakistani bases to launch drones. Pakistan has also demanded that the US cease drone attacks on its tribal area, which have increased over the last year, allegedly killing several “high-value” targets as well as many civilians.
The Google Earth image now suggests that the US began launching Predators from Shamsi — built by Arab sheiks for falconry trips — at least three years ago. The advantage of Shamsi is that it provides a discreet launchpad within minutes of Quetta — a known Taleban staging post — as well as Taleban infiltration routes into Afghanistan and potential militant targets farther afield.

Meanwhile, the Pakistani government has okayed shaira law in the Swat region. Hey, more power and influence for the Talibans, and we are not worried, right? Again, FUBAR! The BBC reports that the US is concerned. "Concern" is not the right word here, Mr. President. Concern is if the Pakistani president has a fall and fractures his hip. In this situation, the master of the language that Obama is, I bet he can easily use way more powerful words.

More attacks on free speech

Even the so-called liberal democratic countries are deteriorating rapidly. Awful.
Spiked has this comment before the link to a photo-essay:

Along with the double decker bus, Big Ben and red phone booths, London ‘Bobbies’ have long been a popular motif for tourist snaps in the British capital. But from this week, under Section 76 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, photographing a cop can land you a fine or a 10-year prison sentence. spiked’s Nathalie Rothschild took to the streets in defiance of this latest assault on our liberties.

View photo essay

In "whom" we trust now?

As problems pile up on all fronts, I am increasingly worried that our fate lies in the hands of semi-intelligent people with an enormous ability to pontificate.
No, I am not talking about university professors; wait, am I? :-) I am not convinced about the wisdom of the crowds either.

David Rothkpof, take it away:

Watching the House interrogation of Wall Street leaders demonstrated conclusively to me that one of the greatest causes of the problems we face is that members of the House (and the Senate) simply do not have a clue about how finance works. Ask any group of 10 of these honorable yabos how a credit default swap works and one might know the answer, if that.

This is a broader problem. In a recent conversation with a retired Senator, a very prominent, respected former committee chair, he said that he guessed on a critical issue, like energy, there are only perhaps 3 or 4 legislators who actually understand our energy choice options well enough to write sensible legislation or understand what is said in a hearing. The problem is getting worse as technology, finance, even international affairs are getting more and more complicated, our legislators are falling farther and farther behind in their understanding of the fields for which they have oversight or other responsibilities.

This is not a snipe at Congress...okay, it is, but that almost seems too easy, like joking about Bush's intellect or Simon Cowell's man-boobs, but this is a serious problem, one of many with what is by far the most dysfunctional branch of the United States government.

More on fertility treatments

Oscar predictions

The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

The DaColbert Code - Oscar Predictions

Colbert Report Full Episodes
Funny Political News

Christian Bale Parody
Joke of the Day

A four-state solution?

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Indecision 5769 - Jews or Lose

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Funny Political News
Joke of the Day

Israel-Palestine two state solution: wishful thinking?

Recently, the former prime minister of Britain, Tony Blair, recalled his meeting with the former president of Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf, when both were in power.  When Blair asked Musharraf what help he would like, Musharraf replied, “a peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians.” Musharraf’s comment underscores the global geopolitical implications of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. 

It is an interesting irony that a Pakistani president highlighted the urgency of Israeli-Palestinian peace, given that Pakistan and India have not been at peace with each other since their creation as a two-state solution to the Hindu-Muslim issues.  So, when a two-state solution is often called for to put an end to violence in the Middle East, I wonder if we might be able to learn from the creation of India and Pakistan.

As World War II ended, it was clear that it was only a matter of time before the British Raj also came to an end.  The British government, and the leaders in India, realized that they had to figure out a solution to the increasingly incompatible political options when it came to the issue of a separate homeland for India’s Muslims, who were the largest minority group.

While historians continue to debate on the true intentions of the various entities involved, the result was a two-state solution—India and Pakistanwere carved out as two independent countries in August 1947. 

The creation of Pakistan was a rather strange case of a two-state solution because of the contrast with other “stan” countries.  While Afghanistan, for instance, means the land of Afghans, and Kazakhstan refers to the land of Kazakhs, Pakistan does not mean it is the land of “Pakis” because there is no ethnic group of that name.  Pakistan was a name concocted to emphasize the different ethnic groups and territories: Punjab, Afghans Kashmir, Indus, and Sind.

Furthermore, Pakistan was to be composed of two territories—West Pakistan and East Pakistan—that were almost 2000 miles apart and separated by India in between.  In such a formulation, the very absence of “Bengal” in the acronym ought to have been a warning sign on the coming breakup of the country.  After all, East Pakistan was what was referred to as East Bengal in the latter days of the Raj, where Bengali-speaking Muslims were the overwhelming majority.  Thus, I suppose it was no surprise when the Bengalis of East Pakistan wanted to be free from the domination by “Pakis” of West Pakistan, which is what happened in 1971 when the independent Bangladesh came into existence.

And then, of course, the unresolved tensions over Kashmir, with both India and Pakistan claiming the territory as their own.  This territorial turf war continues on to this day, which almost triggered a nuclear-war in 1998.

The parallels with the Israeli-Palestinian tensions are not that dissimilar.  A two-state solution is being proposed, but even now the Palestinian territories are in two separate geographic areas that are not contiguous—West Bank and the Gaza Strip—with Israel’s political boundaries in between the two.  And, there are serious differences of opinions regarding Jerusalem—very similar to the Kashmir question.

Tensions between East and West Pakistan escalated after the two-state solution was implemented.  However, in the Palestinian case, over the last couple of years Gaza and West Bank have been operating pretty much independent of each other, controlled and administered by political rivals—Hamas and Fatah. 

A two-state solution did work, for instance, when the two countries of Slovakia and the Czech Republic were created out of Czechoslovakia.  But, the geopolitics there did not have the kinds of political and personal intensity that characterizes the Indo-Pak situation, or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  Similarly, the collapse of the Soviet Union, which led to the birthing of new countries, like Estonia, was to a large extent nothing but a reversal to roots—after all, Estonia was gobbled up by the Soviet Union that was intent on expanding its sphere of influence and, therefore, Estonia’s independence was not really a “two-state solution.”

A two-state solution has not delivered peace and prosperity for India and Pakistan, with disagreements and violence continuing on even after almost 62 years.  I, therefore, worry that a two-state solution bringing about everlasting Israel-Palestinian peace might be wishful thinking.  But, in the absence of any other option, here is to hoping that it will pave the path for stability and peace sooner than later.

Economics is a ponzi scheme :-)

As an academic discipline, economics is at its lowest point now.  It is simply hilarious to see "Nobel" prize winning economists disagree with each other in blogs and opeds.  Simply soap-opera style to see words like "hysterical" and "freshman" and "econ101" being used to make fun of the other's arguments ..... aaah, I am so glad that economics is in such a disarray.  May I have a moment of schadenfreude?  

Yes, I read the Economist, WSJ, and mouth off economic jargon.  But, I have never believed that economics is a science, which is what "mainstream" economists wanted us to believe.  And they always were uber-confident with their mathematical models--always built on assumptions--and the results of those models.  With all those, it is simply ridiculous that they can't quite figure out how we got into this mess, and whether a stimulus will do any good, and how much good could it ever do--says a lot about the true state of the discipline.  Maybe the field of economics now itself has been built up as one big ponzi scheme :-)

Gregory Clark describes it thus:

The debate about the bank bailout, and the stimulus package, has all revolved around issues that are entirely at the level of Econ 1.  What is the multiplier from government spending?  Does government spending crowd out private spending?  How quickly can you increase government spending? If you got a A in college in Econ 1 you are an expert in this debate: fully an equal of Summers and Geithner.     

The bailout debate has also been conducted in terms that would be quite familiar to economists in the 1920s and 1930s.  There has essentially been no advance in our knowledge in 80 years.

It has seen people like Brad De Long accuse distinguished macro-economists like Eugene Fama and John Cochrane of the University of Chicago of at least one "elementary, freshman mistake."

It has seen Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, guided by Larry Summers, one of the most respected economists of our time, produce a bailout plan for the US financial system stunning in its faltering vagueness.

Bizarrely, suddenly everyone is interested in economics, but most academic economists are ill-equipped to address these issues. 

Recently a group of economists affiliated with the Cato Institute ran an ad in the New York Times opposing the Obama's stimulus plan.  As chair of my department I tried to arrange a public debate between one of the signatories and a proponent of fiscal stimulus -- thinking that would be a timely and lively session.  But the signatory, a fully accredited university macroeconomist, declined the opportunity for public defense of his position on the grounds that "all I know on this issue I got from Greg Mankiw's blog -- I really am not equipped to debate this with anyone."

The rise of the middle class

Every time I visit India, I am simply amazed at the sheer number of people who have transitioned into a middle class life.

(Though, it equally depresses me that there are millions who are "slumdogs")

So, reading the following in the Economist is not a surprise to me:

By the 1960s they comprised just under a third of the world's population. Nowadays the chance that you are a memeber yourself is high—57% of the globe count as middle class, according to Surjit Bhalla, an Indian economist.