Monday, July 27, 2009
Teeth brushing
The human body does not come with an owner's manual. We don't need one for our basic needs. We forage when hungry, fuck when horny, and relieve ourselves when we feel the urge. When was the last time you woke up in the middle of the night, viscerally needing to brush your teeth? Teeth brushing is not a basic need. For our ancestors, the hunters and gatherers, it was not even a need: their remains show strong, healthy teeth, despite predating dentists, bristled implements, and Proctor & Gamble. So why do we need to brush? One word: agriculture. Or the slightly expanded version: excessive consumption of refined carbohydrates, leading to dental caries and periodontal disease. But this excessive consumption affects more than just our smile. It is the major reason why we have rampant diabetes, heart and kidney disease, and perhaps even cancer. Yet we ritually brush after each meal, see our dentists every six months for "deep cleaning," and flash those pearly whites while our insides slowly deteriorate. That is the modern way.
Friday, July 17, 2009
Obama's verbal quirks
The rhetoric of President Obama is decidedly different than that of Candidate Obama. Gone are the optimistic days of "change we can believe in." Instead, Obama's speeches are often downright gloomy, with an excessive focus on the negative. In his remarks on withdrawing from Iraq less time was spent praising the nascent democracies triumphs than in warning about the dangers ahead. The president droned on about how "violence will continue to be a part of life in Iraq. Too many fundamental political questions about Iraq’s future remain unresolved. Too many Iraqis are still displaced or destitute. Declining oil revenues will put an added strain on a government that has had difficulty delivering basic services," gloom, doom, gloom, doom.
Yet, one idiom has survived Obama's transition from Candidate to President. A phrase that I always thought jumped out in his speeches, but the press made no mention of: "make no mistake." He likes it so much he used it twice in his speech on Afghanistan and Pakistan. In that speech Obama noted that
"the terrorists within Pakistan’s borders are not simply enemies of America or Afghanistan – they are a grave and urgent danger to the people of Pakistan. Al Qaeda and other violent extremists have killed several thousand Pakistanis since 9/11. They have killed many Pakistani soldiers and police. They assassinated Benazir Bhutto. They have blown up buildings, derailed foreign investment, and threatened the stability of the state." And then, just in case the audience missed the point, Obama warned them to "make no mistake: al Qaeda and its extremist allies are a cancer that risks killing Pakistan from within."
Here is an incomplete list of the mistakes an ardent Obama affascinato should not make
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Make no mistake about what we're up against. We're up against the belief that it's all right for lobbyists to dominate our government, that they are just part of the system in Washington. (Jan 27, 2008)
Ending the war in Iraq I believe will be an important first step in achieving that goal because it will increase our flexibility and credibility when we deal with Iran. Make no mistake I believe that Iran has been the biggest strategic beneficiary of this war and I intend to change that. (Feb 25, 2008)
Make no mistake: our destiny as Americans is tied up with one another. If we are less respected in the world, then you will be less safe. (July 2, 2008)
This is a corporation that just recorded the largest profit in the history of the United States. This is the company that, last quarter, made $1,500 every second. That’s more than $300,000 in the time it takes you to fill up a tank with gas that’s costing you more than $4-a-gallon. And Senator McCain not only wants them to keep every dime of that money, he wants to give them more. So make no mistake - the oil companies have placed their bet on Senator McCain (August 4, 2008)
It’s time to end the fight in Iraq and take up the fight for good jobs and universal health care. It’s time to end the fight in Iraq and take up the fight for a world-class education and Social Security. It’s time to end the fight in Iraq and take up the fight for opportunity and prosperity here at home. So make no mistake - the American people have a choice in this election. We can keep playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players, and somehow expect a different result. Or we can choose a different future. Just imagine it. (April 2, 2008)
Millions of our fellow citizens lay awake each night wondering how they are going to pay their bills, stay in their homes, and save for retirement. Make no mistake, this is the greatest economic crisis of our times. (Nov 15, 2008)
In supporting the America Recovery and Reinvestment Plan Obama notes that "the slowdown has cost us tens of thousands of jobs in January alone. And the picture is likely to get worse before it gets better. Make no mistake, these are not just numbers. Behind every statistic there's a story." (Jan 31, 2009)
In his speech on Executive Compensation Obama notes that the "crisis was years in the making, and it will take more than weeks or months to turn things around. But make no mistake: A failure to act, and act now, will turn crisis into a catastrophe and guarantee a longer recession, a less robust recovery, and a more uncertain future." (Feb 4, 2009)
Now, make no mistake: This nation will maintain our military dominance. (March 12, 2009)
At a time of economic crisis, it's tempting to believe that we can shortchange this civilian effort. But make no mistake: Our efforts will fail in Afghanistan and Pakistan if we don't invest in their future. (March 27, 2009)
Obama on nuclear disarmament (April 5, 2009): And there are those who hear talk of a world without nuclear weapons and doubt whether it is worth setting a goal that seems impossible to achieve. But make no mistake: we know where that road leads. When nations and peoples allow themselves to be defined by their differences, the gulf between them widens.
Obama on torture (May 21, 2009): I can stand here today, as President of the United States, and say without exception or equivocation that we do not torture, and that we will vigorously protect our people while forging a strong and durable framework that allows us to fight terrorism while abiding by the rule of law. Make no mistake: If we fail to turn the page on the approach that was taken over the past several years, then I will not be able to say that as President.
In his Cairo Speech, Obama urged the Arab world to "make no mistake: we do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan
On his speech on the Energy Bill (June 25, 2009) he tells us not to be confused into thinking the bill is about energy, but to "make no mistake, this is a jobs bill."
Ghana (July 11, 2009): This progress may lack the drama of the 20th century's liberation struggles, but make no mistake: it will ultimately be more significant. For just as it is important to emerge from the control of another nation, it is even more important to build one's own.
On health care (July 15, 2009): And every single day we wait to act, thousands of Americans lose their insurance, some turning to nurses in emergency rooms as their only recourse. So make no mistake, the status quo on health care is not an option for the United States of America.
In his speech to NAACP (July 16, 2009), the President declared "there's probably never been less discrimination in America than there is today." Still, he said, "make no mistake: the pain of discrimination is still felt in America."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Make no mistake, I have nothing against the phrase "make no mistake." I actually like it. It's a strong phrase that grabs the audience's attention. It also serves as a roadmark in oratory, dividing a speech between the evidence and the action item. All in all, a good phrase. A whole lot more presidential than "don't get me wrong" or "it is obvious that." I'm just surprised nobody else noticed Obama's reliance on it.
But people did remark when a different president used the phrase. The seemingly innocuous phrase is actually not merely bad, but monstrous, the "worse Bushism of them all." Or at least it is according to the Slate's Timothy Noah: "It is a bully-boy phrase, meant to warn that the speaker really means what he is saying."
At first I thought that Noah was just being unimaginative. I mean come on, of all the great Bushisms how can "make no mistake" be the worse of them all? "misunderestimate" wins hands down. But it turns out that no less a personage than Colbert shares Noah's misgivings. "Make no Mistake, that's my favorite bush-ism. He thinks people are making fun of him all the time," Colbert declared on Comedy Central.
So Obama's reliance on "make no mistake" is not some strange verbal quirk, but a great betrayal of the American people, the continuation of Bush's tradition of bully-boy oratory. What has happened to change we can believe in? Obama closed Gitmo, but plans to transfer detainees to the even worse Bagram airbase. He committed us to withdraw from Iraq, but will leave armed "advisers" behind. He forbid torture by the army, but will give the CIA more "leeway" in interrogations.
But all that would have been okay, if the new administration had only delivered on its major campaign promise: a breathtaking change in rhetoric. No more talk of "terrorism," only "man made disasters." No more talk of human rights and freedom, only "positive, cooperative relationships" between "great civilizations." Best of all there would be no more stuttering.
But now it is clear that Obama's beautiful rhetoric was really a lie, built upon the worse Bushism of them all. Nothing has really changed. The American people did not have a choice in this election.
Yet, one idiom has survived Obama's transition from Candidate to President. A phrase that I always thought jumped out in his speeches, but the press made no mention of: "make no mistake." He likes it so much he used it twice in his speech on Afghanistan and Pakistan. In that speech Obama noted that
"the terrorists within Pakistan’s borders are not simply enemies of America or Afghanistan – they are a grave and urgent danger to the people of Pakistan. Al Qaeda and other violent extremists have killed several thousand Pakistanis since 9/11. They have killed many Pakistani soldiers and police. They assassinated Benazir Bhutto. They have blown up buildings, derailed foreign investment, and threatened the stability of the state." And then, just in case the audience missed the point, Obama warned them to "make no mistake: al Qaeda and its extremist allies are a cancer that risks killing Pakistan from within."
Here is an incomplete list of the mistakes an ardent Obama affascinato should not make
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Make no mistake about what we're up against. We're up against the belief that it's all right for lobbyists to dominate our government, that they are just part of the system in Washington. (Jan 27, 2008)
Ending the war in Iraq I believe will be an important first step in achieving that goal because it will increase our flexibility and credibility when we deal with Iran. Make no mistake I believe that Iran has been the biggest strategic beneficiary of this war and I intend to change that. (Feb 25, 2008)
Make no mistake: our destiny as Americans is tied up with one another. If we are less respected in the world, then you will be less safe. (July 2, 2008)
This is a corporation that just recorded the largest profit in the history of the United States. This is the company that, last quarter, made $1,500 every second. That’s more than $300,000 in the time it takes you to fill up a tank with gas that’s costing you more than $4-a-gallon. And Senator McCain not only wants them to keep every dime of that money, he wants to give them more. So make no mistake - the oil companies have placed their bet on Senator McCain (August 4, 2008)
It’s time to end the fight in Iraq and take up the fight for good jobs and universal health care. It’s time to end the fight in Iraq and take up the fight for a world-class education and Social Security. It’s time to end the fight in Iraq and take up the fight for opportunity and prosperity here at home. So make no mistake - the American people have a choice in this election. We can keep playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players, and somehow expect a different result. Or we can choose a different future. Just imagine it. (April 2, 2008)
Millions of our fellow citizens lay awake each night wondering how they are going to pay their bills, stay in their homes, and save for retirement. Make no mistake, this is the greatest economic crisis of our times. (Nov 15, 2008)
In supporting the America Recovery and Reinvestment Plan Obama notes that "the slowdown has cost us tens of thousands of jobs in January alone. And the picture is likely to get worse before it gets better. Make no mistake, these are not just numbers. Behind every statistic there's a story." (Jan 31, 2009)
In his speech on Executive Compensation Obama notes that the "crisis was years in the making, and it will take more than weeks or months to turn things around. But make no mistake: A failure to act, and act now, will turn crisis into a catastrophe and guarantee a longer recession, a less robust recovery, and a more uncertain future." (Feb 4, 2009)
Now, make no mistake: This nation will maintain our military dominance. (March 12, 2009)
At a time of economic crisis, it's tempting to believe that we can shortchange this civilian effort. But make no mistake: Our efforts will fail in Afghanistan and Pakistan if we don't invest in their future. (March 27, 2009)
Obama on nuclear disarmament (April 5, 2009): And there are those who hear talk of a world without nuclear weapons and doubt whether it is worth setting a goal that seems impossible to achieve. But make no mistake: we know where that road leads. When nations and peoples allow themselves to be defined by their differences, the gulf between them widens.
Obama on torture (May 21, 2009): I can stand here today, as President of the United States, and say without exception or equivocation that we do not torture, and that we will vigorously protect our people while forging a strong and durable framework that allows us to fight terrorism while abiding by the rule of law. Make no mistake: If we fail to turn the page on the approach that was taken over the past several years, then I will not be able to say that as President.
In his Cairo Speech, Obama urged the Arab world to "make no mistake: we do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan
On his speech on the Energy Bill (June 25, 2009) he tells us not to be confused into thinking the bill is about energy, but to "make no mistake, this is a jobs bill."
Ghana (July 11, 2009): This progress may lack the drama of the 20th century's liberation struggles, but make no mistake: it will ultimately be more significant. For just as it is important to emerge from the control of another nation, it is even more important to build one's own.
On health care (July 15, 2009): And every single day we wait to act, thousands of Americans lose their insurance, some turning to nurses in emergency rooms as their only recourse. So make no mistake, the status quo on health care is not an option for the United States of America.
In his speech to NAACP (July 16, 2009), the President declared "there's probably never been less discrimination in America than there is today." Still, he said, "make no mistake: the pain of discrimination is still felt in America."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Make no mistake, I have nothing against the phrase "make no mistake." I actually like it. It's a strong phrase that grabs the audience's attention. It also serves as a roadmark in oratory, dividing a speech between the evidence and the action item. All in all, a good phrase. A whole lot more presidential than "don't get me wrong" or "it is obvious that." I'm just surprised nobody else noticed Obama's reliance on it.
But people did remark when a different president used the phrase. The seemingly innocuous phrase is actually not merely bad, but monstrous, the "worse Bushism of them all." Or at least it is according to the Slate's Timothy Noah: "It is a bully-boy phrase, meant to warn that the speaker really means what he is saying."
At first I thought that Noah was just being unimaginative. I mean come on, of all the great Bushisms how can "make no mistake" be the worse of them all? "misunderestimate" wins hands down. But it turns out that no less a personage than Colbert shares Noah's misgivings. "Make no Mistake, that's my favorite bush-ism. He thinks people are making fun of him all the time," Colbert declared on Comedy Central.
So Obama's reliance on "make no mistake" is not some strange verbal quirk, but a great betrayal of the American people, the continuation of Bush's tradition of bully-boy oratory. What has happened to change we can believe in? Obama closed Gitmo, but plans to transfer detainees to the even worse Bagram airbase. He committed us to withdraw from Iraq, but will leave armed "advisers" behind. He forbid torture by the army, but will give the CIA more "leeway" in interrogations.
But all that would have been okay, if the new administration had only delivered on its major campaign promise: a breathtaking change in rhetoric. No more talk of "terrorism," only "man made disasters." No more talk of human rights and freedom, only "positive, cooperative relationships" between "great civilizations." Best of all there would be no more stuttering.
But now it is clear that Obama's beautiful rhetoric was really a lie, built upon the worse Bushism of them all. Nothing has really changed. The American people did not have a choice in this election.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
The American Dream
In the NYTimes today: Robert Bowman, 47, aspiring lawyer, has $435,000 in student loan debt and was denied admission to the bar because of failure to make loan payments.
The story here isn't that Mr. Bowman was denied admission to the bar. It's that he was allowed to accrue so much debt in the first place, when he had no hope of landing a job that could repay it. The average lawyer in this country doesn't make much money, contrary to popular belief. A graduate of some no-name law school (UC Hastings), Mr. Bowman would be lucky to find a job paying 50-60k in this economic climate. Even with a frugal lifestyle, that amount is not compatible with paying over $200k in debt, much less over $400k, in a reasonable time frame, especially if other goals (like having a family) are present. Mr. Bowman perhaps is not to blame. After all, he grew up in foster care -- his parents weren't there to tell him how dumb of an idea this path was. But the system has failed him. His counselors, in college, and most of all, Sallie Mae, from whom he obtained his 36 loans (!), have failed him.
The story here isn't that Mr. Bowman was denied admission to the bar. It's that he was allowed to accrue so much debt in the first place, when he had no hope of landing a job that could repay it. The average lawyer in this country doesn't make much money, contrary to popular belief. A graduate of some no-name law school (UC Hastings), Mr. Bowman would be lucky to find a job paying 50-60k in this economic climate. Even with a frugal lifestyle, that amount is not compatible with paying over $200k in debt, much less over $400k, in a reasonable time frame, especially if other goals (like having a family) are present. Mr. Bowman perhaps is not to blame. After all, he grew up in foster care -- his parents weren't there to tell him how dumb of an idea this path was. But the system has failed him. His counselors, in college, and most of all, Sallie Mae, from whom he obtained his 36 loans (!), have failed him.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
The case of Gary Kao
Dear Public Editor,
The Times has dragged the name of oncologist Gary D. Kao through the mud, whether deservedly or not, through its reporting on the "rogue" VA prostate cancer unit.
I do not know Dr. Kao. I do not know if he is a bad man responsible for incompetence and cover-up, as portrayed by the Times, or a good man with good intentions who simply made honest mistakes. I do know that he wrote a detailed statement for the Congressional hearing, addressing and contradicting many of the allegations the Times has made.
In your latest article, Walt Bogdanich does not provide any evidence that he even read the bulk of this statement. The title of the article is "Oncologist Defends His Work at a V.A. Hospital," but the article quotes hardly anything substantive that is written in his defense.
In the words of Dr. Kao:
"I have come to the hearing today to answer questions and to submit this written statement in order to correct the record and salvage my reputation. I hope that, through the hearing process, the investigations and through media reports, the truth will emerge. I am not the physician who has been portrayed in the media."
It is clear to me why Dr. Kao feels like he has been misrepresented. I hope the NYTimes has the honesty and courage to critically examine his claims, and retract any part of its expose on the VA cancer unit that it finds to be factually incorrect.
Michael Jin
2nd year medical student, UCSD
The Times has dragged the name of oncologist Gary D. Kao through the mud, whether deservedly or not, through its reporting on the "rogue" VA prostate cancer unit.
I do not know Dr. Kao. I do not know if he is a bad man responsible for incompetence and cover-up, as portrayed by the Times, or a good man with good intentions who simply made honest mistakes. I do know that he wrote a detailed statement for the Congressional hearing, addressing and contradicting many of the allegations the Times has made.
In your latest article, Walt Bogdanich does not provide any evidence that he even read the bulk of this statement. The title of the article is "Oncologist Defends His Work at a V.A. Hospital," but the article quotes hardly anything substantive that is written in his defense.
In the words of Dr. Kao:
"I have come to the hearing today to answer questions and to submit this written statement in order to correct the record and salvage my reputation. I hope that, through the hearing process, the investigations and through media reports, the truth will emerge. I am not the physician who has been portrayed in the media."
It is clear to me why Dr. Kao feels like he has been misrepresented. I hope the NYTimes has the honesty and courage to critically examine his claims, and retract any part of its expose on the VA cancer unit that it finds to be factually incorrect.
Michael Jin
2nd year medical student, UCSD
Sunday, June 28, 2009
The problem with biomedical research
An article in the NYTimes complains that although it's been 40 years since Nixon declared war on cancer, the biomedical research establishment, despite curing cancer in mice multiple times, has not even come close in humans. It proceeds to blame the slow progress on an NIH funding process that ignores "transformative" ideas and favors conservative and incremental ones:
Take one transformative drug, for breast cancer. It was based on a discovery by Dr. Dennis Slamon of the University of California, Los Angeles, that very aggressive breast cancers often have multiple copies of a particular protein, HER-2. That led to the development of herceptin, which blocks HER-2.
Now women with excess HER-2 proteins, who once had the worst breast cancer prognoses, have prognoses that are among the best. But when Dr. Slamon wanted to start this research, his grant was turned down. He succeeded only after the grateful wife of a patient helped him get money from Revlon, the cosmetics company.
Yet studies like the one on tasty food are financed. That study, which received a grant of $100,000 over two years, is based on the idea that since obesity is associated with an increased risk of cancer, understanding why people have trouble losing weight could lead to better weight control methods, which could lead to less obesity, which could lead to less cancer.
Herceptin is a terrible example for transformative treatment. It applies only to a minority of breast cancer cases, and its effect on overall mortality isn't exactly mindblowing: you would need to treat dozens of eligible patients just to prevent one death in the next 2-4 years. The only thing at all transformative about Herceptin is that it is one of the few targeted cancer treatments. Most chemotherapy just aims at blasting away at rapidly dividing cells, causing all those nasty side effects. Unfortunately Herceptin has side effects of its own, but I digress.
Take one transformative drug, for breast cancer. It was based on a discovery by Dr. Dennis Slamon of the University of California, Los Angeles, that very aggressive breast cancers often have multiple copies of a particular protein, HER-2. That led to the development of herceptin, which blocks HER-2.
Now women with excess HER-2 proteins, who once had the worst breast cancer prognoses, have prognoses that are among the best. But when Dr. Slamon wanted to start this research, his grant was turned down. He succeeded only after the grateful wife of a patient helped him get money from Revlon, the cosmetics company.
Yet studies like the one on tasty food are financed. That study, which received a grant of $100,000 over two years, is based on the idea that since obesity is associated with an increased risk of cancer, understanding why people have trouble losing weight could lead to better weight control methods, which could lead to less obesity, which could lead to less cancer.
“It was the first grant I ever submitted, and it was funded on the first try,” said the principal investigator, Bradley M. Appelhans, an assistant professor of basic medical sciences and psychology at the University of Arizona. Dr. Appelhans said he realized it would hardly cure cancer, but hoped that “it will provide knowledge that will incrementally contribute to more effective cancer prevention strategies.”
Herceptin is a terrible example for transformative treatment. It applies only to a minority of breast cancer cases, and its effect on overall mortality isn't exactly mindblowing: you would need to treat dozens of eligible patients just to prevent one death in the next 2-4 years. The only thing at all transformative about Herceptin is that it is one of the few targeted cancer treatments. Most chemotherapy just aims at blasting away at rapidly dividing cells, causing all those nasty side effects. Unfortunately Herceptin has side effects of its own, but I digress.
I feel bad for Dr. Appelhans. This new assistant professor probably thought he had made it to the big leagues when he got a call from the NYTimes. They asked me if this would cure cancer? Haha, those naive reporters. Let me give them a dose of scientific reality. Little did he know that he would be Exhibit A for mediocre, "incrementally contributory" science. He didn't deserve this. It's not like he wasted tax money for decades to obtain results of marginal importance, a career entirely possible, perhaps even average, in biomedical research. He just wanted to get funded, get published, get tenured. Maybe when he had his own building, he could set his sights on curing cancer.
Clearly the funding process is flawed, broken. Every investigator know this. The good ones, however, do not allow themselves to be crippled by it. They apply for funding with safe, fundable projects, then siphon off money to finance riskier, more exploratory research. If they find something promising, they then have preliminary data to back up their visionary, but more dubious, claims. This de facto system is similar to the Google system, whereby their employees receive some paid time to do whatever pet project on the side. There are thousands of engineers at Google: does Google have thousands of revolutionary new ideas each year? No. Therein lies the problem.
There is a fundamental maxim that needs to be stated: most people are mediocre. There are relatively few producers upon whose backs the art and science of Western civilization have been carried upward, ever so arduously these past few millenia. Being mediocre is not necessarily a bad thing in law, or finance, or medicine, but it is bad in science, or novel writing. As was said of Virginia Woolf -- that she pushed the boundaries of the English language a little more against the dark -- so too does the scientist push the limits of knowledge. There needs to be genius, yes, but also a creative spark, a fire in the belly, and an unyielding desire to let all that can be destroyed by the truth, to be thus destroyed.
It's the people, stupid! Good projects are born from good ideas, which come from the best investigators. Instead of spreading the $30 billion dollar NIH budget thinly so that every member of the professorial class can each have their own fiefdoms, we should be allocating only to those members who can put the resources of this country to their best use. In other words, the National Institutes of Health should adopt the model of the private Howard Hughes Medical Institute: fund investigators, not projects. The limitation of the HHMI model is that the hierarchy of science is too shallow -- there isn't enough management inbetween the head of the lab, and the sea of underlings: the lab technicians, the doctoral students, the postdoctoral fellows. As such these labs tend to top out around a couple dozen members. So in essence, fund the best, give them a building, let them generate the ideas, put the rest in middle management or below according to their ability, and get out of the way.
Wars are won with generals, who have a defined strategy for their campaign, not a bunch of sargeants leading their platoons every which way. If we are serious about the war on cancer, or Alzheimer's, or aging, we need to start fighting it like one.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Escaping the Recession
How do recessions end? According to neoclassical economists the key is "creative destruction." They believe that the problem with boom times is that inefficient, pointless, and dated businesses can survive, wasting societies precious resources. Recessions bankrupt those companies, freeing up labor and capital for more productive industries, leading to faster growth in the long term. So what inefficient industries of yesteryear are being killed by this recession?
1) Clean technology: Investment in clean technology has fallen by 41%, with not a single billion dollar deal in the last year. Which is good, after all, we can solve global warming by just painting everything white.
2) High-tech startups: Angel investing is down approximately 25%, while venture capital is down 10%. Acquisitions have been halved. Which makes sense, computers are so 20th century.
3) Biotechnology: The biotech industry, with half of the nation's publicly traded companies close to bankruptcy, hangs in the balance. I've seen Gattaca, so I can only assume this is a good thing.
So if money is running away from clean technology, high-tech, and biotech where is it flowing to? It turns out into the very industries which have failed. The TARP has funneled over $300 billion into the finance industry. Additional 10s of billions have been spent on Detroit. That amount might seem small now, but a mere two years ago it would have seemed huge.
Which makes sense, because the neoclassical solution to the recession is a painful one. In the shortterm, the more investment is redirected from Detroit to Silicon Valley the more people will be left on the streets. Of course government is going to try to counter that process to some degree.
But if unprofitable companies don't die, what mechanism will end the crisis?
1) Clean technology: Investment in clean technology has fallen by 41%, with not a single billion dollar deal in the last year. Which is good, after all, we can solve global warming by just painting everything white.
2) High-tech startups: Angel investing is down approximately 25%, while venture capital is down 10%. Acquisitions have been halved. Which makes sense, computers are so 20th century.
3) Biotechnology: The biotech industry, with half of the nation's publicly traded companies close to bankruptcy, hangs in the balance. I've seen Gattaca, so I can only assume this is a good thing.
So if money is running away from clean technology, high-tech, and biotech where is it flowing to? It turns out into the very industries which have failed. The TARP has funneled over $300 billion into the finance industry. Additional 10s of billions have been spent on Detroit. That amount might seem small now, but a mere two years ago it would have seemed huge.
Which makes sense, because the neoclassical solution to the recession is a painful one. In the shortterm, the more investment is redirected from Detroit to Silicon Valley the more people will be left on the streets. Of course government is going to try to counter that process to some degree.
But if unprofitable companies don't die, what mechanism will end the crisis?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)