Reading the Bils

Slate has a post discussing the size of various pieces of legislation, why some are so large, and who actually reads the stuff. It's pretty good. Though I'd add the following as my two cents:

• the 2008 farm bill was 673 pages, I think (based on a quick Google).
• you need to distinguish between legislation starting from scratch and legislation amending existing laws.
  
• The first is conceivably something a layman, a high schooler, or even a Congress person could understand. The reason is if you're outlining a brand new program (like maybe Cash for Clunkers), you have to define your terms and specify the processes. Hopefully the definitions don't rely much on pre-existing law. (For example, if Cash for Clunkers was available in "the United States", did that mean just the 50 states, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, etc.?
• But when the legislation changes and modifies existing law, it's very difficult for even experts to understand. The reason is lawyers write it, and they somehow think it makes more sense to specify minute changes than to provide text that's understandable. I don't know why, except that's the way they've done it. Perhaps it's because they want to minimize the number of words used, perhaps because it takes so much time and money to set the text of laws in hot lead.
  

Clunkers

Somewhere, I think in the printed version of the Post this morning, I read that a significant number of the clunkers destroyed under the cash for clunkers program were old vehicles being driven by teenagers. Of course one can't assume they're now driving the new cars bought under the program; they may be driving the car the parent who is driving the new car used to drive. But either way they're significantly safer now, what with air bags front and side, etc. I don't know if we've saved 1 life, 10 lives or 100 lives, but it's a good thing.

I Don't Understand Quantum Physics and Farming

When I grew up, the planetary model of the atom was standard. Sets of electrons revolving around a nucleus of neutrons and protons, that was it. I've always been interested in science, so I've read enough to recognize some of the terminology of quantum physics. Unfortunately, as I age my capacity to absorb this stuff seems to have shrunk. I consoled myself by thinking quantum physics had little connection with my life. But this piece (actually not the original one I saw, which I think was in Scientific American, or maybe online--my memory for my reading is shrinking as well) on how quantum physics works with chlorophyll to capture energy really upsets my consolation.

Thought for the Day

Via Marginal Revolution, Hal Varian (a Google man) on management and IT:

"Back in the early days of the Web, every document had at the bottom, “Copyright 1997. Do not redistribute.” Now every document has at the bottom, “Copyright 2008. Click here to send to your friends.” So there’s already been a big revolution in how we view intellectual property."

True enough, but it's still working its way through society.

Brad DeLong Is a Conservative Old Fogey

He may be a mostly liberal economist, but when it comes to matters of academic teaching he's a stick-in-the-mud. He believes students should study on their own. Apparently his university is giving students what, back in the day when I was in high school we called a study hall period.

See his post.

Texas Is Worthless

I love writing those words.

The basis for the assertion is a paper from farmgate, where some ag economists tried to assess what farmland would be worth if there were no farm programs. They came to the conclusion Texas cropland was worth $0. Or, actually, they said 100 percent of the value of Texas cropland was due to farm programs. Economists have long said the value of farm programs was capitalized into the value of cropland. It makes sense--an owner can get higher rent for land with bases, and therefore higher sales prices too.

There's some modifications and qualifications, as you'd expect with any scholarly paper from economists, but I like my first impression: Texas is worthless.

Clayton on NAIS

From Chris Clayton's column a few days ago:

if anyone wonders why animal ID is so screwed up, it's partially because USDA gets no definitive direction from Congress on just what should happen with the program. Some members in the House and Senate want a national, mandatory program. Others say no way. So now, USDA gets potentially half the money to keep the program on some sort of life support.

That's the way legislation works. If Congress comes to agreement, fine. If Congress fudges, and papers over disagreements in order to get a piece of legisltion, the poor bureaucrat suffers.

Health Care Factoids

From extension.org:

Right now, the government pays about half of the health care bill, insurance pays roughly a third, and around 10 percent is paid directly by patients either through things like deductibles and copays or simply when you go to a doctor, you hand over a check or cash.

Via several sources, but originally spurred on by a statement in Understanding America, private insurance covers about 15 percent of the British population.

It says to me the easy rhetoric about a proposed government takeover of health care is much too simplistic.

Agriculture Used To Be Important

From the 1930 blog:

Decline in steel production blamed on drought; with extent of crop damage still uncertain, industries dependent on farm purchasing [emphasis added] are curtailing steel buying. These include low cost autos, farm machinery, can companies. Structural steel remains strong. Some price declines seen in steel and iron products; steel down to lowest price since 1922.

Synthetic nitrate producers reach agreement; German industry expects it's first step to forming cartel to bring production in line with consumption, but initial agreement considered unsatisfactory due to short duration and lack of commitments to reduce production.

The first bit shows the importance of farming back in the 1930's. And steel was one of the basic industries then (coal and autos being others).

The second supports my doubts over Prof. Pollan's (and others) narrative of the adoption of nitrogen fertilizer (post WWII war surplus nitrates from explosives).

Broadcast Surgeries

Slate has an article explaining that with the coming of laparoscopic surgery it's very easy to broadcast surgeries live. With the old-fashioned open wound surgeries, all the hands got in the way of the camera, but with laparoscopy you just copy the feed from the camera and instruments and blast it across the web.

The article emphasizes the entertainment value because apparently such broadcasts are de rigeur at medical conferences. And they're done live, not on DVD, because it's more grabby.

There's little discussion of education, but there must be a lot of that going on in med schools. Remembering shows like St. Elsewhere (with a young Denzel) using DVD's of laparoscopic procedures have got to improve education productivity by a lot, a whole lot.