SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : QQQ & DIA - chat & chart
QQQ 623.28+0.7%Nov 5 4:00 PM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Jon Khymn who wrote (641)7/29/2003 9:59:23 AM
From: MeDroogies  Read Replies (1) of 795
 
Actually, I'm an logistics manager in the media industry. But as an economist, I prefer to maintain a middle ground when it comes to matters of the economy.

Things are rarely as bad as they seem, and rarely as good as people hope. Humans have a problem in wanting to see extremes in everything, and while I find articles that outline extreme situations interesting because they keep us on our toes, I know far too many people who take them at face value.

In the 1970's, my science classes were rife with Carl Sagan articles about a coming Ice Age. Interestingly, I was reading Isaac Asimov at the time, and he debunked this myth quite easily. Soon after, Sagan began running to the opposite end of the spectrum supporting the global warming camp. Quite a shift. Not to mention his favorite "nuclear winter" scenario that he used to frighten people to death over the supposed "errors" in US foreign policy.
Point is, and I used Sagan as a catch-all, the people who put this stuff together have an agenda and it isn't always an altogether well thought out or even pleasant agenda. All points of view need balance and steady thought.

I have had a letter to the editor printed in the NYT Magazine recently on an issue they ran about hunger. Interestingly, most people thought the problem to be solved was population control. I came away with altogether different perspective...population control, while important, won't help the families with 12 kids starving TODAY. Those 12 kids are perceived as necessary so that 4 might survive. Silly, but in economic terms it is very prudent thought.
My perspective was that, rather than spending vast sums on population control or fertilizer and seed that is misused, the money should be managed as a mix of education (45% of revenues), fertilizer and seed (35%), and food (20%). Surely this small amount of food is enough to keep current people moderately healthy, allowing them to go to school and learn how to farm more effectively, and also how to maintain a healthy family life (ie, population control via knowledge, as in the West).

While you may think I'm uptight or need to lighten up, I am actually quite a fun guy. I just don't like bad science.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext