The recent G8 meetings have come to a close. As per usual they recognized that they didn't hit the goals set previously but pledged even more money this time around. Now this type of display is disgusting to say the least. These pledges are just that. If it is inconvenient or if one of the donor countries decides something is amiss they can easily (and usually do) pull out in part or entirely. Many in the development sphere are already calling this recent pledge a "farce."
Hypothetically, if the G8 does provide the money promised (60 billion alone for AIDS research, among other pledges) it will not be in the form that many would accept as reasonable. Anyone familiar with the Bush administration's past work on AIDS will know how disastrous and ill-informed the strict rules that come attached to the money. Because the U.S. pledged to donate 30 billion of this sum it is likely that they will have a large say in the contingencies and policies on which the money can be spent.
Among the most insulting of the ludicrous ties that AIDS money to Africa has endured in the past is the focus on abstinence. Much of the money was earmarked for groups that only push abstinence as a method of stopping the spread of AIDS. When the money goes through a recipient government there are strict "abstinence only" financing rules that must be followed for the money to keep coming in. This despite the fact that abstinence does not make sense when used alone as a method to prevent AIDS. Studies have continually found this to be true worldwide. I will acknowledge that it can play a minor role in an overall sexual health and well-being program. Use of only abstinence has been shown in many instances to not decrease the rate of transmission but has actually increased the rate of transmission by decreasing funding to other services. When abstinence becomes the focus of a government targeting teen and pre-teen boys and girls, other important issues like birth control methods, safe-sex practices and use of condoms falls aside.
These AIDS grants are also incomplete because one of the best ways to mitigate the devastating effects of AIDS is to drop the price of drugs that serve to decrease the effects of the actual virus. Also drugs that when taken by a child born to an HIV positive mother can severely decrease the chance of contracting AIDS. These steps are blocked at every turn by pharmaceutical companies that cite the cost of research of the drugs as the reason for the high prices. When these companies are having record breaking profits and at the same time receiving much of their R&D at highly subsidized rates from public universities and grants, they could at least take a "loss" (though the idea that they would take a loss is severely suspect) on these necessary drugs.
Friday, June 8, 2007
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
The Onion Strikes Again
Those of you familiar with the sarcastic wit of The Onion are probably aware of the socially conscious parodies that they often produce. This recent one is perhaps the most biting I've seen in a while. Enjoy!
Gap Unveils New 'For Kids By Kids' Clothing Line
Gap Unveils New 'For Kids By Kids' Clothing Line
Monday, April 30, 2007
Making My Move
After many months of being too busy to feel comfortable placing my money in the market, I have finally made the purchases. Having never dealt in the amount of money I was placing into the market, it felt odd to see these large numbers on the screen.
After executing the trades, I looked around my brokerage account a bit and checked out what was going on in the market. I happened to check what were the most traded equities at the moment and found the one I invested in most heavily (SPY) at the top of the list. Now while I certainly was not responsible for the more than thirty-two million transactions that took place, it felt nice to see that some of those numbers were a result of my actions.
At this stage in my life, with this asset allocation (if interested see previous post that discusses my exact allocation), I feel that I can go on with my life without fretting about how my stock is doing. I know that even if we experience something as bad as the great depression, that if I simply don't pull out then I don't lose money. The key to long term investing is to not lock in your losses.
I never knew investing could be this simple. To me it seems like the only way to go in order to keep it from becoming a constant concern. Fretting over the rise or fall of small holdings daily seems like a pain with no significant payoff, which investing gurus such as Bill Schultheis, William Bernstein, and William P. Kemp (its true!) also find to be the case.
To the final guru on the list I express my most sincere thanks. For personally walking me through (and at points holding my hand) the confusing and contradictory world that is the stock market. Through your tutelage I have come to understand a place for myself in the market that I didn't know existed. Prior to this wonderful experience, I didn't see the market as something approachable or understand that it could be tamed through asset allocation. Again thanks so much. I can't help but feel that through this experience we have become closer. I will always cherish our long talks, whether stock related or otherwise. Next time we get together, the coffee is on me.
After executing the trades, I looked around my brokerage account a bit and checked out what was going on in the market. I happened to check what were the most traded equities at the moment and found the one I invested in most heavily (SPY) at the top of the list. Now while I certainly was not responsible for the more than thirty-two million transactions that took place, it felt nice to see that some of those numbers were a result of my actions.
At this stage in my life, with this asset allocation (if interested see previous post that discusses my exact allocation), I feel that I can go on with my life without fretting about how my stock is doing. I know that even if we experience something as bad as the great depression, that if I simply don't pull out then I don't lose money. The key to long term investing is to not lock in your losses.
I never knew investing could be this simple. To me it seems like the only way to go in order to keep it from becoming a constant concern. Fretting over the rise or fall of small holdings daily seems like a pain with no significant payoff, which investing gurus such as Bill Schultheis, William Bernstein, and William P. Kemp (its true!) also find to be the case.
To the final guru on the list I express my most sincere thanks. For personally walking me through (and at points holding my hand) the confusing and contradictory world that is the stock market. Through your tutelage I have come to understand a place for myself in the market that I didn't know existed. Prior to this wonderful experience, I didn't see the market as something approachable or understand that it could be tamed through asset allocation. Again thanks so much. I can't help but feel that through this experience we have become closer. I will always cherish our long talks, whether stock related or otherwise. Next time we get together, the coffee is on me.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Exploring the Digital Divide
While I don't typically comment on issues of technology, this article really struck me as interesting. I was amazed to see the estimate of 750 million people accessing the internet in 2007. While this number itself is not particularly interesting, when compared to the world population of six billion, it represents an extreme disparity of access to a revolutionary technology that consumes much of our daily lives in the Global North. It is hard to make the argument that the internet is democratizing public discussion when less than eleven percent of the world has accessed it in the past year. It is hard to imagine what perspectives we are missing out on and what analysis could be brought to bare that would inform world opinion in a fundamentally different way. It could be argued that those who are in the most need of having their voice heard are silenced by this extreme digital divide.
Arguably more important than having your voice heard is the access to information that the internet allows. The ability to find information and analysis on an infinite range of issues is what keeps most of us logged on as we go about our daily lives. An overwhelming majority of the world lacks access to the wealth of informational resources that the internet provides.
One promising intervention to close this gap comes from the One Laptop per Child movement. By creating a rugged laptop that costs about one hundred dollars to create, MIT and other groups are working to close this significant disparity. While one hundred dollars is prohibitively expensive for individuals all over the world (over one billion of which make less than one dollar a day), donors have been spurned into action to buy these laptops for distribution around the world. While this in no way addresses the structural and social forces that created this inequality, it can be seen as a step in the right direction.
Arguably more important than having your voice heard is the access to information that the internet allows. The ability to find information and analysis on an infinite range of issues is what keeps most of us logged on as we go about our daily lives. An overwhelming majority of the world lacks access to the wealth of informational resources that the internet provides.
One promising intervention to close this gap comes from the One Laptop per Child movement. By creating a rugged laptop that costs about one hundred dollars to create, MIT and other groups are working to close this significant disparity. While one hundred dollars is prohibitively expensive for individuals all over the world (over one billion of which make less than one dollar a day), donors have been spurned into action to buy these laptops for distribution around the world. While this in no way addresses the structural and social forces that created this inequality, it can be seen as a step in the right direction.
Extreme Callousness as Foreign Policy
It is difficult to understand why Bush would choose to tour Latin America at a time when his approval rating is so low both here and abroad. He has little to no political capital to draw on for this visit. While many have cited the reason as an attempt to undermine the rise to power of Chavez, this seems ludicrous. A visit by one of the least popular presidents in history, whose administration has all but ignored Latin America except on issues of bi-lateral trade, seems like a poor public relations move. Bi-lateral trade deals place individual countries up against the U.S. These countries have little to no chance to bring measures to the table they want addressed. While the breakdown of the current trade round was celebrated by many(myself included), these bi-lateral trade regimes are an extremely negative consequence of this show of solidarity by the Global South.
Bush's claim that the U.S. is planning on helping out the poor in Latin America seem particularly hollow. He has continually demonstrated contempt for those measures instituted by Latin American countries that have actually improved the position of the poor. The Bush administration has berated countries that have implemented pro-poor policies. Steps such as nationalization of companies and redistribution of land ownership monopolies that have often been successful in raising the standard of living for the poor. While measures such as nationalization of companies are controversial, it is often forgotten that many of these industries, particularly those such as natural resources, were initially privatized without the consent of the people. The profits that used to go into budgets of Latin American countries instead began to flow out of the country through multi-national corporations that had no invested interest in sustainable development or stewardship.
It is also interesting to see how the rhetoric output by Bush doesn't match the aid that has been made available to those in Latin America. Venezuela has pledged nearly three times the amount of aid that has been given by the U.S. to the region. Also, important issues that would fundamentally increase the standard of living for Latin Americans, such as access to U.S. markets for agricultural products, have not even been addressed by Bush. The continued disconnect between the discussion of free trade and the lack implementation of policy based on it is apparent. Though fair trade is a better way of organizing the international marketplace, while free trade is hegemonic, the central players could at least learn to play by its rules.
Bush's claim that the U.S. is planning on helping out the poor in Latin America seem particularly hollow. He has continually demonstrated contempt for those measures instituted by Latin American countries that have actually improved the position of the poor. The Bush administration has berated countries that have implemented pro-poor policies. Steps such as nationalization of companies and redistribution of land ownership monopolies that have often been successful in raising the standard of living for the poor. While measures such as nationalization of companies are controversial, it is often forgotten that many of these industries, particularly those such as natural resources, were initially privatized without the consent of the people. The profits that used to go into budgets of Latin American countries instead began to flow out of the country through multi-national corporations that had no invested interest in sustainable development or stewardship.
It is also interesting to see how the rhetoric output by Bush doesn't match the aid that has been made available to those in Latin America. Venezuela has pledged nearly three times the amount of aid that has been given by the U.S. to the region. Also, important issues that would fundamentally increase the standard of living for Latin Americans, such as access to U.S. markets for agricultural products, have not even been addressed by Bush. The continued disconnect between the discussion of free trade and the lack implementation of policy based on it is apparent. Though fair trade is a better way of organizing the international marketplace, while free trade is hegemonic, the central players could at least learn to play by its rules.
Sunday, March 4, 2007
Hard to Comprehend
In a stunning example of the dangers of insufficient health care, a boy in Maryland has recently died from what began as a rotten tooth. This situation brings to mind the unconscionable consequences of our current system of health care. It also illustrates the dangers of negative freedoms versus substantive freedoms (capabilities). Using the capability approach put forth by Amartya Sen, we can see how the current system in the U.S. could have allowed this to happen. While this boy's family experiences, in theory, many diverse negative freedoms (freedoms from things), such as freedom of speech (freedom from censure), freedom from imprisonment without due process (clearly in theory here), etc., their ability to express these freedoms is significantly limited by unfreedoms that diminish their ability to achieve desired functionings. In the capability approach these unfreedoms represent capability disabling elements that restrict what an individual can do.
In the United States there is no substantive freedom to have basic health care. Being free of preventable disease is a core functioning for Martha Nussbaum, another author who has written extensively on the capability approach. The lack of basic preventative health care for millions of Americans serves to magnify the effects of the income inequality that continues to grow in the U.S. Inequality experienced in Canada and Europe is significantly less extreme than what is experienced in the U.S. Even for cities with comparable inequality, those in the U.S. experience significantly more extreme gradients of health as there is not a basic health care system in place to mitigate some of the effects of inequality.
This particular example displays the extreme effects that deprivation can have on individuals. It brings to light larger issues that go unnoticed by media. In the article it is noted that the boy's sibling also had rotting teeth and there was an attempt to take care of his because they seemed to be more pressing. Discussion of these sorts of "personal" problems are ignored because they are often not considered interesting because they are experienced widely by the poor in the U.S. By minimizing these problems that are being suffered by millions, their collective power is diminished in an era of "individual responsibility" that has come about in the current neo-liberal era.
The article also notes the significant costs that the family now faces for the emergency care that was required to attempt to save the life of the child. While the initial extraction would have cost less than a hundred (a cost too high for many to bear for something as seemingly small as a rotten tooth) the bill has now risen to hundreds of thousands of dollars in the cost of surgeries and other emergency care that was given. It is hard to imagine how a family that could not afford a tooth extraction will deal with such an extreme form of debt. I noted in a previous post how this sort of emergency is one of the largest reasons for bankruptcy in the U.S.
This case is provocative because it points out glaring disparities in the current U.S. health system. There are many other examples of lesser problems that go unnoticed in the media but are experienced be individuals without a voice or real political power. In order for the family of this boy to get any sort of attention, a death had to be involved. Until this system is reformed in a meaningful and structural way, little improvement can be expected.
In the United States there is no substantive freedom to have basic health care. Being free of preventable disease is a core functioning for Martha Nussbaum, another author who has written extensively on the capability approach. The lack of basic preventative health care for millions of Americans serves to magnify the effects of the income inequality that continues to grow in the U.S. Inequality experienced in Canada and Europe is significantly less extreme than what is experienced in the U.S. Even for cities with comparable inequality, those in the U.S. experience significantly more extreme gradients of health as there is not a basic health care system in place to mitigate some of the effects of inequality.
This particular example displays the extreme effects that deprivation can have on individuals. It brings to light larger issues that go unnoticed by media. In the article it is noted that the boy's sibling also had rotting teeth and there was an attempt to take care of his because they seemed to be more pressing. Discussion of these sorts of "personal" problems are ignored because they are often not considered interesting because they are experienced widely by the poor in the U.S. By minimizing these problems that are being suffered by millions, their collective power is diminished in an era of "individual responsibility" that has come about in the current neo-liberal era.
The article also notes the significant costs that the family now faces for the emergency care that was required to attempt to save the life of the child. While the initial extraction would have cost less than a hundred (a cost too high for many to bear for something as seemingly small as a rotten tooth) the bill has now risen to hundreds of thousands of dollars in the cost of surgeries and other emergency care that was given. It is hard to imagine how a family that could not afford a tooth extraction will deal with such an extreme form of debt. I noted in a previous post how this sort of emergency is one of the largest reasons for bankruptcy in the U.S.
This case is provocative because it points out glaring disparities in the current U.S. health system. There are many other examples of lesser problems that go unnoticed in the media but are experienced be individuals without a voice or real political power. In order for the family of this boy to get any sort of attention, a death had to be involved. Until this system is reformed in a meaningful and structural way, little improvement can be expected.
Defining Yourself
It is interesting how something as abstract as an ontology or epistemology can be used to define someone without their consent. I have come to be defined as the "quantitative guy" in my graduate cohort because I am the only one perceived to be doing statistical analysis. There is at least one other student who is using quantitative methods, though in a more mixed approach, in her thesis. Also there are other students that will be basing at least some part of their work on research that was previously carried out using quantitative methods. It is interesting because before coming here, there would have been no reason for me to think of myself as a quantitative researcher.
One difficulty I am facing in my research methods class is that many in the class clearly have not had even a basic statistics course, or if they have that it was long enough ago that it has all been forgotten. This is frustrating because the questions that are asked reflect their ignorance of even basic statistics and sampling techniques. Instead of helpful critiques, I am forced to defend ideas of approximation of the normal curve, random sampling, representativeness and inferential statistics. Many of these ideas have been sufficiently settled and the real debate is about improving methods and refining techniques. Having to defend an entire discipline to people who are completely opposed to its even existence, is tedious at best and insulting at worst. The questions that were asked were not asked to improve my project, but instead to fulfill their own prejudice against a particular method in the social sciences.
Statistics, like any other method, cannot be taken uncritically and must be examined in the context of what is being studied. Though I think that often the condemnation of statistics is misplaced and ill-informed. Statistics may be overused in the media and politics, but that does not mean that they can't be used in a more appropriate way. Through conducting research in a transparent and reflexive manner, the methods that are used come to be sufficiently problematized. By problematizing our methods we can see more clearly the limitations and ways to counter-act these limitations.
In my thesis I am attempting to use statistics in a reflexive way that I think sufficiently engages with the limitations that I face. By using statistics I am accepting that at some level they can give a probabilistic view of society. Though I also understand they they can never reflect perfectly the social reality that they attempt to investigate. By continuing to reflect and being aware of these issues, I feel that I can use statistics without falling into overstating my conclusions or misrepresenting my analysis.
One difficulty I am facing in my research methods class is that many in the class clearly have not had even a basic statistics course, or if they have that it was long enough ago that it has all been forgotten. This is frustrating because the questions that are asked reflect their ignorance of even basic statistics and sampling techniques. Instead of helpful critiques, I am forced to defend ideas of approximation of the normal curve, random sampling, representativeness and inferential statistics. Many of these ideas have been sufficiently settled and the real debate is about improving methods and refining techniques. Having to defend an entire discipline to people who are completely opposed to its even existence, is tedious at best and insulting at worst. The questions that were asked were not asked to improve my project, but instead to fulfill their own prejudice against a particular method in the social sciences.
Statistics, like any other method, cannot be taken uncritically and must be examined in the context of what is being studied. Though I think that often the condemnation of statistics is misplaced and ill-informed. Statistics may be overused in the media and politics, but that does not mean that they can't be used in a more appropriate way. Through conducting research in a transparent and reflexive manner, the methods that are used come to be sufficiently problematized. By problematizing our methods we can see more clearly the limitations and ways to counter-act these limitations.
In my thesis I am attempting to use statistics in a reflexive way that I think sufficiently engages with the limitations that I face. By using statistics I am accepting that at some level they can give a probabilistic view of society. Though I also understand they they can never reflect perfectly the social reality that they attempt to investigate. By continuing to reflect and being aware of these issues, I feel that I can use statistics without falling into overstating my conclusions or misrepresenting my analysis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)