How can I get funding for this kind of research??

According to a recent study at University of Missouri:

"It turns out that we still know we are making mistakes when intoxicated. We just don't care."

The whole article is worth a read:

http://bodyodd.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/22/7885500-blame-it-on-the-alcohol-maybe-not-study-suggests

Some more info about what alcohol does from lifehacker. This line in particular caught my attention:

"Substances such as cocaine and LSD work like pharmacological scalpels, altering the functioning of only one or a handful of brain circuits. Alcohol is more like a pharmacological hand grenade. It affects practically everything around it."

http://lifehacker.com/5684996/what-alcohol-actually-does-to-your-brain-and-body

I don't know if all this makes me want to drink less or drink more.

I couldn't make this up if I tried

In 2014 a new city will be built in the middle of the New Mexico desert. It will have cutting edge infrastructure, state of the art security and enough room for 35,000 people. However it will be populated entirely by robots:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/25/opinion/sunday/not-so-smart-cities.html

And since everything inevitably comes back to the Simpsons:

"The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots."

Blame the investors

Martin Wolf has a great post about how high target returns on equity are creating financial instability:

http://blogs.ft.com/martin-wolf-exchange/2011/09/25/what-do-the-banks%E2%80%99-target-returns-on-equity-tell-us/#axzz1Z414EqVF

Banks love using the line "without high returns (and consequently leverage) we won't be able to attract equity investors." Bullshit. What will happen is their stock price will go down until its attractive to investors again. Every equity investor wants the bank to take as much risk as possible. They have unlimited upside and limited liability so they can't lose more than their original investment amount. What typically keeps the banks in line are creditors, they receive a fixed return on their investment but can still lose everything if the bank really screws up. Unfortunately in our Too Big To Fail world the creditors can't lose money either. If we bail out bank creditors (who are often other banks) there is no market check on the risky investments of banks. Without this system of checks banks will take as much risk as they possibly can, staying one step ahead of regulations. Banks are supposed to be prudent stewards of capital and risk management is supposed to be their primary business. But now our banking system is less stable than before, perhaps banks have better capital positions but these won't last long as equity investors demand higher returns (more risk).

I have this comic on my wall at work:

World best vs. world record

Last month the IAAF declared that a woman's time only counts as a world record if its in a woman's only event. I don't get it, I don't understand their logic at all - especially since at many races the elite women start and race mostly separately from the elite women. These writers for the NYT clearly agree with me:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/22/sports/for-womens-road-records-only-women-only-races-will-count.html

What's next, a world record only counts if there are no spectators? But then if a world record falls and no one is around to see it... If this is the way the sport is heading then maybe women should be banned from men's races entirely, those booty shorts are just waaaay too distracting.

Over 40% of 15-24 year old Spaniards are unemployed

Some pretty depressing numbers from the Economist this month:

http://www.economist.com/node/21528614

By comparison youth in the US are doing great with an 18% unemployment rate and Germany is basically a paradise at 9%. And this article only looks at developed countries, around the Arab world the rates are astronomical. Are we creating a generation that will remain only marginally attached to the work force for their entire lives? School can only substitute for work so long because there's a lot that you can only learn on the job, plus there's a limit to the debt a person can afford to take out. The article points to Germany's widespread apprenticeship program as a reason for its success. Similar programs have had limited success in the US, our mentality has always been a little more 'do or die'. And if that's the way people like it I'm all for it. But if we're letting our youth fail at such high rates, why do we insist on bailing out our bankers? I'm just looking for a little equality.

Inflation: the cause and solution to all of life's problems

Inflation rates are running about 4% annualized right now, yet the Fed remains largely unconcerned. Brazil and China are running inflation rates nearly twice as high. This afternoon the US 30 year treasury rate is 3.18%, resulting in a -1% real yield (approx. interest rate - inflation rate). In fact we're seeing negative real yields all around the world. This is bad news for anyone trying to save money since they're essentially losing money every day. Yet for the past year central bankers around the world say this inflation is temporary and will soon subside, but how long before temporary inflation is no longer temporary? And now some members of the Fed have started supporting higher inflation rates as monetary policy. Uhhh... what?!?! The Fed's primary mission is to maintain price stability - now they're coming out and saying they want to promote price instability. Of course Volcker has called them out on it in the NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/opinion/a-little-inflation-can-be-a-dangerous-thing.html?_r=3&ref=todayspaper

People have come to expect too much of the Fed and as a result the whole institution has become too politicized. This last happened in the 70's with BAD results, the whole reason we have a separate Treasury and Fed is so that the people who spend money aren't the same ones who print the money. I'm not sure this is the case anymore. Monetary policy is no panacea, good monetary policy does not stimulate the economy it lets the economy grow on its own. On the other hand bad monetary can really mess things up by distorting incentives for saving and/or lending. Maybe its just the Austrian Economist in me but the Fed isn't supposed to give the Treasury a blank check, the Fed isn't responsible for maintaining full employment and most importantly the Fed isn't there to bail out irresponsible banks. It is a great institution with a strong history of success, but over the past few years it has overstepped its bounds - illegally some might argue. However we don't need to end the Fed, we need to keep it independent and outside the sphere of politics.

0's a percent / when loan guarantees go bad

Until recently almost no one knew the company Solyndra, now they're everywhere in the news. The solar panel manufacturer filed for bankruptcy two weeks ago, apparently they couldn't keep up with the cheaper Chinese manufacturers. Normally a bankruptcy like this wouldn't be a big deal, except for the fact that two years ago the administration had approved over $500 million in loan guarantees for Solyndra. That's right you and I are on the hook for the debt of this company. Now there's an investigation as to whether Solyndra's political connections rushed the loan approval - bad news for Obama.

Why is the government guaranteeing the debt of companies like this? And to this amount? I suspect its because then they can create jobs and dole out favors without any upfront cost. But these guarantees create HUGE off balance sheet liabilities (see Fannie and Freddie). If the government wants to spend money promoting green energy that's great but they shouldn't be playing these accounting games. I'm curious to see what the FBI uncovers.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/584844/201109141845/Solyndra-Scandal-Continues-To-Grow-For-White-House.htm