Interesting discussion on EconTalk: what is capitalism. The proposal was that capitalism was the third stage in a progression:
  Voluntary exchange where parties each exchange something they have for something they value more (i.e. each expects to benefit from the exchange)
  Markets where the exchange becomes impersonal, open to larger numbers, with published prices, etc.
  Capitalism where the market includes "time travel". That I can sell a company that doesn't exist today on the basis of what venture capitalists (or other investors) think It'll be able to earn in the future.

First I've heard of that definition. Maybe I like it. Not sure.

What I did like was the distinction he drew regarding China which he says has markets, but is a long way from being capitalist:

So, let's compare two different meetings. One is--so, in a capitalist system, in a full-grown capitalist system, there is such a level of specialization that you have a few hundred people that are specializing in a business called venture capital. And, what they do is they get money from people who have capital in the sense of being funds that they can spare to invest. And, they find the best targets for these things. Now, most of those are going to fail. But, if you lose a hundred thousand dollars on 10 businesses and on the 11th you make a hundred million, you are good. ...

...

Meeting Two: I go and meet with a bunch of government officials, and I say, 'Look, if we can build this factory, I think we can really produce some really great products.' Now, the government officials, if the company succeeds, receive nothing because there's no equity share. The government doesn't have this. The government is just trying to decide whether to loan us some money. Or, if the company goes bankrupt because it's building a bunch of high rise apartments that no one will ever occupy. But, they can say, 'We achieved our objective,' because the way we evaluate bureaucracies is did they spend their budget? Well, they've got a hundred million dollars. Yes, they spent their budget. Check mark. The bureaucrat gets to keep their job. There's no upside, there's no downside, to that second meeting.

... it's hard to become a capitalist country because you have to have a set of institutions. Well, you need a different history.

Comment at Jo Nova's today linked this commentary on footage of a Myanmar earthquake. Impressive to be in a building watching the scenery motoring past.

Listened to last week's Health Report which included this story on the Human Exposome Project. It sounded like a fairly well-intentioned plan to abuse statistics. Notionally, it's to complement the Human Genome Project, trying to cover everthing that might affect us that is *not* in the genome. I thought that, done well, it *might* provide inspiration for proper research, but that it was more likely to be data mining for "the Science is settled" rulings from the pulpit.

Looking at their website confirms for me that it's pure activism intending to use "Science" in its most religious form.

Poor old Health Report. It used to be excellent.

In contrast, John Anderson had a good conversation with Matt Ridley. Nothing astonishing, but it's good to hear sane voices.

tomo,
Good on Ray Sanders. It's very telling when the officials move from Don't you worry, it's all perfectly logical to Now stop asking questions. If the fake stations were truly a scientific thing then they'd have used historic records from the nearby sites to fit their function to corresponding historic records from the site in question. Stating the fitting parameters along with a graph of historic actual - historic estimated would lay the problem to rest (unless that graph differs appreciably from zero). Or just the parameters, and we could draw the graphs for ourselves.

You've almost certainly seen Juan Browne's sober coverage of the Air India 787 crash. You may not have seen all the "experts" in the comments section giving their views. In that case you'll have missed this gem, which beautifully skewers said experts:

Retired pastry chef here of 12 years. This looks like a deliberate act.

tomo,
It seems like a cargo cult expertocracy. Being ruled by *true* experts mightn't be too bad, but the structure we have falls short in at least two respects. Passing a medical degree marks some level of discipline and competence. That doesn't make an expert. It also typically entails some level of debt.

The second shortcoming is that the doctors *don't* rule. They are overseen by bureaucrats who make sure that the "experts" are staying withing the guidelines. The degree has become an entry ticket; once in, the only way to a quiet life is to do what you're told. Quite dispiriting.

On the mechanic analogy, imagine if mechanics' workshops were all run by the government. It's Gilliam's Brazil again.

Daily Sceptic has an item on rejected FOI requests for how figures are created for stations that don't exist. You can't question the science. It's right up there with the best line in Dr Strangelove: "Gentlemen. You can't fight in here; this is the War Room."

Mailman,
The Iraq war did seem to be when the Lancet abandoned science for politics, and yes, they didn't go an inch out of their way to hide it.

tomo,
I don't think the claim made (mandatory jail) is true. Not sure who that woman is, but she doesn't seem to have thought things through very well. She is outraged that a group of trans people might be described as paedo freaks, but she quite casually describes the placard holders as neo-nazis. Not "hate speech"?

Love the idea of state-funded restaurants. It surely paints a picture. Deep, deep idiocy. Mind you, our federal government has addressed the high electricity prices by paying a $75 rebate on every residential electricity bill. Of course they are the reason the bills are so high in the first place. The state giveth, the state taketh away.

As for the quantum mechanics is weird, so weirdos are best equipped to understand it rationale: I've seen something like it applied by a computer software saleseman. In that case the thinking was: I don't understand what those programmers are saying, so if I spray out a lot of babble that makes no sense to me, they'll understand what I want. Oddly enough, it didn't work.

One of my bugbears is that doctors have turned into guideline followers over the last couple of decades. My usual complaint is how eager they are to get everyone onto statins (or whatever) if their figures aren't in the right part of the bell curve. I now see there's another pernicious aspect bell curve medicine.

Recently, I've become aware of ringing in my ears and a few other minor niggles. Gave it a couple of weeks — no improvement — then thought I'd get out Dad's old blood pressure monitor. I'm usually at 120/80, but over a week or so's daily checking the diastolic has been between 90 and 100. Heart rate was up too (75 vs 60 usual). Figured this was some sort of disease process — adrenals, thyroid, infection,... — and made an appoinment. Usual doc wasn't available, so a new one.

She was very incurious. At the appointment I was reading 135/90. She said this was still within the normal range, and was going to send me off with nothing. I pressed, pointing out that she had ten years of annual readings to look at, drew a graph in the air indicating a step change, and said that I wanted to understand what had made the step. She relented, and gave me a bloods pathology form. Neither of us was happy at the end of the appointment.

If you went to a mechanic saying your car used to get 35 mpg and it's now only getting 28, he'd take an interest and do some investigating. He's not going to say Oh that's still pretty good; if you had a Landcruiser you'd only get 13.