Another incredible graph on inequality

Pictures are worth a thousand words. So are some charts. 

Anyone else notice that ironic timing of "trickle down" economics espoused by the Reagan administration marking the exact opposite...  

If Fabiana Caruana accomplished an unprecedented chess feat a few weeks ago and almost no one saw it, did it happen?

Fabiana Caruana accomplished an unprecedented feat in chess history a few weeks ago. Against the best chess players in the world (considered as possibly the strongest field ever assembled) he won 7 matches, lost 0, and drew 3. In fact, he won 7 in a row, which is unheard of in top chess competitions, where a super-elite players can engineer draws quite reasonably. During his run he beat Magnus (world #1 with the highest chess rating ever recorded) with black. That is virtually impossible. 

However, this feat got such little attention. I understand that chess is not in extremely popular but a feat like this deserves more attention than Lebron's recent weight loss due to cutting sugar out of his diet (which is what is being discussed on ESPN right now). 

Chess requires intense focus and being in the moment, which in the age of smartphones and social media, is probably hurting the popularity of this wonderful game. 

    

Our closest animal relatives - the Great Apes

How "smart" are animals? What do they "feel"? And how much of the differences between us are nature vs nurture?

A fascinating research project demonstrates that chimps are "smarter" than humans in some ways: two chimps beat two humans in a game of memory and strategy. 

Lucy the chimp was raised in a human household, and could make and serve tea. Koko the Bonobo could sign hundreds of words and could take care of pets.

In the US, we still do scientific testing on chimps, though it is increasingly outlawed in other parts of the world...

As we find out more about the intelligence of animals (and the Great Apes in particular), I think we are increasingly moving in the right direction by prohibiting research on these animals. However, I think this is still a difficult question and not as simple as Peter Singer, perhaps the greatest advocate for the Great Apes, makes it seem.

As a utilitarian, Peter cares about actions that maximize total welfare. But in that calculation, how would Peter weigh Great Apes against humans? If testing 1 ape could save 1 human, would he be for it? What about testing 2 apes to save 1 human? What is the exchange rate in his mind and how did he derive said exchange rate?

Peter notes that the mental capabilities of apes can often be superior than that of children and mentally disabled people. But if intelligence and emotive capacity are his point of comparison and not speciesism, then another question arises: if human privileges are extended to apes, should human responsibilities also be extended to apes? What happens if an ape commits a human crime? Should it be treated similar to a mentally disabled person? 

Bastardization of the word pandit/pundit

The word pundit in the American lexicon comes from Sanskrit word pandit. Pandit, in Sanskrit, means an scholar, teacher, and expert. The word ostensibly has the same meaning in the US but in fact means something close to someone who opines a lot without any correlation to expertise. 

In 2012 and 2013, as Bashar al-Assad was terrorizing his own country, John McCain lead the rhetorical charge to arm the Syrian rebels, consistent with his philosophy of fight first, ask questions later. Now we know that one of the rebel groups was ISIS, one of the most evil groups in the world today. In fact, McCain went to visit some Syrian rebels in 2013, who turned out to be part of ISIS. Imagine if he we had followed his advice and armed some rebels, which no doubt would have led to arms to ISIS. What tremendously horrible advice from a supposed "pundit." Being wrong though is not a pass time for John McCain, it is his passion. He is wrong about almost everything he has uttered in the last decade and these are not small matters to be wrong about. For example, in addition to the horribly bad advice on arming Syrian rebels, John McCain was wrong about Iraq in pretty much every way that someone can be wrong about foreign policy. 

Being wrong over and over and over again and not have any shame; that can happen in extremely old age and in fact, if your uncle John was even half as wrong as Senator McCain, you would chalk it up to senility. But McCain is the politician most often brought on Sunday morning talk shows as a "pundit." What is the excuse of the media? Where is the accountability? Why is there least accountability for those who preach accountability for others? Shouldn't being wrong so often and so catastrophically have consequences?

While McCain is too easy a target, he is not the only one who is wrong so often and yet gets valuable space on tv, newsprint to opine as a "pundit." For example, numerous economists and policy makers have been wrong a lot. Michael Boskin of Stanford University has been embarrassingly wrong on numerous economic topics. Others like Charles Prosser and Marty Feldstein, among others, have been wrong over and over again about inflation. And yet they continue to write their next round of opeds in the WSJ predicting that inflation is just around the corner this time. Maybe it will be on what basis do they have any credibility? We know that politicians have no concern for being consistently wrong but it is troubling when academics and policy makers have lost that sense of shame too.

I think we should stop bastardizing the word pundit. We already have a word to describe these charlatans - "derps."