Some people probably shouldn’t try to make charts. I mean, take a look at this fucked up Venn diagram here:
There’s so much wrong with this diagram it’s hard to even know where to start. The letters are too small. “Narwhal” should be plural. The Sirens of Greek Mythology did lure sailors to their death with their songs, but they weren’t sea creatures. They were, rather, bird women – you know, with wings and everything. Also, while Miles Davis was indeed a thing (specifically a man) with a horn, to the best of my knowledge he never stood in a pond, at least not while playing said horn. And even if he had, it wouldn’t have made him a sea creature.
I suppose I should acknowledge that I’m the person who made this Venn Diagram. I would like to apologize for its many failings and for any damage it may have caused.
But, look, I’m not the only one who can’t design a diagram for shit. Consider this unholy mess, put together by Susan Walsh, a retrograde dating “expert” who runs a blog called Hooking Up Smart. Walsh devotes considerable energy to bashing feminists and sluts, sometimes at the same time. In a recent post, she attempted to spell out the economic costs of sluttery. This diagram was the result.
Even Walsh seemed to realize that it was a bit of a turd, and she offered it to her readers with a sort of apology:
I’m not an economist; this is really more of an exercise in common sense, as well as a work in progress.
No, you’re not. No it isn’t. And that’s no excuse. Essentially, Walsh just made up some bullshit, drew lines between different parts of the bullshit, and pretended it all made sense. There are so many things wrong with her flow chart that, as was the case with that Venn diagram above, I don’t know where to start. Graphically, it’s obviously a disaster.
And when you look at the, er, content of the diagram, it’s equally befuddling. Apparently the only possible results of a pregnancy that results from a “casual sexual relationship” being carried to term are “dropping out of school,” “promiscuity,” “substance abuse,” “violence,” and “crime,” followed closely by “prison,” then “EVENTUAL ECONOMIC STAGNATION!!!!!!!!!!” (And yes, she did use ten exclamation points.)
But my favorite bit of the diagram is the question “was sex consensual?” If it’s not, watch out! Someone might have to go to court! (For some reason she forgets to draw the requisite line to “prison,” perhaps because it is so rare for rapists to actually serve time?)
Here’s the thing, Ms. Walsh: sex that isn’t consensual is no longer an example of a “casual sexual relationship.” Sex that is not consensual is rape. Just as boxing that is not consensual is battery.
Walsh knows all this, of course. It’s just odd that in this diagram she seems to consider the supposedly dire consequences of “promiscuity” as far worse – for individuals and for society – as the consequences of rape.
She might want to make a few adjustments before she puts forth her next version of that chart.A better solution would be to simply delete it from her computer and pretend it never happened. That’s what I’m doing with my Venn diagram.
“credit Default Swaps are instruments that pay if your debt goes bad. I most certainly do know that a credit default swap is, even before checked wikipedia to be sure.”
This is such a simplistic and elementary definition of a cds it’s not even worth writing. For starters, credit default swaps aren’t necessarily insurance on bonds you own, if someone is willing to sell you one, it’s can be a bet that any particular bond you identify is going to default.
“Why does that instrument even exist? Just sell the darn debt.”
Ignoring the fact that you don’t understand how CDSs are used, I’m not sure what you’re suggesting here… Are you saying people should sell any bond that might go bad or are you suggesting people should try to unload bad bonds after they’ve already defaulted? ‘Cause that is not a product people are generally interested in buying.
Denelian,
Thank you so much. I got the name of a doc down in San Antonio who’s supposed to be no bullshit about this whole thing, but if it doesn’t work, I’ll take you up on your offer.
@ Speahafoc
“Would zombie sex transfer the Virus?”
If you’re having unprotected sex, probably. Zombie-bites-human inevitably results in zombification, so zombie-shares-bodily-fluids-with-human will likely have the same result.
I think lycanthropy would work the same way.
They *can* but they haven’t. They’re sitting on the capitol and using it in the Finance, Insurance, Real Estate (FIRE) institutions rather that using it in real world, applicable economic work.
http://charlesrowley.wordpress.com/2010/02/15/paul-krugman-on-the-liquidity-trap/
http://www.businessinsider.com/delong-presentation-on-history-of-bailout
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2007/08/dean-baker-on-hedge-fund-bailouts.html
We can agree on most of this, however the siphoning off of capital into the FIRE have pulled 80% or the GDP into 5% of the population creating the liquidity trap that Krugman points out.
Supply side has an insignificant multiplier on capital. Compared to demand side economics where the multiplier in a real, direct stimulus is immediate and significant.
http://www.peelingonion.com/tag/change
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_GMkD4mFrFxw/TH49Y6JmDoI/AAAAAAAAD1Q/SYY2OZaRMA4/s1600/Fiscal+multipliers+in+US.jpg
Now these examples are tax cuts v. direct stimulus, but when you’re looking at pulling capital out of the real economy and placing it in the FIRE economy, away from where the capital can flow with high liquidity, you return to our current situation, the liquidity trap.
We can agree here as well, though to be honest 83% of the used cars removed from the used car marker were light trucks.
http://autos.yahoo.com/articles/autos_content_landing_pages/1036/top-cash-for-clunkers-trade-ins-and-new-cars/
So your argument doesn’t hold up entirely, but anecdotally.
Damit! David put me in moderation hell for economics pr0n.
STAGNATION!!!!!
A vehicle that functions but puts out a ton of pollution is going to have a bad multiplier effect in the form of sick people. Plenty of money is wasted trying to deal with all the stuff that makes humans sick because no one bothers to make the business/average community behave. After all, that hurts the FREE MARKET and the FREE MARKET deserves first, last and always consideration above actual humans.
So while it may increase costs in one way (transportation) it decreases costs in another (sick children.)
Just right now there is a minor fight over changing the law that was passed back in 2007 (and signed by George W. Bush) to not improve efficiency in light bulbs because we cannot make business behave, the society behave (in terms of not wasting electricity) and it means ECONOMIC STAGNATION which is the worst thing ever apparently (but if your economy is doing just fine while not growing a whole lot, who cares?)
Not to mention greenhouse gasses that contribute to the current droughts happening in the southern states, and other climate change effects.
I work for an electric company.
We are pushing HARD for CFL bulbs and other energy efficiencies to be installed by everyone; private and commercial both.
A single sub-station can cost millions to build. But the houses continue to grow and consumer electronics continue to increase. So to be able to supply energy over equipment that has a 50 year lifespan (poles, wires, transformers) we BEG people to reduce their consumption.
Computers use 250 – 750 watts. That’s 3 – 10 incandescent bulbs that need to be swapped out to offset. And that’s minor compared to your average TIVO or flat screen TV.
Nearly all vehicles destroyed had fuel injection and catalytic converters. Many were less than a decade old. They hardly put out a ‘ton of pollution’.
If you have no problem wasting resources by destroying automobiles, why is “wasting” electricity such a problem? Consumers should have a choice of what kind of light bulbs they own. They should also pay the full price of electricity, including a small tax to make up for externalities of power generation (you know, sick children caused by pollution from coal fired plants…. We really need to start plopping AP-1000s or ESBWRs all across the west coast).
In part because the EPA played games with the estimated fuel economy. They changed the rating method and simply multiplied all older vehicles’ fuel economy estimates by an arbitrary multiplier. My ’99 Cherokee could have been destroyed in the program. Yet, the old XJ Cherokees are lighter than some MINI Coopers these days and easily get better than 20 MPG in the real world.
Also, how much fuel goes into manufacturing a new automobile?
Sorry Manboobz — I fail at comment forms. That was supposed to be in another window. Just delete my comment.
<3
remain awesome
Nearly all vehicles destroyed had fuel injection and catalytic converters. Many were less than a decade old. They hardly put out a ‘ton of pollution’.
If you have no problem wasting resources by destroying automobiles, why is “wasting” electricity such a problem? Consumers should have a choice of what kind of light bulbs they own. They should also pay the full price of electricity, including a small tax to make up for externalities of power generation (you know, sick children caused by pollution from coal fired plants…. We really need to start plopping AP-1000s or ESBWRs all across the west coast).
Oh my gosh! There were some ways of reducing gas consumption! That means they were perfect in all ways and should never have been replaced. *rolls eyes*
These were the eligibility requirements:
Vehicle must be less than 25 years old on the trade-in date.
Only the purchase or 5 year minimum lease of new vehicles qualify.
Generally, trade-in vehicles must get a weighted combined average rating of 18 or fewer miles per gallon (some very large pickup trucks and cargo vans have different requirements).
Trade-in vehicles must be registered and insured continuously for the full year preceding the trade-in.
Trade-in vehicles must be in driveable condition.
And the average fuel efficiency went from 15.8 mpg to 25.4. Source That is a pretty good result in terms of reducing pollution.
The issue with the lightbulbs is the same thing with your derision of the change from inefficient cars to efficient ones-apparently PERSONAL FREEDOM is more important then making sure people do not get sick and waste all their money on health care bills. Bet you were against Superfund too.
You killed your own argument here. The amount of resources recycled makes up for the supposed waste. The amount of steel, aluminum and other materials recycle saves tons of carbon and fuel needed to mine and refine ore into new vehicles.
Now you seem to be arguing specifically against cash-for-clunkers. And in a gross sense it was little better in the short term than digging a hole and throwing money in it, but it had the effect of subsidizing a major manufacturing industry in the US when unemployment was on the rise, which keeps money in the real economy and out of the shadow economy.
It also had the secondary effect of reducing resources consumed (i.e. oil) at a time of increased speculation and oil prices. But much like eminent domain, while it might have been a hardship on you personally it had an overall positive affect (including hidden costs of preventing higher unemployment) on the US.
I like Cash for Clunkers. Up until that program, I had a certain vague amount of guilt that my vehiclular indulgence (a first-generation Explorer with 240,000 miles) would be better used as the primary vehicle of a new driver or person who otherwise could not afford a reliable used car than as the secondary vehicle of a sentimental geek who expects to be able to get large things home from the store on her own.
However, it makes a much better secondary vehicle than it does razor blades. So, guilt free, I’ve scratched off the notion that I might ever sell.
And maybe if I get off my ass quickly enough, I can get some power window motors out of the deal.
denelian:
Sarah – IUDs are BADBADBADBAD JUJU if one has not had a child. [there are exceptions to every rule, but still…] OTOH – i currently have an Implanon. sadly, it *IS* hormonal, but i’ve had it 2 years and 2 months and haven’t had a SINGLE period [knock on wood].
Why do you say IUDs are bad juju for nulliparous people? They have a slightly higher rate of falling out (because of the cervix shape – it’s about 15% in nulliparous people), but other than that, I haven’t heard of any increased risks. I had Mirena and Paragard. Unfortunately, the Mirena fell out with my first period post-insertion and the Paragard fell out 3 months after insertion. They’re more likely to fall out during periods and during the first few months – if you make it past 4 months, it’s unlikely to fall out. My insurance covered the whole thing, it didn’t hurt when it fell out, and I liked them while they lasted, so really, the only issue I had was that I had to give up on my preferred method!
I’m on Implanon now and I hate it. It screws with my hormones terribly and made me gain a ton of weight. I’m uninsured currently, so I’m thankful to have long-term BC, but I’m switching to NuvaRing as soon as I get insured again (or if the NHS ever decides that BC is preventative medicine and should be offered for free…)
Now, I commented too…let’s just say her insistence that rape is a form of casual sex pissed me off a bit.
I commented! I was busy proving that golden showers were less dangerous than PIV.
Wrote about her fucking “rape is a form of casual sex” bullshit here: http://thefeministwing.blogspot.com/2011/07/did-you-know-that-rape-is-form-of.html
I made a comment on that one too, and pointed out that she was wrong to be quoting Donohue and Levitt re abortion and crime.
tito is starting to remind of Mr. Slave, but without any comedic value.
I made the mistake of going to her site after reading the chart (or trying to) here. She is so dumb, she is really dumb, for real.
She’s like a betamax tape, I didn’t think they made people like her anymore.
I have to say, following Laplace’s link over and then seeing all of you pile on was awesome, I love you all ^_^.
And that was me. Dang wordpress comment thing.
One of the things which struck me was that she admitted to me that she had a screwed up chart, that it needs fixing; and yet she continues to defend it.
Yeah, frustrating as all hell, I’m sure. “Oh, yeah, i need data” …. “Oh, but it’s all right. because COMMON SENSE” >.<
Nobby: Worse, she thanked me for pointing out those flaws, said she would use my comments to make her next chart.
I feel dirty (and not in the good way).