This is the audio recording of the 08/18 meet-up with Miles Kimball. The topic for the get-together was to understand certain issues in economics, such as trade deficits, the role of the Federal Reserve, Walmart, subsidies, and Miles’s novel idea for a stimulus measure – federal lines of credit to the people.
In this group conversation, we cover a range of topics. Therefore, I’ve provided a list of these topics and the approximate time during the recording that they come up: (on being a supply-side liberal and the concerns with too many regulations and government-mandated certifications at 3:00), (on Walmart at 33:20), (on immigration as a moral and financial value at 46:10), (on subsidies at 55:30), (on trade, deficits, and retirement savings at 1:05:00), (on trade deficit with China at 1:28:00), (on wealthy people who save money at 1:31:00), (on ethical finance at at 1:38:00), (on the stimulus, role of the federal reserve, and Miles’s government’s extending lines of credit idea at 1:44:00), (on doing experiments and testing economic theories at 2:01:00).
Download Now – Miles Kimball “Economics & Skepticism: Overview, Misconceptions, & Biases”[ 2:22:17 ]Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (250)
The Ann Arbor Science & Skeptics are having a meet-up on Saturday, August 18th from 4:00 to 7:00pm at the Colonial Lanes/Cubs A.C.restaurant. We’ll be in the back room located down the short hallway past the bar.
Our special guest will be Dr. Miles Kimball, Professor of Economics and Survey Research at the University of Michigan. Kimball is the blogger at Confessions of a Supply-Side Liberal. According to his blog, he “is an independent who grew up in an apolitical family. He holds many strong opinions—open to revision in response to cogent arguments—that do not line up neatly with either the Republican or Democratic Party.” Kimball will help foster a conversation about how we can be better critical thinkers and skeptics when we encounter economic arguments. This meet-up will hopefully help us to recognize and better understand where our own ideological biases may be affecting our reasoning.
The first part of the event will be for general socializing and ordering refreshments. After which, there will be some announcements, and then we’ll start the informal Q & A at approximately 4:45pm.
In its 2001 report on global climate, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of the United Nations prominently featured the “Hockey Stick,” a chart showing global temperature data over the past one thousand years. The Hockey Stick demonstrated that temperature had risen with the increase in industrialization and use of fossil fuels. The inescapable conclusion was that worldwide human activity since the industrial age had raised CO2 levels, trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and warming the planet. The Hockey Stick became a central icon in the “climate wars,” and well-funded science deniers immediately attacked the chart and the scientists responsible for it. Yet the controversy has had little to do with the depicted temperature rise and much more with the perceived threat the graph posed to those who oppose governmental regulation and other restraints to protect our environment and planet. Michael E. Mann, lead author of the original paper in which the Hockey Stick first appeared, shares the real story of the science and politics behind this controversy. He introduces key figures in the oil and energy industries, and the media front groups who do their bidding in sometimes slick, bare-knuckled ways to cast doubt on the science. Mann concludes with an account of the “Climategate” scandal, the 2009 hacking of climate scientists’ emails. Throughout, Mann reveals the role of science deniers, abetted by an uninformed media, in once again diverting attention away from one of the central scientific and policy issues of our time.
On March 17th, a U.S. House bill that reaffirms “In God We Trust” as the official motto of the United States and encourages and supports the public display of the national motto in all public buildings came out of a committee. It has not yet been voted on.