jjd

To the tune of God Bless America: "God Bless Ottera" God Bless Ottera Otter that I love Stand beside otter, and guide otter Thru the night with a light from otter. From the otters, to the noddders , To the naughter, white with steaksauce God bless ottera My otter sweet otter. God Bless Ottera Otter that I love Stand beside otter, and guide otter Thru the night with a light from otter. From the otters, to the noddders , To the naughter, white with steaksauce God bless ottera My otter sweet otter.

Northgate Trailhead: Open as of Sunday 5/9. This is the earliest opening on record, so you know what that means. Plan your trip now, before this route turns to water ice later this summer. The skiing has been pretty good from 10,000’ down to around 8000’ then it gets pretty patchy and soft. The first mile from the trailhead is patchy and the trail is hard to find. At the normal high camp there is NO running water and bring a shovel to dig a tent site in the snow. Glacier travel and route finding skills are recommended on routes accessible from this trailhead. Most of the crevasses and bergschrunds are covered and hard to see, and will become weak on warm days. Clear Creek, and Brewer Creek Trailheads: The trailheads are currently closed due to snow on the roads. Access will be prolonged (add about 1.5 miles to your approach to Clear Creek and 5 miles for Brewer Creek). Please pick up pack-out bags, permits and passes at the Mt. Shasta (available 24/7) Ranger station. http://www.shastaavalanche.org/reports.htm Give the rangers a call, they're very good about providing route info over the phone. I took the photo below on Sunday on my way home from Castle Crags.

Hippocratic Oath -- Classical Version I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfil according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant: To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art - if they desire to learn it - without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken an oath according to the medical law, but no one else. I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice. I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art. I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work. Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves. What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must spread abroad, I will keep to myself, holding such things shameful to be spoken about. If I fulfil this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_classical.html Hippocratic Oath -- Modern Version I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant: I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow. I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism. I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug. I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery. I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God. I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick. I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure. I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm. If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_modern.html

I didn't know Fairbanks had such a large gay community.

Why not look them in the eye, say "no, I don't" and continue on your way instead of being an ass about it?

MARSHMALLOW Marshmallow candy was first made by ancient Egyptians over three thousand years ago. The Egyptians made candy from the root of the marshmallow plant (Althea officinalis), a plant that grows in marshes. Today's marshmallows do not contain any mallow root - gelatin is substituted for the sweet, sticky root. http://www.enchantedlearning.com/inventors/indexm.shtml As one of the world's oldest confections, marshmallows date back to ancient Egypt (2000 BC). Some historians claim marshmallows got their name when pharaohs discovered that by squeezing the mallow plant (grown wild in marshes), a sweet, sticky substance surfaced that could be made into a confection. The delicacy was so special, it was reserved for royalty. Marshmallows were introduced in France in the mid-1800s, where owners of small candy stores made them by sweetening, whipping and molding gummy sap from the mallow root. Consumers liked the marshmallow's unique texture and taste so much that candy makers couldn't keep up with the high demand. The candy makers needed to find a new, faster way of making marshmallows. As a result, the "starch mogul" system was developed in the late 1800s. Rather than making marshmallows by hand, the new system let candy makers create marshmallows in molds made of modified cornstarch (like jelly beans, gummies and candy corn are made today). At about the same time, mallow root was replaced by gelatin, providing marshmallows with their "stable" form. Today's marshmallows don't actually include any mallow; they are a delicious combination of corn syrup, modified cornstarch, sugar, and gelatin. In 1948, Alex Doumak, a marshmallow manufacturer, began experimenting with different methods of marshmallow making. Doumak was looking for ways to speed up production and discovered the "extrusion process", which revolutionized marshmallow production. Now, marshmallows can be made by piping the fluffy mixture through long tubes and cutting its tubular shape into equal pieces. While marshmallows are available around the world, they are the most popular with Americans, who purchase more than 90 million pounds annually. The number one selling brand is JET-PUFFED® marshmallows, produced by NABISCO. http://www.kraftfoods.com/jetpuffed/jp_history.html

Also, how does the relationship compare with respect to spot prices? The wider spread makes sense when you consider the level of spot prices.

Perhaps the markets are expecting reduced tension in the Middle East? It could also be that the markets are expecting a reduction in the growth of oil consumption?

I just looked at some of the historical spreads and it looks like the markets are normally backward. I don't have the time to find some of the academic papers that are out there, though I suspect there are some that address this issue. Here's the link to the NYMEX historical page for light sweet crude futures http://www.nymex.com/jsp/markets/lsco_fut_histor.jsp? You can draw spread charts for various futures to verify the general trend. Here's the most recent inventory data from the DOE http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/twip/twip_crude.html I'll talk to my Futures and Options professor tomorrow to get some more information about the structure of oil markets. He might be able to shed some light on why oil markets are backward.

I am going to do a little research to see if this is "normal backwardation" or if the markets are normally contango - I don't really know what the historical trend is. Give me a few minutes to check the NYMEX.

I don't have the time to explain the theory behind why quantity is decreased (I mean this with all respect - I would be trying to explain about 3 quarters worth of micro theory in a medium like this). The answer to why quantity decreases can be answered by looking at a market's (or a firm's) cost curves and demand function. The interaction between all of these factors determines the level of output. I know this doesn't answer your question and I apologize for that.

You may be arguing semantics here, I'm not sure. The price is set on open exchanges around the world. However, 40% of the world's daily oil supply is controlled by one producer: OPEC (I'll post references if you want them). That is imperfect competition and it does create deadweight loss - that is the point I was trying to make. The normal laws of supply and demand are manipulated under a cartelized system like this. The basic theory is that OPEC considers the amount of oil to be supplied in the competitive marketplace (by countries such as Russia) and determines their output based upon residual demand, that is, the demand "left over" after the rest of the world supplies their oil. They set their profit maximizing level of output based upon this information. That is very much imperfect competition. You are right, very few markets are perfectly competitive. However, their is a major difference between monopolistically competitive markets, competitive oligopolies, and cartelized oligopolies. Again, my point was that the cartelized system does create deadweight loss. The second point I was trying to make is that while the mechanics of higher oil prices differ from those of a tax, there are general similarities. In the short run, higher costs for factors of production lead to lower levels of output (that is the similarity I'm talking about-lower output). It is great to see that we have become more efficient in using or oil (in terms of oil per dollar GDP). That is a long run transition; in the short run, it is essentially impossible to find a substitute. This IS a contractionary factor. The high prices are a SYMPTOM of high demand and an uncompetitive marketplace (largely from the former, in my opinion). They will lead to lower levels of production in the short run and substitution (and more efficiency) in the long run. Would you please clarify what you mean by that?

The market determines what the equilibrium price and quantity of widgets will be. Consumers will be willing to purchase a certain quantity at that price. If the tax is imposed on the consumers, firms lower their price as the demand curve shifts inward. If the tax is imposed on firms, the supply curve shifts inward. The price and the quantity must be lower lower due to upward sloping supply curves and downward sloping demand curves (the laws of supply and demand). Now, who actually bears the burden of the tax is more complicated than just "consumers or producers pay the tax." The relative elasticities of demand and supply determine who actually bears the burden. That article analyzes the question of oil prices from the perspective of a "principles" course in economics (think "Introduction to Microeconomics"). Higher oil prices do not act the same way as a tax; they do however have an effect on consumer spending for everything else. Demand for oil is relatively inelastic and, by its nature, lacks substitutes. That means people allocate fewer dollars to buying widgets at Wally World. Yes, the dollars flow out of the country and back in as direct investment. That is becoming something of an issue for the relative strength of the dollar - take a look at the FX markets for evidence of this. That article also assumes that oil prices are set in a competitive market - they're not. Consumers of oil (I'm talking industry now) take oil prices as given. Oil prices (by way of supply) are determined by a cartel. They are not competitive prices. There IS deadweight loss from this arrangement and a course in intermediate economics would reveal this. The author relies on partial equilibrium in her analysis of the current conditions. General equilibrium would require looking at how firms use oil and the effect that higher costs of production have on the rest of the economy. The bottom line: don't rely on smug commentators who patronize you by suggesting you read a basic economics textbook. Basic, partial equilibrium analysis doesn't tell the whole story. Markets are somewhat more complex than basic economics suggest. <end flagrant understatement>

How about this picture:

The unlikely, and dangerous, sport of ottering is largely unknown outside the ranks of its participants. In fact, it is possible that there has only been three occasions on which it has been mentioned in the press. The secretive nature of the sport may be due to the fact that it is performed by journalists; people who earn their living writing about others, but are less enthusiastic about having the spotlight turned on themselves. The revelation came about in 1998, when the Australian Treasurer, Peter Costello, spoke at a Press Club luncheon following the presentation of his latest budget. During this speech he took some pleasure in revealing the injury statistics from that year's event. These included a broken wrist, ankle, and some fingers. It is from three small press clippings1 of the period that we may deduce the nature of this sport. Participants: Parliamentary Press Gallery and Finance Journalists. Occasion: Following the release of the Australian Commonwealth Government budget. Location: A nightclub in Canberra2. Method: The 'standard' otter is performed by sliding down a staircase on one's stomach. The 'double' Otter is the same as the standard, but with a passenger or rider aboard. This method carries a higher risk of injury for both parties. The 'power' otter is assumed to be the same as the 'standard' otter but with a running start. Scoring: This has not been revealed. It is likely to be assessed on style and 'degree of difficulty', if at all. The activity is linked with consumption of alcohol, and therefore scoring may be completely irrelevant. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/classic/A516449

Then I guess the question is: better for whom? For me, wild and open space is very valuable. I prefer these places to remain unchanged by humans, for them to remain in their natural state. What I value highly, however, is not the same for everyone. Further, there is little profit incentive (at this point in our histroy) to own undeveloped land and keep it that way long into the future. There is profit incentive to hold undeveloped land with the expectation of greater profit from future development. Government is often a terribly inefficient provider of goods and services, but there isn't a market incentive to provide what I (and others, I suspect) value - wild, open space.

Externalities, by their nature, involve transferrence of costs from the beneficiary (say a factory owner) to the general public. Condsider a factory owner who can choose to install "scrubbers" on his smokestacks or not. If the scrubbers improve his operating efficiency to the point that he sees the requisite rate of return, he will do it. If the scubbers don't create the required rate of return, he won't do it. This analysis ignores the costs to the citizens who have to breathe dirty, polluted air. Relying solely on the altruism of a business owner to "do the right thing" is not sufficient. The profit motive is what makes capitalism a great thing. Returning to the factory example, air is a public good, as is water, radio waves, etc. The definition of a public good is such that you cannot exclude usage and thus doesn't have a "property owner" with a motivation to protect his investment. It is one of the limited roles of government to provide and mediate public goods. Markets alone do not generally provide enough incentive for firms to internalize these costs. The best solution is for government to play as limited a role as is necessary to create this incentive. Think about quasi-free market incentives, such as carbon credits or fish quotas, that can be freely traded. This type of action will provide the impetus for firms to internalize their external costs. You can argue the best ways to determine these costs, their magnitudes, etc. but the theory is becoming more widely accepted. P.S. I haven't yet read the entire thread, so I apologize if I've taken the above quote out of context. I assumed it applied to externalities.

looks like someone set his face on fire and tried to put it out with a bag of nickels?

The marginal costs are rising when oil demand shifts and firms increase production. I think this is the biggest driver of current oil prices. Here is a link to consumption figures from the DOE: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ipsr/t24.xls Now look at production figures: http://www.eia.doe.gov/mer/pdf/pages/sec11_2.pdf and http://www.eia.doe.gov/mer/pdf/pages/sec11_3.pdf Increased production from Iraq more than offsets any possible loss from Venezuela. Also take note of the increased production from Russia. Average fixed costs per unit increase when firms reduce output, not average variable costs (decreasing average variable costs would contradict your earlier statement that costs increase from tanker leases, which I agree with). If you want to talk about political instability, I would be looking at the recent terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia as a possible source for worries. As this week's Economist notes, "...over 60% of the world's spare capacity sits in the Kingdom itself." They also note "...the producers' cartel is still producing over 2m barrels per day over its quota." This is not surprising, as the incentive to cheat is high with prices at current levels. Lastly, prices in real terms are nowhere near their historical highs of ~$60 in 1991.