A friend of mine told me that they thought my comment on Richard Cohen's infamous algebra column was pretty lame and lightweight. I had to plead that time was at a premium when I threw that up there, and a lot of the ground had been covered. But, as someone who writes posts titled 8th grade math for the rest us, I figure I should add a bit more, and that bit is this: knowledge of algebra is sufficient to balance the "two sides" to every issue phenomenon. Algebra allows one to swim out of the sea of noise and impute a sense of proportionationality to various alternative defensible statements. To generate a net calculus when presented with a sequence of alternative options it is necessary to consider the relations of unknown variables to known variables. To assess questions as to the "speed of evolution" it is important to consider the output generated by parameters, presented in algebraic form. Algebra ties together disparate distinct facts in various nests of relations and allows us to model higher order structures in our minds' eye. Is that a skill that a widely read general interest columnist should have? I would hope so, but I won't hold my breath....
- Log in to post comments
This goes for economics too. I was arguing with someone just earlier today that high taxes stifle technological innovation, and they just weren't grokking the point at all until I brought in a modified version of Hamilton's rule, p*B>C, with r being replaced with p for probability of success of some new venture or R&D project. Taxes decrease B, meaning that ceteris paribus investing in projects with low p will nolonger be economical. It's so much more obvious when you look at the equation, but up until that point the person was treating innovation as something that just happened naturally and was incredulous that tax policy could have an impact on it. Some basic algebra can go a long way.
Actually, depending on where the taxes go, they can contribute to technological innovation.
Just saying "lower taxes mean more money" isn't the whole picture. Lower taxes means less government spending on military and civilian research, the kind of research that at NASA throughout the 60s through 80s made possible a number of now-in-the-home innovations, and the kind of research spent in the 90s on information and communications technology that contributed greatly to our sweeping victory in Afghanistan (such as it was before troops were pulled out to the Iraqi effort).
Such research programs dropped to a near standstill as a result of "lower taxes" from the 2000-2004 congress and administration, including the near demise of my former company and my own 4 months spent collecting unemployment insurance due to a layoff because DARPA spending dropped to less than 80% of its Clinton-era numbers.
I just don't see how you can even consider yourself a remotely educated person without having some basic understanding of basic math. And algebra is basic math.
Joe, the merits of government-subsidized R&D might be an interesting discussion but is beyond the scope of the argument. Most government revenue doesn't go to that stuff anyway, and I was just using algebra to make a simple point that there's a direct relationship between level of taxation and the risks people are willing to take. The guy couldn't even get his mind around that until I put it in mathematical form.
my point was there's no point in using formulas rather than "english" if you're still making what i might consider to be the wrong argument. :)
(and no, most doesn't go to that sort of stuff, but the companies that DO that sort of stuff get between 50 and 100% of their funding from the government, as do many universities, all of which have been feeling the cuts badly under the current administration)
It is entirely possible to have huge government spending (as measured by budget/GDP proportion) and little state funding of research programs.
But wasn't the Hamilton's rule mentioned about commercial innovation? It would apply then regardless of the amount of state money spent on basic research, and really -- there is no non-commercial substitute for commercial innovation. Einstein would not construct an iPod.
Gee Joe, you're right -- it's totally off the mark to consider the tradeoffs inherent in economic policy, we should only consider the good things the government can do without considering the costs, because that makes us feel all warm and tingly. Thanks for setting me straight.
I said no such thing.