Hi Flack,
Sorry for the long delay in my reply, but I had to collect some TV viewing data.
I watched two recent presentations of “The Big Bank Theory”(BBT) and several dated reruns. The shows are amusing, but highly predictable.
Like all television, BBT portrays all its male cast members as two-dimensional cardboard cartoon louts, devoid of commonsense and any redeeming qualities. The storyline is one-dimensional, trading heavily on sexual themes rather than scientific subject matter.
Too bad the show’s producers and writers decided not to introduce a single character with attributes that could inspire our teenage population into the mathematical, scientific or engineering disciplines. That’s an opportunity lost. Why not hire a Hollywood writer like Leonard Mlodinow, author of “The Drunkard’s Walk”, to slip science curiosity bits into the scrip to challenge and motivate our youth? He’s a LA area resident and writes with a flair that would appeal to young folks. He wrote episodes of Star Trek.
Still, I welcome a popular media show that emphasizes some aspects of science and engineering. Science and engineering were primary factors in enhancing our welfare with the Industrial Revolution in the 1800s, with the Electronic Revolution in the 1900s, and with the Information Technology revolution happening now.
Thomas Friedman recognized and eulogized these scientific and engineering accomplishments in his “The World is Flat” book. As a member of that innovative community, I am proud of our countless contributions that fueled the world’s happiness and prosperity as measured by our expanding GDP cumulative wealth per person statistic.
Tom Friedman expressed concern that the US science and engineering cohort is statistically aging without adequate replacements given the Flat World developing scenario. I share that apprehension. Therefore, I am pleased that a show like “The Big Bang Theory” might serve to encourage more US young people to enter various science-based fields. But that takes a commitment in time, energy, and thinking.
As Friedman documents, other nations are generating mathematicians, scientists and engineers at rates that are many factors higher than those in our Country. The Flat World scenario means that fewer foreign professionals will be motivated to our shores, thereby diminishing the emigration source of our inventive population. That’s a recipe for future demise and ultimate failure in a Flat World.
One of the themes developed in Friedman’s book is that the sum of what he identifies as the Curiosity Quotient plus the Passion Quotient are more important to innovation and progress than Intelligence Quotient.
Mr. Friedman recognizes that math, science, and engineering are hard subjects because they are precisely “rocket science”. They require focus, dedication, persistence, and significant training and maturation periods. The decision to enter those professions is probably made during the early teenage years,. As a general observation, our young people have rejected that challenge in favor of softer disciplines with less taxing educational demands like the social sciences. In the US, the paucity of rigorously trained scientific personnel is reaching crisis proportions.
As Stanford economist Paul Romer remarked, and is often repeated in political circles, “A crisis is a terrible thing to waste.” Well, a successful TV show like the BBT would also be a terrible opportunity to waste by not using it as a vehicle to encourage our teenagers to consider the absolute need for a scientific background in a flattening world.
But I did take slight umbrage at your submittal that equated me with Sheldon. What you resorted to in your recent post is name calling. As American writer and editor Elbert Hubbard observed: “If you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names.”
That form of debate style says more about the writer than the target. That tactic fails to win controversies, and more importantly, fails to win friendships. Thank you for your apology; it redeemed you. Enough said.
You asked about my usage of Moving Average techniques. I do use them in a minor way as part of some infrequent market and economic assessments that I complete.
There is some limited research that supports the Moving Average strategy. Numerous academic and industry studies support momentum as a market driving force and use moving averages to quantify that momentum. Market researcher Mark Carhart in the 1990s recommended expanding the Fama-French 3-factor market model into a 4-factor model with momentum as the fourth factor. He found that the momentum fourth factor to be very transient in character, but, nevertheless, a factor worthy of inclusion.
I just don’t find that research compelling enough for my portfolio management style as a stand-alone decisive factor. I do use momentum in several diverse ways when assessing my portfolio positions against the current market environment.
As I previously mentioned, I employ Index Moving Averages to reinforce and/or confirm my investment decisions. I consider it a secondary contributor. As a behavioral researcher might suggest, it soothes my confirmatory bias fears.
I subscribe to the daily Wall Street Journal (WSJ). Each Monday, in its Market Data section, the WSJ publishes both the 65-day and the 200-day moving averages of the Dow Jones Industrial and the S&P 500 Indices. I scan them weekly, and occasionally record them when I evaluate my own 6-factor equity assessment model.
Since I am a long-term investor with annual turnover that hovers around the 5 % mark, I emphasize the 200-day data plot over the shorter term measure. When assembling any data set to serve as input for part of any decision making process, the data collection period should be compatible with the anticipated decision frequency timeframe. Context matters greatly. For a day trader, both the 65-day and the 200-day moving average graphs are basically meaningless. Some day traders need data periods that are measured by just a few transactions in seconds.
My composite 6-component market strength indicator includes elements that attempt to measure Fiscal, Momentum, Valuation, Macroeconomic, Liquidity, and Sentiment levels. These factors are not weighted evenly. They are designed to assess fundamental, technical, and behavioral aspects of the equity market condition. The data extracted from the Journal goes into the Momentum modeling component.
Also, I use the WSJ as a primary data source for much of the data that finds its way into my modeling. In a very casual manner, I also review numerous other market indicators to function as informal signals for my decision-making. That decision-making is incremental in nature. I do not hurry the process; I do not abandon the ship when it takes a little water.
In the past, I used some form of my evolving 6-factor model to build incremental changes to my portfolio depending on the degree of bullishness/bearishness that the model revealed. This personal tool enjoyed some successes and suffered some failures. It was less than perfect as a forecasting device. Consequently, it has been revised several times.
Given my current retirement status, this forecasting tool has become less significant in my portfolio maintenance, and has fallen to some decay and considerable disuse. I have become more lazy in my commitment to it, especially since I monitor my portfolio far less frequently these days (a more accurate timeframe is now months).
I really believe that “None of us are as smart as all of us”. I appreciate your investment perspectives, but only when they are presented in a fair and polite way.
I often remember the World War II aircraft pilot’s admonition that “If you’re not taking Flack, you’re not on-target”. My goal is to always be on-target, so I anticipate just a little Flack.
Concerning our distinctive perspectives on Moving Averages, I suspect we do not disagree on its generic inclusion in investment decision making, just its influence scope in that process. You focus more sharply on it; I integrate it with other signals to inform my decisions. Both of us are honoring our investment philosophies. Good for us.
Best Wishes.
Comments
Hi Joy,
Most scientists and engineers are not GUT discovery motivated. GUT is the acronym for Grand Unification Theory. Most scientists and particularly engineers are dedicated to more practical problem solving.
Albert Einstein’s famous equation that relates energy with mass and the speed of light when coupled to his gravity modeling and his General Relativity Theory, are certainly bold attempts at a GUT. But Einstein always recognized the need for simplification.
He famously said that “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler.” A lesser known, but equally insightful Einstein quote follows: “Out of clutter, find simplicity. From discord , find harmony. In the middle of difficulty, lies opportunity.” Einstein was a prolific quote machine.
With some risk of oversimplification, I will now take a stab at defining the prime ingredients that contribute to both national and individual prosperity and happiness.
I’ll use GDP as a measure of a countries developed status and per capita GDP as a measure of an individual’s wellbeing. With some risk at oversimplification, I believe that both raw GDP and per capita GDP growth rates are dominated and captured by two primary factors: population and productivity growth rates.
Today, a developed nation’s population growth rate is at best neutral, but more likely slightly negative if emigration is excluded. So it is a non-player in contributing to securing positive prosperity enhancements. By default, the last standing contributor to enrich the human condition is productivity gains.
Who participates in productivity increases? In general, the answer is everyone. But all participants are not equal contributors.
Surely productivity enrichment tasks require financing so bankers and venture capitalists are needed. This money cohort is encouraged to risk money by fair laws, a framework of minimal rules and regulations, and stable institutions for enforcement. So the government is also an integral part of the process. From this mix, the missing elements to increase the size of the pie is discovery, imagination, invention, and innovation. For the most part, scientists and engineers supply these requisite ingredients.
Surely not all scientists and engineers are saints. The likelihood is that their share of fakes and charlatans is about the same as the general population overall. But the overarching goal of most research and development efforts is to generate an attractive enough product that folks will buy it to ease their labor or to improve their wellbeing. On balance, scientists and engineers complete that function in a hugely positive manner. And they do so, not in a fringe, nuanced way, but by being bold in design and in execution.
I am now finished with a rather lengthy exposition motivated by my shock that anyone seriously doubts the multifaceted benefits that science bestows on mankind.
Your ambivalent protestation notwithstanding, the way you framed your submittal, clearly demonstrates your true feelings. It is definitely not a positive endorsement of mathematicians, scientists, or engineers. Too bad.
To once again quote the ubiquitous Albert Einstein: “Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.”
Just consider the progress that the human race has made since Newton’s discoveries suggested a predictable, clockwork universe that grandfathered the Industrial Revolution. Our wellbeing remained basically stagnant until the 19th century when science began to generate power driven devices that enhanced our efficiency and productivity. It freed us from the restrictive bondage of farming for survival alone.
David S. Landes, historical economic professor from Harvard University, wrote “The Wealth and Poverty of Nations”. His landmark tome is sweeping in scope and brilliantly insightful. His critics claim his perspective is overly Eurocentric. Nothing escapes criticism.
Professor Landes identifies geography, size, climate, and natural resources as influential factors to a nation’s development. Other cultural factors also matter greatly. These factors include hard work, a savings discipline, trust, honesty, patience, persistence. adaptability, women’s rights, and especially technology.
Technology always enters the equation. The wealth of a nation closely correlates with technology and technology acceptance trajectories. Technology is the independent parameter that drives the wealth equation.
I hope you are not the last living Luddite. I’m sure you are aware that a Luddite was a worker who rioted in the early 1800s against the mechanization of the British textile industry. He feared such machinery would diminish employment. How wrong he was. The mechanized worker increased production, lowered prices, which increased demand, which etcetera, etcetera. That virtuous cycle is the classic characteristic of our capitalistic system.
I enjoyed your reference to the 1651 quote from Thomas Hobbes’ book “Leviathan”. The more complete quote is even more depressing then the shorter version that you cited: Hobbes observed that life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". Science and technology addressed this circumstance and significantly bettered it.
Why do you find that “Science is inherently amoral”. At its best, I find it a strongly positive influence on mankind: at its worst, I perceive it as neutral. You perceive your position as being a nuanced stance. I wonder if your selection of the word “amoral” is also part of that nuanced stance.
On a morality scale, I suppose the ranking goes from moral, to amoral, to immoral. But by my standards, amoral is not neutral; it has a negative connotation. Scientists and engineers are not amoral; they seek to understand and to build for the betterment of mankind. Their goals are noble. Are there some exceptions? Of course there are, but those are rare instances indeed.
To generalize, the many mathematicians, scientists, and engineers that I have encountered were overwhelmingly trustworthy, honest, diligent, hard working, persistent, patient, and loyal professionals. They are the kind of folks that are a pleasure to interact with. By way of full disclosure, I am happily married to a research scientist and I am an engineer.
I assume by your question with respect to the atomic bomb and the gas chamber that you refer to their negative connotations as in the Nagasaki/Hiroshima bombings and the Nazis use of the gas chamber in their failed attempt to exterminate all Jews within their control.
From my personal perspective these are easy questions to answer. The development of the atomic bomb was mandated by war competition with evil empires that were also developing that horrendous weapon; it was a race we had to enter and had to win. The political decision by Harry Truman to deploy that weapon saved lives since it dramatically and almost instantaneously ended the Japanese conflict.
If the Asian conflict had persisted (it would have given the commitment of the Japanese war-hawks and the loyalty of the Japanese people), our continuing conventional bombing raids, our troop casualties on Day One when we landed on Japan’s shores, and the Japanese defensive losses on that same Day One invasion, would greatly exceed the tragic losses endured on that faithful day when the Enola Gay dropped its deadly payload. You certainly are free to disagree with my assessment, but that is my judgment knowing what I now know.
My judgment relative to the evil Nazis use of the gas chamber is very conventional mainstream wisdom, and needs no defense and no explanation. I hope your question was merely rhetoric and not pejorative.
I suspect that you are pulling my chain to some degree. A defense of technology might well have been an unnecessary exercise. In truth, I enjoyed doing it.
Stay well.
Scientists are definitely not saints. There have moral values as varied as the rest of the population. However, I can argue that they have done more good than otherwise.
Nazi's certainly did not need help from scientists for setting up gas chambers. Evil people will find a way, natural or otherwise.
Like MJG, I think that A-Bomb has actually terminated the war from more deadly escalation. The conventional war in Europe has actually brought more deaths and suffering.
There has been disturbing anti-science trend in recent years in this country. This is really unfortunately. US has come to this point with a decided lead on scientific research and education.
Unfortunately, this is declining and the gap with China and others are shrinking. We have become a knowledge worker based society but if we cannot maintain this lead, we will suffer big declines in our competitiveness and will be more dependent on the outside countries and condition dictated by them. Science and scientists will always flourish somewhere where it is welcome and appreciated. One day, we will realize this and I hope it will not be late.
(Disclosure: I am an engineer)
My father, having already served with our ground forces in Europe, had departed a European port (in either France or Italy) on a ship for Japan to participate in the invasion force. As you know, odds of survival were small. Fortunately, Japan surrendered while they were enroute and the ship was diverted home to the States.
When I say science is amoral, I do not mean it in a negative or positive way, but in a larger sense of the universe and its scientific laws having no morality behind them. I am not anti-science, despite the facile and a bit patronizing attempts to characterize me as such. (Seriously, did you need to explain the term Luddite to me or imply I was stupid with the Einstein quote?) The scientist herself will have some personal moral code, but in fact the hardcore scientist today will also most likely be an atheist, agnostic or perhaps some form of deist--none of which implies any sort of morality behind the universe's laws. There is nothing good or bad about gravity. It just is. And the scales you talk about from immoral to moral don't exist as far as gravity and the universe are concerned. The science is moral--for better or worse--but recognizes the things she studies and discovers are not.
And yet the scientist herself will invariably have some form of ethical code they bring to their work. In your case, you seem to feel that productivity as an end to itself is an inherently good thing. I do not. And I would argue that the 98 percent of climate scientists who now believe global warming is a reality might see something rather insidious about the drive towards a greater GDP as the end all and be all goal for societies. The question is not just how much we can produce, but how we produce things and to what end and what effect that production has on the environment and humanity. That scientists are now working on more efficient devices that pollute less and consume less energy is a step in the right direction, but for hundreds of years they weren't doing that. And anyone who worked in merry old England in the 19th century breathing in the black smog from their factories probably knew that. And while an efficient dryer might consume less electricity, a clothes line consumes even less. The end goal of having even these efficient machines is still to get us to consume more, which is despoiling our environment. Consumption by itself is not an inherently good thing in my view.
And along the way for every labor saving device that comes along there are consequences. The cotton gin for instance was essential for the development of slavery in America as a viable economic system. (Do I know sound patronizing when I say look this up?) And the idea that scientists pursuing the development of weapons was a good thing on our side because we were competing against the Germans ignores the fundamental question of whether the development of weapons by any scientist is a good thing. If the scientists working on the atom bomb in the U.S. were inherently good for pursing discovery and science, were the scientists on the German side pursuing the same goal necessarily evil? And what if they had discovered it first and bombed us? Would you still say the science of the atom bomb was a good thing? The idea as another poster "Investor" says that "Evil people will find a way, natural or otherwise." and therefore it doesn't matter that scientists developed the gas chamber is ridiculous to me. It's a lot harder to commit genocide with sticks and stones and your bare fists than it is with gas chambers, guns and atom bombs. In fact, one of the scientists who worked for the Germans Fritz Haber to develop Zyclon B, the gas used to exterminate six million Jews, was Jewish. His actions wreaked havoc on his family and one of his sons ultimately committed suicide because of it. Clearly there are moral consequences to a scientist's action that can be unpleasant if you take this into context.
Then there is the more banal fact that much of what scientists and engineers do may not be increasing productivity or saving lives or killing people ,but just getting people to consume more products. I watched I believe an episode of sixty minutes recently where they interviewed some flavor scientists, chemists who develop the flavors that make our processed foods taste so good. They admitted basically that there goal was to make foods taste so good they became addictive. While that's nothing like building a bomb or discovering the cure for cancer, it certainly isn't serving the lofty goals you stated. It just makes people fat.
Each person owns his unique tradeoff scale. Economists have long recognized that actions are not isolated events. Henry Hazlitt summarized this connectivity well in his fine book “Economics in One Lesson”. He said: “The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.”.
Strong environmental advocates never seem to measure the penalties of their recommended practices. In that sense, they search for Utopia. The Utopians dream is like a seductive mistress: it promises Paradise, but delivers the Tragedy of the Commons. It is a warm myth but all Utopian experiments have failed.
Hi Joy,
Thank you for your postings, especially the second since it clarified and presented context to your initial positions. Although I do not endorse many of those positions, you defended them with considerable erudition. I respect your commitment.
I was pleased to learn that you are not anti-science; your original submittal cast some doubts.
Consequently, I apologize that my Luddite explanation offended you; I had no way of knowing if you were familiar with the term itself or its genesis. The reference to the Einstein quote was directed in a mischievous way because I mistakenly believed, based on your original posting, that you are anti-science.
I can only speculate about your scientific background. But, the common understanding that “98 % of climate scientists now believe that global warming is a reality” is statistically inaccurate. It is a falsehood grossly exaggerated and perpetuated by environmentalists for various nefarious reasons. Forecasting global climate dynamics is not nearly a closed issue.
To illustrate that point consider the climate modeling reported by James Hansen, from the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. His work is often cited to support dramatic climate change forecasts. His model is under constant revision since it is a gross oversimplification. The modeling did not include dominant components like cloud cover and the earth’s basic chemistry such as the air’s water vapor content. These are major omissions. Thus the analytical model failed to capture realistic temperature trendlines. Predictions do not match the data without fudge factors.
To further illustrate, engineers improperly modeled aerodynamic wind loads and the Tacoma Bridge infamously collapsed. Models are simplifications of the real world. Everyone should evaluate model predictions recognizing their inherent shortcomings and consequential risk. Hansen’s failure to model some of the Earth’s primary heat exchange mechanisms casts doubt over the validity of his long-term climate forecasts.
I happen to agree that the planet is marginally warming because of the world’s population growth. Humans need fuel and are physically heat exchange engines. But I also believe that the historical uncertainties associated with the Sun’s fluctuating heat production (like solar flares), and random Black Swan Earth events (like volcano eruptions), swamp the energy blips caused by human inputs.
I also questioned your scientific background because of your suggestion that scientists studied the atom to develop the Atomic bomb. That is a misreading of history. The atomic bomb was a by-product of generic nuclear physics research. It was indeed inspired by discoveries made concerning nuclear particle interactions and the magnitude of their energy release.
The prospects of war focused the nuclear physics discipline on bomb development. War is always destructive and ultimately benefits no one. When wars are fought, the scientific and engineering communities are always enlisted to enhance weaponry. Sad, but that’s a hard fact of life. Nuclear physics also gave us nuclear medicine tools like Computer Assisted Tomography (CAT scans) and nuclear power plants to augment our energy supply. The good/bad balance of every discovery’s application is determined by complex exogenous factors.
Priorities must be established. As the Titanic is sinking, it is not wise to order its deckchairs. War drastically changes priorities and makes a reordering mandatory.
World War II was no different. The most reliable information that I have sourced suggests that the US developed the A-bomb only months before the Germans did. I consider that a very fortuitous outcome. Most of the world would agree with my assessment.
Let me reinforce my point relative to dropping of the A-bomb on Japan. Besides the casualties saved by avoiding a military engagement on Japan’s beaches, hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilian lives were spared. Films show women being trained with bamboo spears in hand-to-hand combat techniques. The Japanese people are a resolute fraternity and would have battled with valiant tenacity. President Truman’s providential decision negated this potential slaughter.
The fact that both Russia and the United States possessed MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) weaponry most likely prevented an annihilating World War III. In a sense, the super-bomb arsenal and its auxiliary delivery capabilities on both sides of the fence prevented that cataclysmic prospect. Of course this is conjecture, but it is a plausible scenario.
In a complex world with endless options and opportunities, a fundamental strategy is to first explore options, and next exploit opportunities Complexity Theory identifies this as a rugged landscape with emergent and uncertain properties. But it can be successfully navigated with simple rules and procedures. This is not rocket science; football teams do it all the time. The Industrial Revolution was (is) a rugged landscape.
A ubiquitous feature of any nascent industrialization is unwanted collateral effects like smokestacks and sweatshops. What was true in 19th century filthy Manchester, England is equally true in 21st century smoggy Beijing, China. However, most governments, economists, and private citizens would conclude that the net benefits greatly exceeded the collateral environmental costs by a huge margin. As the 19th century Industrial revolution unfolded, England prospered; as the 21st century industrial and IT revolution gathers momentum, China will prosper. How do I know this? On a national level, just look at the GDP per capita statistical data. On a personal level, just observe the tsunami of rural farmers in China clamber for a job in Beijing.
Tradeoffs always exist; Utopia is a debilitating fiction.
On a much lighter note, I was bemused by your reference to cloths-line drying as a means of energy conservation. Of course you are correct in stating that less energy would be consumed. But there is a very real tradeoff here (there always is) between energy consumption and time expenditure. I am not sure if many modern women would abandon their gas or electric dryer for the cloths-line alternative. They would never embrace that version of wash day drudgery; the tradeoff is not attractive.
I do not disagree with you that there are some obnoxious products in the marketplace. But what is useless to me might be a necessity for someone else. I am not presumptive enough to impose my standards on everyone else. That is the essence of freedom itself.
If some food chemists opt to spend a lifetime enhancing food taste, and some firms finance that research to gain profit, they are free to do so. As customers, we are free to accept or reject their output. For me, that’s the exact definition of a free marketplace in action. I firmly support capitalism, warts notwithstanding. It is the nature of Capitalism to generate winners and losers.
All giant firms (Wal-Mart, IBM, Apple, FedEx), have global supply chains, many of which are anchored in regions that are world class polluters, suppress religious and political freedom, and deprive women of their equality rights. None of this is sweetness and goodness. Yet we all submerge our contempt to do business with these communities. Tradeoffs always exist in an imperfect world to enlarge the happiness of all participants, albeit unequally in some instances.
The IT revolution that enabled this globalization was created by smart scientists and resourceful engineers. As Thomas Friedman concluded in his book, the IT revolution that universally empowered the individual was a prime factor in the flattening of the World. Overall, we have prospered from it.
I hope you have prospered from it.
This is an excerpt from a Washington Post article I've linked below:
"In 2010, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences published a survey of 1,372 climate researchers, finding that 97 to 98 percent of those publishing in the field said they believe humans are causing global warming. That’s the same majority that existed in a similar 2009 survey. Dissenters do exist, the PNAS study found, but “the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced … are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.” Either way, the ranks of dissenters don’t appear to be swelling."
Here is the link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/despite-rick-perry-consensus-on-climate-change-keeps-strengthening/2011/08/23/gIQAMT3UZJ_blog.html
Nor is it the only one I could find on this subject if I chose. It was just one of the first of hundreds in a Google search. As for your version of history, it seems especially distorted in several areas and assumes a naivete one can only get by worshiping at the alter of Thomas Friedman who wears the rosiest colored glasses when it comes to globalization and ostensibly free markets. Suffice it to say that many many people in both 19th century England and 21st century China were/are deeply dissatisfied, in fact miserable because of the effects of industrialization and globalization. And the benefits you take for granted today as being the products solely of free market capitalism and industrialization would not exist were it not also for incredibly turbulent fighting and sacrifices of thousands of unionized workers and sometimes revolutionaries seeking to wrest a small portion of the wealth from the industrialists who exploited them and watched with complete indifference them and their children get chewed up in the gears of factories. While you're thanking capitalism, do you also thank labor unions for allowing you to have a five day work week, health care benefits and safety regulations? Do you thank them for the fact your weekend even exists? Somehow I doubt it.
And Japan and the bomb--the bomb saved Japanese lives? I can find many, many historians who disagree with you. But besides it still does not answer the basic question as to whether it is in fact a good thing--a "moral thing"--for scientists to work on developing weapons of any sort. Your argument that the atom bomb was simply a "by-product of generic nuclear physics research" is a sophism. Yes, the pure science of physics was used to develop the atom bomb, but you yourself have already made a distinction between pure science and its applications. Pure scientists developed theories--no harm in that. But there were other scientists--scientists working in the Manhattan Project specifically applying those principles to develop a weapon that can obliterate human life on this planet. That has moral consequences and there are even scientists who worked on Manhattan Project who've had their doubts. I in no way find this delusional concept of "mutually assured destruction" somehow bringing peace comforting. And I am not alone in that feeling. Life as we know it can now end on this planet with a push of a button.
Also, you seem to be under the misapprehension that we live in a free market as Adam Smith envisioned it. We do not. we live in an ogopolistic in one in which a handful of very large companies monopolize certain industries. When you turn on your computer and see the Windows operating system, it is not simply the will of the people and consumers that you do so. Before quoting me anymore Friedman, please read this:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2008/nov/06/green-fantasia/?pagination=false
Then pick up a copy of the Wretched of the Earth or almost anything by Dickens and tell me about the wonders of globalization and industrialization.
Hey, there A-squared fella. Hope all is well with mom, dad and the young one.
Click on the "flag" beside the reply button. Ask "chip" to remove the post.
Take care,
Catch