Month: May 2009

by Richard Florida

A new British study finds that the most pirated pop songs on the internet are those that already top the charts. Instead of giving rise to a "long tail" where small indie acts broaden their appeal online, the study found that digital technology – and music pirating – simply work to reinforce the fat head of mass appeal. From the BBC's summary:

There was little evidence that file-sharing sites helped unsigned and new bands find an audience … It suggests file-sharing sites are becoming an alternative broadcast network comparable to radio stations as a way of hearing music.

Music critic, Carl Wilson, provides perspective:

This shouldn't be a surprise ever since the 2006 Columbia University study that showed pretty convincingly that popularity tends to breed popularity whether on the Internet or not: When facing a big list of music, even if you have sampled each song, most people are apt to decide that the best ones are the ones other people also like …

It's also notable that the Big Champagne study found that most people followed this pattern because otherwise they were overwhelmed by choice (you've probably run across Barry Schwartz on that paradox).

What's more the ensuing exchange of information and opinion is the primary way that these choices become meaningful. A s one of the researchers, Andrew Bud, told The Register: "… it's through people chatting to each other and seeing the music talked about in the media. That's what culture is."

by Patrick Appel

Bryan Caplan dismantles the argument that we should stem Hispanic immigration because such immigrants tend to be more Democratic:

Almost 70% of American voters under the age of 30 voted for Obama.  Why isn't anyone calling for the deportation of America's youth, or limits on fertility to raise our average age?  The reason, presumably, is that people realize that this would be a grotesque over-reaction.  Even if young voters are making America a little more socialist, the "cure" of mass exile is far worse than the disease.  Libertarians should view arguments against Hispanic immigration in exactly the same way.  Even if Steve Sailer were completely correct about the political consequences of Hispanic immigration, they're a small evil compared to the massive injustice of immigration restrictions.

Ilya Somin has more:

by Patrick Appel

A reader writes:

How in the world does genocide get such little attention?  Do a google search of the Dish with the term Burma and you get 160 hits. Compare how other issues are treated by the Dish: the value of Buddhism, for example, is given an extended discussion with multiple viewpoints. Andrew (though hardly alone) has not opined as to the fate of several of the tougher, nonmilitary responses which were introduced in Congress and left to die in committee.  Most notable was the Darfur Accountability Act which passed unanimously in the senate but, following a visit to Washington D.C. by Salah Gosh (the reported engineer of the genocide) was killed in the House without even a discharge petition.  How does such a momentous story get ignored by everyone save a couple of human rights outlier journalists (the most mainstream coverage it received was in Harper's)?  But what I think is more telling is the difference in tone on the Dish between torture and genocide.

Yes, of course there the obvious big difference that our government was the one who did the post 9/11 torturing and not committing the genocide in Darfur.  But the principle of international law on genocide is that it and slavery are the two acts supposed to be so abhorrent that they justify ignoring state sovereignty and reflexively taking action. Andrew apparently believes this is true for torture — look at his favorable writing regarding Spain's interest in prosecuting American officials — but not for genocide.  As for his bright line on when it is appropriate to either take military action on genocide (is it never?) or stronger sanctions, even if it hurts our relation with the Arab League?  Who knows, he doesn't write about it. 

My main point is that genocide was supposed to be different — an overarching issue so grave that it demands both attention and response (that's also a reason why it's a different question than, say, Congo, though the death tolls there are far greater.  Congo deserves a response on its own but I don't want to digress too much).  As the Washington Post wrote, Darfur is as-if God answered the excuses on Rwanda that we didn't know what was going on before the mass death was over and said "OK humans, here's one in slow motion — let's see how you do with this one."  Well, we know how we do when it's Europeans that are involved — at some point we step in and stop it.  But we can't even do a no-fly zone or economic sanctions with teeth when its Africa.  Rationalizations for the difference can be made, but racism has the most explanatory power — the reason for the difference in coverage, attention, and demands on our politicians isn't because we were stretched to thin that we couldn't afford to send an aircraft carrier over for a no-fly zone, it's because as Pat Buchanan said (with regard to an earthquake in Turkey) that they're different from us, and when it comes to those kinds of differences nobody is more different than a black African.

by Patrick Appel

Peter Leeson, who has a new book out on piracy, explains that putting guards on commercial ships could increase deaths and costs:

Armed guards will of course defend against pirate attacks, potentially leading to fire fights that could jeopardize innocent sailors’ lives. The prospect of having to battle for their prizes will deter some pirates. But others will remain undeterred. And for the remaining industry, armed guards’ effect may very well be to increase the dangers that piracy poses rather than reducing them.

The profit-driven behavior of commercial shippers corroborates this possibility. Like pirates, commercial shippers also have strong incentives to keep merchant sailors alive and well: insurance costs. If armed guards reduced the dangers of piracy instead of increasing them, commercial shippers’ insurance costs would fall by employing guards instead of rising. But in this case commercial shippers would have hired armed guards already, which they haven’t. Commercial shippers don’t need government to encourage them to undertake the most profitable course of action.

Are most employers Luddites who are behind the time, but will soon see the light? Or has so much changed, in the past 6 years … or will so much change in the coming 6 years … that the revolution will finally come to pass?

by Chris Bodenner

An ursine graphic artist laments the decline of modern design.

Washington, District of Columbia, 12 pm

by Patrick Appel

Ezra Klein addresses Suderman's post from last week:

by Patrick Appel

A reader writes:

I was very unhappy to read the post from a pediatric emergency physician claiming that 75 percent of his patients do not need to be in the ER.  This is a widely perpetuated myth  that is completely unsupported by any data.  The CDC in 2008 issued its yearly report (pdf) on emergency department visits and found that only 12 percent of ER visits are for non-urgent reasons.

That number has dropped every year. And yet the public, the press and far too many policymakers continue to perpetuate the myth that ERs are overcrowded because of people who do not need to be there.  Most people who come to the ER are sick and have no place else to turn.  It's not pretty, but that's how it is.

The issue of emergency department crowding is a critically important one as the nation (and Washington) take up health care reform. People want a simple solution and yet the realities are far more complex.  Emergency departments are crowded because as the number of emergency patients rises, the number of emergency departments continues to drop.  We have more people using fewer resources, a problem that is expected to become catastrophic within a few years as large numbers of baby boomers age. 

Emergency care accounts for only 3 percent of the nation's health care expenditures.  It is a priceless public resource and should be funded accordingly.

A reader writes:

Another Pediatric ER attending physician here – I too spend most of my time seeing patients that don't have what we would define as a truly emergent or even terribly urgent medical problems.  I don't think it is as simple as people not being patient enough to wait to see their regular doctor.  Many families have trouble even getting through to their doctor's offices, and when they do, the wait for an appointment is often laughably long.  So these families will keep coming.

My recommendation is that we heavily staff emergency departments with providers such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners to see the lower acuity patients, with ER physicians spending the majority of their time on the more complex and critically ill patients.

NPs and PAs take less time to train, incur less educational debt, cost the hospital less to employ and are plenty qualified to deal with the problems your other reader mentioned – pimples, sore throats, diaper rashes, etc.

Despite the occasional resentment felt by those of us who are spinning our wheels spending hour after hour taking care of patients who would have been just fine waiting to see their regular doctors, I try to remember that people are there by-and-large, particularly when it comes to pediatrics, because they're really worried about their kids and simply don't know what constitutes a true medical emergency.