Using The Vaccine Lottery Idea For other 'Nudges'

 #341: Other Lottery Ideas

.............................

I've never bought a lottery ticket.  In fact, if it weren't for money going to a good cause, I'd want lotteries discouraged.  But what if it isn't the desperate minimum wage worker spending on that one-in-a-million chance, but instead, government monies (mainly from the rich) being used?  And what if the good causes are vital, like ending a pandemic?  I find I'm ok with that kind of lottery.  

The question I'm asking in this post is: what other examples of lotteries am I good with?  To answer, I'll list a few (black type) and my reaction (A through F grades in green type).

#1. Democracy. What's comparable to a vaccination campaign in importance?  Something that we can't really do without.  I've written before about an upgrade to our political system that would use voter input in making decisions.  It would involve our Representatives in Congress hiring a polling firm to take raw voter opinion for a given House district and feed it into a model.  The outcome would be fairly accurate public opinion on various important topics.  The holdup is of course getting enough voters to watch a random 5-minute video about an important issue, and then, respond to multiple-choice questions, indicating their opinion on the matter.  I've proposed a lottery that once a month pays ten lucky winners per congressional district $100,000 each for watching that video and answering questions.  That would be 12,000,000 x 436 House districts = 5.23 billion a year.  For $5 billion a year we could have a political system that worked.  Sure, our representatives could say they were 'focused on the bigger picture', and ignore their voters' opinions, but a much more likely reaction would be to tell lobbyists that, sorry, but they had to follow 'the will of the voters'.  I think it's a winning idea.  A

#2. Graduation.  It could be argued that raising education levels is the answer to much of what ails us, economically, socially, racially, and certainly politically.  So, why not give out large numbers of state college scholarships to those who graduate from high school?  To qualify for a drawing, students would have to be from a family with limited means and have averaged a B- or better, grade-wise.  Sure, if "Community College for All" isn't possible, this might be worthy.  A-  

#3. Crime Tips.  We're all familiar with the idea of a reward for information leading to an arrest.  What if the individual rewards in a given year were reduced enough that a city could afford to draw the name of one of those offering information, and that individual (who could request anonymity) received a much larger amount in addition to their first payout?  Let's say the initial rewards were  $5,000, but that each year $1,000.000 would be given away to one of the initial recipients?  Sure.  B+

#4. Suggestions.  Ok, so far we've ID-ed some pretty good uses for lotteries.  How about a local government holding an annual lottery that rewards good suggestions?  Anybody living in the city or county involved could turn in a suggestion.  A winner would be picked, and the mayor would introduce the winner to five pre-selected ideas from among those submitted.  The winner chooses one, and both the winner and the picked selection win a prize, say $1,000.  Is that a good way to better a community?  Sure, as long as the prize money is modest.  B

#5. Doctors Visits.  Here's another one that's nowhere near a sure thing.  Let's say a pilot study suggested that people who saw a doctor at least once a year were healthier than those who didn't, and that in the long run those with doctor visits cost state and federal governments less to care for.  So much less, that governments actually saved money by running a "Feel Like A Million" lottery, paying one of those visiting their doctor $1 million.  Sure, if everyone agrees it saves money. B-

#6. Good Deeds.  Let's end with a harder-to-judge case.  Let's say a town wanted to be known for being big-hearted.  The town's city council wanted to attract tourists with the slogan, "The Heart of the Midwest."  And, to generate publicity, they decided to conduct a "Heartland Lottery", that would see the doers of good deeds nominated by their fellow citizens.  Each month, three random nominations would be selected and three prizes would be awarded.  Maybe $1,000, $250 and $100, with the city council deciding who received which prize.  So, 1300 x 12 = $15,600 a year.  If I lived in that town, would I think this was a good use of taxpayer dollars?  I suppose that if voters din't like it, they could vote those who supported the idea out of office.  C+

I Bake Bread The Super-Easy Way

#340: No More Kneading

..........................

Many years ago I baked so often we didn't buy bread at the store--for at least a year.

Then, recently, when grocery shopping, I noticed packets of "sourdough" yeast, and thought I'd see whether the resulting bread came anywhere near to equalling the deeply sour sourdough that I've long sought and never found.

Since I didn't think I'd be successful, I decided to take a huge shortcut.  Instead of forming a dough to knead, I mixed in the yeast and salt, then enough warm water to make stirring the doughy slurry easy using a spatula that scraped the sides of the mixing bowl.

Really, it took just a few minutes.  The very wet, soupy dough then rose in the oven, was mixed again, then poured into oiled bread pans, and rose once again.

After baking for 30-45 minutes at about 350, the loaves fell out of their pans when held upside down, and were easily sliced, and perfectly moist--but not overly so.

* Upside: taste was nearly right (sour), though I used two packets.

* Downside: the loaves lacked the vaulted dome top of risen dough.

* Verdict: so much easier (total prep time 5-10 minutes, max), and so delicious.  And, yes, whole wheat flour.  Thumbs up.

Is China's Superpower Status Real?

 #339: Well, Maybe Not

........................

Because it's behind a pay-wall at the Atlantic (a publication well worth a subscription), I'm summarizing David Frum's recent review of Michael Beckley's 2018 book, Unrivaled: Why America Will Remain the World’s Sole Superpower.

Crucially, one can access a dozen or so interesting articles a day, online for $49.99 a year, by signing up for their newsletter, clicking on any of their most popular pieces (which appear as a top-5 list), then once at their site, clicking on "Latest Articles".

That said, here's the gist of Beckley's book via Frum's piece:

1. Having the world's largest economy does not mean a country is a superpower.  China arguably had the largest GDP in 1830, but was a relative backwater.

2. Chinese troops spend 20%-30% of their time studying Communist ideology.  Their troops' training is heavily scripted, with the 'Red' team almost always winning.

3. High test scores compared to the US?  They are high because free public education in China ends after junior high.  76% of China's working age population has not completed high school.  At the college level, a quarter of studying is devoted to that ever-popular Communist ideology, while the student-professor ratio is double that in the US.

4. Research?  "China now leads the world in retractions of scientific studies due to fraud; one-third of Chinese scientists have admitted to plagiarizing or falsifying results (versus 2 percent of U.S. scientists); and two-thirds of China’s R&D spending has been lost to corruption."

5. But military prowess?  The big difference is that the US doesn't need to spend a large part of its defense budget on keeping everyone 'happy', 'peaceful' and 'obedient'.

6. All that money?  "China misallocates capital on a massive scale. More than a fifth of China’s housing stock is empty—the detritus of a frenzied construction boom that built too many apartments in the wrong places. China overcapitalizes at home because Chinese investors are prohibited from doing what they most want to do: get their money out of China."

Are Vaccine Passports Inevitable?

#338: Answer: No.  But Here's How It Might Happen

................... 

The BBC had an article on the world's busiest international airport, in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, in which the airport manager is quoted as saying that vaccine passports will eventually happen.

And this got me thinking: It doesn't seem likely, but could it be yet another ubiquitous app on our phones?

Beginning tomorrow, the UK is rolling out a digital version.  And, in this country, Hawaii and Oregon are looking into the possibility, while New York already has the Excelsior Pass.

Dozens of other states have passed laws against such passports, or their governor has indicated no interest in pursuing the matter.

Meaning it seems unlikely that the idea will catch on in places other than international airports, New York city (with its large performance spaces), and perhaps a few other, more exclusive or confined venues like upscale restaurants and cruise ships.

So, here's how, despite the odds, vaccine passports still might happen:

  *  Duration.  We don't yet know how long our immune system can go before a booster is needed.  If it's, say, six months, then the date of one's last shot complicates the 'yes/no' question.  Do we trust people to remember when six months are up?  What if the vaccine's effectiveness varies from one immune system to another, meaning some people can wait longer than others?

  *  Variants.  The experts advise us to treat all humans everywhere in the world as part of our collective family, simply because the virus will mutate.  Most of those mutations will be harmless, but the greater the timeframe the virus has to become more and more deadly, the greater the chances the thing will become deadly serious.  So, with deadlier variants advancing, the pressure may mount to quickly vaccinate those around the world, and in this country, who haven't already gotten their shot.

  *  Latency.  The virus will probably be with us for a long time.  Many of us, for example, have given it to our pets, where it can possibly remain, without causing the pet any problems, until our immunity wears off.  So, we may soon realize that a 'take no chances' approach makes sense.

  *  Effectiveness.  Anti-vaxers often question why the vaccinated population need worry over whether everybody else is vaccinated, since once vaccinated, they can't catch the virus.  But they can.  Though the odds are small, perhaps in 5% of exposures, the virus will win, and a relatively mild, though unpleasant, case will result. 

  *  Economics.  Places where "Don't Tread On Me" includes not having to get vaccinated, nor wear a mask, nor least of all have digital proof of conformity, may find their economic engines can't return to normal.  And, if businesses apply pressure, could the tide turn, and legislatures that had only recently passed bans on vaccine passports, find themselves having to admit that they'd made a mistake?

A fittingly ironic resolution to the vaccine passport question would be if areas of the country that lagged behind in vaccinations found that, by November 2022, a deadly new variant caused their citizens to avoid public interaction, including polling places, especially in rural areas with relatively low vaccination rates.  Meanwhile, vote-by-mail balloting would be possible, but had, a year earlier, been made much more difficult.

Of course 'herd immunity' is probably much more likely than is a long drawn-out pandemic.  That is, we, and eventually the world, will reach a vaccination level where the virus dies out for want of a sufficient number of un-vaccinated hosts.

  

Discretion Is....

 337: Fixing The Problem Will Continue, Until Morale Improves

.........................

I was catching up with Kevin Drum's blog this evening, when something I had just read in a newsletter came to mind.  Kevin was reacting to a source of anxiety, among some Democrats, that deems Republican efforts to suppress future voting an urgent crisis.  His reaction: If Democrats would simply settle for half-a-loaf, they needn't worry.  In his view, the desire to remake our culture all at once, rather than appealing to centrist voters with 'half-a-loaf' solutions, is the problem.

The newsletter that came to mind in this context was Future Perfect (free, by the way), written by Sigal Samuel.  Today's issue concerned the role that meat production plays in generating CO2 (14.5% of the global problem), and how addressing Climate Change will be all but impossible while so much meat is produced--not to mention all that desired by those who often can't afford it.

Samuel thinks the government should be investing in R&D on meat substitutes (that is, plant-based substitutes that taste like the real thing).  They're made with less energy, water and resources than are animals raised for consumption, but their production process could be made even more efficient.

My imagination has Drum adding that thought to the list of things that are keeping Democrats from winning over more voters.  Not only is meat something that nearly 90% of Americans eat, it is something that Republicans claim (falsely) that Democrats want to deny the typical hamburger-eater.

Eventually, plant-based 'meat' will become much cheaper than the real thing, something I've written about previously.  This will be one of the biggest upheavals our culture has ever experienced.  Farmland will likely lose much of its value, especially in more remote, less picturesque areas.  Is it more important to hasten that future, and immediately write off at least a third of the national vote, or to focus on more popular concerns in order to have a 'big tent', large majority in Congress?

.................

Update: 5/14/21

According to Bloomberg News:

"A Boston Consulting Group report in March heralded the beginning of a “protein transformation” and forecast meat alternatives would make up 11-22% of the global protein market by 2035. A Kearney study projects global meat sales will begin to drop by 2025 and decline 33% by 2040 as alternatives take away market share."

Update: 5/16/21

Yesterday morning I was notified by Google that this post had been taken down, due to a compromised link (likely a complaint from the quoted author).  When I checked my email that evening I found that there had been a mistake and that this post had been re-instated.  But, the original publication date of 5/11 at 7:39 PM had been erased and all I had was a "draft" (this explains the first update's date).  Good to know that the moderators are keeping an eye out for bad links, but I can assure them that this blog is as quiet a backwater as they are likely to behold, and nobody need worry.

The Carbon Credits Senate Bill -- Pro and Con

 #336: It's Bi-Partisan and Likely To Pass

......................

Below, in a nutshell, are the best arguments for and against the Senate's Growing Climate Solutions Act (S. 1251).

A quick description: The US Department of Agriculture would provide farmers with information on how to tap into the carbon credit market, and with suggestions on how their farm might sequester carbon (employing no-till, using cover-crops, planting trees, etc).  This would be coupled with the USDA certifying third-party evaluators who would determine how much carbon a farmer is sequestering.  Meanwhile, companies wanting to claim that they're carbon-neutral would pay farmers for returning it to the ground. 

For: 

1. Just getting the farm industry on board the climate train, and having them benefit from tackling the problem, is almost enough in itself.  The resistance to addressing Climate Change is of course found disproportionately in rural areas.

2. It's a first step.  A Carbon Credit market will emerge with or without government involvement, so whether corporate farms will benefit more than the little guy is another matter.  This also applies to whether communities of color and poorer neighborhoods bear the brunt of existing pollution: carbon credits will happen regardless.  

3. The perfect should never be the enemy of the good.  For example, the cheaters who clear their forests, then store carbon in their new fields?  Expose the cheating with satellite imagery.  This could even be the trigger for tightening rules.  Remember, no corporation wants the bad publicity of bulldozed forests associated with their brand.

Against:

1.  Let's get it right from the get-go.  Why overlay yet another government program on top of a system that already rewards the biggest, corporate-owned holdings?  Monopolies in most sectors, government help limited to farms growing animal feed, declines in pollinators and other parts of the natural world; there's too much wrong to begin with.

2.  Why shouldn't farmers care enough to make capturing carbon something done without outside help?  Regenerative Farming can be highly profitable.  It takes an adventurous spirit and experimentation, but why do farmers need to be paid to do the right thing?

3.  Attack Climate Change at the source, where carbon is emitted.  Why should the poor, who often live close to industrial parks and major intersections, put up with more pollution (which usually follows carbon) any longer? 

......................

It seems to me that the 'For' arguments are stronger.  If a Climate Credit market is coming, with or without government intervention, the 'Against' arguments are reduced to #2.  Meanwhile, the 'For' arguments are all fairly convincing, especially #1.  But, there may be additional arguments to come.

Official Senate press release.

A summary for the 'For' position.

A summary for the 'Against' position.