Sunday, June 9, 2013

UPDATE 1-Novo Nordisk obesity drug results underwhelm investors

* High-dose liraglutide only slightly better than 1.8 mg

* Placebo-adjusted weight loss 4 pct at 3 mg dose

* Shares fall 4 pct on worries over obesity potential

(Adds analyst comments, latest shares)

COPENHAGEN, March 18 (Reuters) - Overweight and obese diabetes patients given high doses of Novo Nordisk's drug liraglutide achieved 6 percent weight loss in a clinical trial, only slightly above the loss seen in those on a lower dose.

The Danish group, the world's biggest insulin producer, said on Monday it was pleased with the results. But investors worried about where it left Novo's strategy for a premium-priced high-dose obesity treatment and shares in the company fell 4 percent.

Novo Nordisk said subjects with Type 2 diabetes achieved 6 percent weight loss with 3 milligrams of liraglutide in the advanced Phase III trial compared to 5 percent in those on 1.8 mg.

Patients given a placebo also lost 2 percent of their weight, so the placebo-adjusted loss for the higher dose was 4 percent, analysts noted.

"Five and 6 percent is on the low side in efficacy, but it is important to note that it is enough to be approved by the FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration)," said Michael Friis Jorgensen, senior analyst at Alm Brand.

He said the share price reaction was harsh but reflected broader uncertainty about Novo's prospects, following an earlier setback for new diabetes drug Tresiba in the key U.S. market.

"We are pleased about the outcome of this trial and look forward to getting the results from the two remaining trials in the SCALE programme," said Mads Krogsgaard Thomsen, chief science officer at Novo.

Soren Lontoft Hansen, an analyst at Sydbank, endorsed Thomsen's view, arguing the results were "robust" - but an analyst at a major bank, who asked not to be quoted before he published on the subject, said the results were only "so so".

The fact there was just a marginal benefit from using the highest dose was a particular concern for the company's high-price strategy, he added.

Novo wants to turn the injected drug - already on the market as a treatment for Type 2 diabetes under the brand name Victoza - into a multibillion-dollar-a-year product for the seriously obese.

While some in the industry are sceptical about using so-called GLP-1 diabetes drugs such as liraglutide to fight obesity, Thomsen believes the approach can offer cost-effective benefits.

Glucagon-like peptide-1, or GLP-1, drugs work by stimulating insulin release when glucose levels become too high. Their ability to induce weight loss is an added benefit, since type-2 diabetes is linked to obesity.

Novo Nordisk expects to complete the two remaining Phase III

trials in the so-called SCALE clinical trial programme by mid-2013.

When used in diabetes as Victoza, liraglutide is given at daily doses of either 1.2 or 1.8 mg. Novo, however, has been betting on a higher dose to produce greater weight-loss in the obese.

Novo Nordisk shares were down 4.2 percent at 1245 GMT, underperforming a 0.4 percent fall in a European drugs sector index .

(Reporting by Johan Ahlander, Stine Jacobsen and Ben Hirschler; Editing by Tom Pfeiffer)

((johan.ahlander@thomsonreuters.com)(+46 707 211027)(Reuters Messaging: johan.ahlander.reuters.com@reuters.net))

Keywords: NOVONORDISK/


View the original article here

User:OldAbeLincoln

Hello! My name is Connor and I am interested in helping to improve this site and possibly become an important member here. I attend a Southern Baptist Church here in Maryland and I hope to add a lot to the more religious sections of this website, through the insight that God Almighty has given me. If you would like to collaborate with me on anything, please ask!


View the original article here

Economics Lecture Thirteen

(Difference between revisions)This lecture is review of the course, in preparation of the final exam.  A student who took this class in 2007 sent me the following feedback from college:This lecture is the final review for this course, in preparation for the final exam.  A student who took this class in 2007 sent me the following feedback from college:{{cquote|My microeconomics class has been almost all review for me, because of the similar class I took from Mr. Andy Schlafly ....  Although other students who attended public schools may have taken 'economics' before, they have struggled with microeconomics this semester, because their high school classes completely ignored the free-market and Austrian economics"Austrian economics" is an approach to economics that emphasizes the free markets, minimizing governmental interference, respecting private property rights, and promoting gold as a monetary standard.  Beware, however, that Austrian economics organizations are often more libertarian than conservative on social issues, and Austrian economics itself has been slow in incorporating new economic insights such as the Coase theorem. which are taught [in college].}}{{cquote|My microeconomics class has been almost all review for me, because of the similar class I took from Mr. Andy Schlafly ....  Although other students who attended public schools may have taken 'economics' before, they have struggled with microeconomics this semester, because their high school classes completely ignored the free-market and Austrian economics"Austrian economics" is an approach to economics that emphasizes the free markets, minimizing governmental interference, respecting private property rights, and promoting gold as a monetary standard.  Beware, however, that Austrian economics organizations are often more libertarian than conservative on social issues, and Austrian economics itself has been slow in incorporating new economic insights such as the Coase theorem. which are taught [in college].}}Here is a list of the topics on the CLEP exam, along with how many questions are asked about each topic (as a percentage of the overall exam), and comments:Here is a list of the topics on the CLEP exam, along with how many questions are asked about each topic (as a percentage of the overall exam), plus tips about each concept:|cost measures (e.g., ATC, AFC, AVC) || 10% || FC is total cost when output is zero; convert to average costs by dividing by output and remember that ATC=AFC+AVC; know when a firm should shut down|cost measures (e.g., ATC, AFC, AVC) || 10% || FC is total cost when output is zero; convert to average costs by dividing by output.  Remember that ATC=AFC+AVC, and know when a firm should shut down.|Government policy || 10% || ''unbiased'': price ceilings cause shortages and taxes cause social (deadweight) loss;
''biased'': several pollution questions and the Lorenz curve (see discussion below)|Government policy || 10% || price ceilings cause shortages and taxes cause social (deadweight) loss; but beware of CLEP questions designed to make government regulation appear beneficial, as in reducing pollution|Inputs to a Firm (espec. labor) || 10% || key here is applying logic and other concepts to reason back from product demand to a firm's need for labor (workers); know effects of minimum wage laws; might also be asked about capital|Inputs to a Firm (espec. labor) || 10% || key here is applying logic and other concepts to reason back from product demand to a firm's need for labor (workers); know effects of minimum wage laws; might also be asked about capital|Perfect Competition || 6% || costs and profits and price are lowest for this market: P=MC=ATC and "economic profits" are squeezed to zero. If price falls, shut down in short run when PMC. P>ATC.  |Monopoly || 4% || the firm sets its price above marginal cost, but not higher than where MR=MC; economic profits are greater than zero; economic rent exists. P>MC. P>ATC.  |Demand Curve || 4% || what the public will pay; all firms in all kinds of markets are restrained by the Law of Demand|Demand Curve || 4% || what the public will pay; all firms in all kinds of markets are restrained by the Law of Demand|MC || 4% || marginal cost, which equals price in perfect competition.  For a monopoly P>MC but equals MR=MC|MC || 4% || marginal cost, which equals price in perfect competition.  For a monopoly P>MC but equals MR=MC|Public Goods || 3% || know the difference between these and private goods: public goods cannot exclude people from using the good|Public Goods || 3% || know the difference between these and private goods: public goods cannot exclude people from using the good without paying for it.|Returns to Scale || 2% || think Wal-Mart for increasing returns to scale; think a restaurant for decreasing returns to scale|Returns to Scale || 2% || think of Wal-Mart for increasing returns to scale; think of a kitchen for decreasing returns to scale ("too many cooks spoil the broth")|Consumer Surplus || 2% || what someone was willing to pay above what the good actually cost|Consumer Surplus || 2% || what someone was willing to pay above what the good actually cost|Imperfect Competition || 2% || P>MC for this market, which is "allocatively '''in'''efficient" (is not efficient in the allocation of resources); it takes perfect competition to drive P down to MC|Imperfect Competition || 2% || P>MC for this market, which is "allocatively '''in'''efficient" (is not efficient in the allocation of resources); it takes perfect competition to drive P down to MC|Utility || 2% || Overall satisfaction.  Recall our problem about hiking and reading? Marginal utility is your next bit of utility.  Indifference curve shows trade-off in utility.|Utility || 2% || overall satisfaction; recall our problem about hiking and reading. Marginal utility is your next bit of utility.  Indifference curve shows trade-off in utility.|Cross-Price Elasticity || 2% || Comparing change in demand for one good due to change in price for a ''different'' good|Cross-Price Elasticity || 2% || Comparing change in demand for one good due to change in price for a ''different'' good|Cartel || 1% || an oligopoly that illegally agrees to fix (set) prices, as OPEC does|Cartel || 1% || an oligopoly that illegally agrees to fix (set) prices, as OPEC does|Price discrimination || 1% || charging different prices for the good; only possible if the market allows the firm to set its own price|Price discrimination || 1% || charging different prices for the exact same good; only possible if the market allows the firm to set its own priceSome important topics are missing from the CLEP exam, such as the invisible hand, free market, charity, transaction costs, the time value of money, interest rates, the Coase theorem and Gresham's Law.  The reason is bias.  For example, once a student realizes how inefficient transaction costs are, he or she will probably not like government regulations much!  Instead of these concepts, the CLEP exam adds lots of questions about government regulation to try to make regulation look good.Some important topics are missing from the CLEP exam, such as the invisible hand, free market, charity, transaction costs, the time value of money, interest rates, the Coase theorem and Gresham's Law.  The reason is exam bias.  For example, once a student realizes how inefficient transaction costs are, he or she will probably not like government regulations much!  Instead of these concepts, the CLEP exam adds lots of questions about government regulation to try to make regulation look good.But other than bias in the selection of question, the CLEP exam does not have bias in its answers.  The rare exceptions are a few questions about government regulation.  For these few questions, the CLEP exam pretends that government regulation can make a market ''more'' efficient.  This is untrue, as proven by the Coase theorem, but the CLEP exam writers want people to think that government can somehow improve on the free market.But other than bias in the selection of question, the CLEP exam does not have bias in its answers.  The rare exceptions are one or two questions about government regulation.  For these few questions, the CLEP exam may pretend that government regulation can make a market ''more'' efficient.  That is untrue, as proven by the Coase theorem, but the CLEP exam writers want people to think that government can somehow improve on the free market.=== Exam Bias Concerning Regulation and Efficiency====== Exam Bias Concerning Regulation and Efficiency===

Economics Lectures - [1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 11 - 12 - 13 - 14]

This lecture is the final review for this course, in preparation for the final exam. A student who took this class in 2007 sent me the following feedback from college:

My microeconomics class has been almost all review for me, because of the similar class I took from Mr. Andy Schlafly .... Although other students who attended public schools may have taken 'economics' before, they have struggled with microeconomics this semester, because their high school classes completely ignored the free-market and Austrian economics[1] which are taught [in college].

Let's begin this lecture by summarizing the percentages the CLEP exam devoted to particular topics. This will help organize the material we have covered in this course. Our online final exam next week will use a similar distribution in topics as the CLEP exam, but without over-emphasizing government policy as the CLEP exam does.

if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); }

Here is a list of the topics on the CLEP exam, along with how many questions are asked about each topic (as a percentage of the overall exam), plus tips about each concept:

cost measures (e.g., ATC, AFC, AVC) FC is total cost when output is zero; convert to average costs by dividing by output. Remember that ATC=AFC+AVC, and know when a firm should shut down. price ceilings cause shortages and taxes cause social (deadweight) loss; but beware of CLEP questions designed to make government regulation appear beneficial, as in reducing pollution Inputs to a Firm (espec. labor) key here is applying logic and other concepts to reason back from product demand to a firm's need for labor (workers); know effects of minimum wage laws; might also be asked about capital costs and profits and price are lowest for this type of market. P=MC=ATC and "economic profits" are squeezed to zero. If price falls, shut down in short run when PMC. P>ATC. what the public will pay; all firms in all kinds of markets are restrained by the Law of Demand marginal revenue is the increase in total revenue due to selling one more unit; profit maximized where MR=MC marginal cost, which equals price in perfect competition. For a monopoly P>MC but equals MR=MC know the difference between these and private goods: public goods cannot exclude people from using the good without paying for it. think of Wal-Mart for increasing returns to scale; think of a kitchen for decreasing returns to scale ("too many cooks spoil the broth") what someone was willing to pay above what the good actually cost nation with lower production costs should do what it does best only a few firms, like two gas stations at an intersection far away from any others; usually one Nash Equilibrium-type exam question P>MC for this market, which is "allocatively inefficient" (is not efficient in the allocation of resources); it takes perfect competition to drive P down to MC overall satisfaction; recall our problem about hiking and reading. Marginal utility is your next bit of utility. Indifference curve shows trade-off in utility. Comparing change in demand for one good due to change in price for a different good keep in mind that "economic costs" include opportunity costs in addition to actual out-of-pocket (accounting) costs think ketchup with french fries in the long run all costs are variable and can be minimized; short and long run mentioned in 20% of questions, to distinguish between quick changes and permanent ones two types: positive (music in an open-air park) and negative (pollution) when income goes up, demand for an inferior good or service goes down (e.g., demand for bankruptcy services) substitution and income effects increase in price means less demand because public uses substitutes (substitution effect of price increase) and becomes poorer (income effect of price increase) an oligopoly that illegally agrees to fix (set) prices, as OPEC does charging different prices for the exact same good; only possible if the market allows the firm to set its own price

Some important topics are missing from the CLEP exam, such as the invisible hand, free market, charity, transaction costs, the time value of money, interest rates, the Coase theorem and Gresham's Law. The reason is exam bias. For example, once a student realizes how inefficient transaction costs are, he or she will probably not like government regulations much! Instead of these concepts, the CLEP exam adds lots of questions about government regulation to try to make regulation look good.

But other than bias in the selection of question, the CLEP exam does not have bias in its answers. The rare exceptions are one or two questions about government regulation. For these few questions, the CLEP exam may pretend that government regulation can make a market more efficient. That is untrue, as proven by the Coase theorem, but the CLEP exam writers want people to think that government can somehow improve on the free market.

There are only two or three questions (out of nearly 100) on the CLEP exam that have biased answers. They concern regulation and efficiency. You can expect to see one or two CLEP questions where the correct answer is to support government regulation against pollution. The best way to think about pollution is in terms of its "negative externality," but the CLEP exam writers cast the issue in terms of an efficient use of resources. Under this view, pollution is inefficient because it results in inefficient harm to the environment. Laws against pollution supposedly increase efficiency by preventing harm to the "resource" of the environment. These regulations that prohibit pollution cause less output but supposedly ensure a more efficient use of environmental resources.

While most of us support a cleaner environment, efficiency is usually associated with greater output, not less output. Government regulations almost never improve efficiency; the free market does that best without government interference. That said, you can pick up one or two easy points on the CLEP exam by assuming that environmental regulation increases efficiency by protecting the "resource" of the environment for its better uses.

When companies are allowed to pollute without paying for it, their marginal cost (MC) is artificially lower than it should be. These companies are avoiding the cost of their own pollution. A lower MC means they will produce more goods than if their MC were higher. The term “marginal social cost” is used by economists to represent the true cost of their activities, including the cost of their pollution. Because companies produce more than they would if they had to pay for the cost of their pollution, some consider this to be inefficient. On the CLEP exam, it takes regulation to make it efficient by preventing the companies from putting out the pollution.

Outside the topic of government regulation, there are no biased answers. Do not choose one answer instead of another for reasons of bias except in one or two rare cases.

In areas unrelated to pollution, government establishes price floors, supports and ceilings. Do we all recall the differences? Price “ceilings” (or controls) are the easiest: the government says that the good cannot be sold for a higher price. Just as you cannot reach above your ceiling, the price is prohibited from rising above the ceiling that the government sets for it. It would be requiring gas to be sold for no more than $1.50, for example. The quantity supplied will decrease (move down the supply curve), while the quantity demanded will increase (move up the demand curve). Shortages result.

What is a price floor? Just the opposite of a ceiling. We cannot reach below the floor, and a price floor prevents the price from falling below a certain level. It would be a government law that prohibited milk from selling for less than $2 a gallon, for example. It would be intended to help the suppliers, such as dairy farmers. What happens when government imposes a price floor? There is a surplus of the good, as supply exceeds demand.

Now, how about a price support? That occurs when the government buys large quantities of good, such food, at prices higher than the competitive equilibrium. The government does this to “support” a higher price, instead of passing a law to require a higher price. A price support is designed to help the firms producing the goods, such as farmers. The rationale is that farmers are politically important and that pure competition is too brutal on their business and their lives, and also that foreign countries engage in the same practices. The effect of a “price support” is similar to a price floor: it creates a surplus of the good when the support is above the equilibrium price

When government regulates labor, the analysis is similar to its regulation of price. A “price floor” is created by the minimum wage: the buyer (an employer) must pay at least a certain amount for a service (labor). The minimum wage creates an oversupply of the service: too many workers. Not all of them will be able to obtain jobs at a wage higher than equilibrium. Unemployment results from a minimum wage that is higher than the equilibrium wage.

As always, be sure you fully understand the question before you answer it, and use common sense and logic. In fact, many of the questions can be answered correctly with basic reasoning skills.

Let's put our knowledge from this course to good use in studying for our final exam, and preparing for the CLEP exam. We maximize our utility by scoring as high as possible on these exams. To do so, we need to maximize our marginal utility in allocating our time towards the exam topics listed above. If we spend all our studying time on "price discrimination," which is only 1% of the exam, then we are not maximizing our marginal utility and will not reach our full potential.

This is similar to our homework problem earlier in the course about maximizing our marginal utility with respect to hiking and reading. This time, however, the decision each student must make is which topic to focus on first in the above list, and how much time to spend on it before moving on to another topic in the list. The answer may be different for each student.

This same challenge in optimizing strategy could be expressed as a problem of "allocative efficency": allocating resources (time and information) in the most efficient way. Just as efficiency is essential to successful businesses, efficiency is also important to becoming a successful student. Spending your time efficiently in preparing for the final exam, and preparing for the CLEP, is crucial to your ability to do well on them. Look at the above list of topics and how often they appear, and ask yourself: where should you focus first in order to pick up the most points in the shortest amount of time?

Should you simply start reviewing at the top of the list and work your way down to the bottom? That strategy has the advantage of focusing on the most important topics first. If you run out of time in reviewing, then you will miss only the less important topics. But you might improve further on that strategy by moving more quickly through topics that you already understand well. Alternative, there may be topics that you find too difficult to understand, and you might give up some points there in order to focus better on topics where you can pick up more points.

For the rest of this class this lecture will focus on topics which might provide the greatest marginal increase in your exam scores. This takes into consideration the topics we have already reviewed (you have the materials for those), and avoids duplication of that review. You, however, may decide for yourself that you can benefit most from reviewing those prior topics.

Your instructor emphasizes studying strategy for a reason. The biggest reason why some students do not succeed is a lack of effort. But the second biggest reason is poor studying and test-taking strategies, like a football team that runs ill-advised plays. Education, like business and perhaps even life itself, rewards good strategies and punishes misguided ones.

For many students, the most additional points can be obtained by reviewing the "Inputs to a Firm" category. It will be on 10% of the questions on the final exam and the CLEP exam. That's a significant chunk of these exams. Without review, these questions look hard and are easy to miss. But with some extra preparation, you should be able to answer nearly all of them correctly. In maximizing your score and making the best use of your time, this category may result in the biggest increase in correct answers with the least amount of effort. That's what maximizing marginal utility is all about.

Accordingly, in economic terms, the greatest marginal utility from studying for the exam is probably obtaining by focusing on this topic first. We've already covered the other two topics comprising 10% apiece of the exam (cost measures and government regulation), so there may not be many more points to pick up there. Realize that you will probably get some exam questions right without additional studying, and other questions you may get wrong no matter how much you study. But in this category of "inputs to a firm," you can pick up some points that you would otherwise miss. Let's review it now.

Questions about inputs to a firm focus on what a firm will do with its inputs (usually labor, but sometimes capital) in order to maximize its profits. The questions usually concern the following:

impact of improvement in technology on the production by a firm adjusting inputs to minimize the overall cost at a constant level of output the effect of minimum wage on the competition for labor comparing the cost of an input (usually labor) relative to the additional revenue that results why a firm's "demand for labor" is called a "derived demand" what causes an increase in demand for labor the relation between hiring additional workers and the marginal cost calculating overall costs (total cost and average variable cost) based on wages

Review the above list now. How many of the above 8 topics do you know well enough to answer a question about them correctly? Let's briefly review each of these concepts so you can maximize your score on this big part of the exam.

1. "the impact of an improvement in technology on the production by a firm"

If technology improves, as in helpful new inventions or advances in communication (like the internet), then this helps shift the Production Possibilities Frontier (Curve) outward. A firm can produce more output now. So an improvement in technology enables a firm to increase its output or its supply to the market.

2. "adjusting inputs to minimize the overall cost at a constant level of output"

How does a firm adjust its inputs (e.g., workers or equipment) so that it has reached the lowest possible overall cost? By making sure that he is getting the most "bang for his buck" for each input. In other words, the firm makes sure that each input is producing the most marginal product per dollar spent on that input. If one worker is producing more than another worker, and both are being paid the same, then the owner has not lowered his costs to a minimum. He could fire the lazy worker and hire a part-time worker like his good one, and then produce the same output at less cost. Summarizing the above, the firm minimizes its overall costs by making sure the marginal product per cost for each input is equal. If one input (e.g., one worker) is producing more marginal product per cost than another, then the overall costs are not minimized. The unproductive worker is wasting the firm's money.

3. "the effect of the minimum wage on the competition for labor"

Increasing the minimum wage has the effect of increasing unemployment. Workers who have jobs make more money when the minimum wage is increased, but firms can afford to hire fewer people. The number of the unemployed (the people who cannot get jobs) increases when the minimum wage is increased. Also, although this will never be asked on a CLEP exam, raising the minimum wage causes more high school students to drop out and pursue jobs rather than stay in school, which would enable them to obtain higher-paying jobs in the future. Sometimes the CLEP exam will twist the question about minimum wage to obscure its harmful effect, by asking what happens when the labor supply increases when there already is a minimum wage. This makes it look like the fault is an increase in the labor supply rather than the minimum wage law. The correct answer is the same in both cases: unemployment increases.

4. "comparing the cost of an input (usually labor) relative to the additional revenue that results"

This type of question probes how a firm increases its inputs in relation to the additional revenue that results from such an increase. The key here is to be very careful and very logical. A firm will increase an input (such as labor) until the value of the marginal product of that input equals the marginal cost of that input. Read that sentence over and over until you understand it. It simply means that the firm will equate the marginal cost of the additional input (such as an additional worker) to the marginal revenue that the additional input produces. Often students miss this type of question because they are not careful to compare dollars to dollars. If you have the marginal cost in terms of dollars (such as a wage rage for the additional worker), then you need to equate it to the marginal value of the marginal product of the labor (value is in dollar units), not the marginal product itself (which is a unit quantity).

5. "why a firm's "demand for labor" is called a "derived demand"

This is an easy point to pick up on an exam. A firm's demand for an input (such as labor) is called a "derived demand" because it depends on the demand for the goods produced by that input. For example, a restaurant's demand for waitresses is entirely dependent on the public's demand to be served at the restaurant. If there is no public demand to be waited on at the restaurant, then the restaurant (the firm) has no demand for waitresses!

6. "what causes an increase in demand for labor"

This is another easy issue, similar to the prior one above. If the public demand for the product of the labor increases, then there is an increase in demand for the labor itself. If more people want to eat McDonald's hamburgers, then there is more demand for workers to make McDonald's hamburgers. How do we know when the demand by the public for the product of certain labor increases? When the price of the good or service produced by the labor increases. When that price goes up, then there is an increase in demand for the workers who make that good or service.

7. "the relation between hiring additional workers and the marginal cost"

This is a more challenging issue that requires two steps rather than one in order to answer correctly. Marginal cost is additional cost to a firm for making one more unit. It is measured in dollars, not in units. Making sure you have the right measure (dollars or units) for your answer will help you reduce mistakes. The answer for any question about marginal cost must be in dollars (or cents) per unit. Accordingly, if you are told how many additional units are produced by each additional worker, then calculating the marginal cost requires dividing the cost of the additional worker by the additional number of units he produces. The more units an additional worker produces, the lower the marginal cost that results from adding that worker. Example: suppose a firm hires Tom and sees the output increase by 20 units, and then hires Mary at the same wage and sees the output increase by 15 units. When is the marginal cost of the firm the lowest? After it hires Tom, but before it hires Mary. That's because the marginal cost of hiring Tom is his wages divided by 20, while the marginal cost of hiring Mary is the same wage divided by 15. A wage divided by 20 is less than the same wage divided by 15, so the marginal cost to the firm after hiring Tom is less than after hiring Mary.

8. "calculating overall costs (total cost and average variable cost) based on wages"

The key here is simply to be careful in doing the calculations, and then double-check your answer. You need to be sure you are using the correct level of output before you calculate the total cost (TC) and average variable cost (AVC) at that level of output. To find the total cost, add the fixed cost (FC) to the labor cost (total wages times the number of workers), for a given level of output. Then, to find the average variable cost, find the total variable cost (TVC=TC-FC) and divide by that level of output. Example: a firm can produce 100 units with 5 workers and 200 units with 10 workers. Its fixed cost is $50 and its wage rate is $20 per worker. What is its total cost and average variable cost to produce 100 units? Answer: note first that the question asks about the costs at 100 units in output, not 200 units. Total cost at 100 units is the fixed cost ($50) plus the labor cost ($20 times 5 workers, or $100), for a total of $150. The average variable cost is the total cost ($150) minus the fixed cost ($50), divided by the output (100), for a total of $1 per unit.

Master the above eight issues, and you'll convert 10% of the exam from wrong answers to correct ones. That could enable you to earn college credit.

You instructor wonders what topic will maximize our marginal utility next. About 20% of the exam is devoted to questions about different types of markets, ranging from the most advantageous for the public (perfect competition) to the least advantageous (monopoly). That's a large chunk of questions, and with some extra review here we can probably convert wrong answers to right ones.

The key to answering these questions correctly is to realize that the more competition there is, the lower the price of the goods and services and the lower the profits for the firms. Some of these questions are special cases and should simply be memorized: a cartel is an oligopoly that illegally agrees to fix (set) its prices, and an oligopoly is an industry where just a few firms dominate the market. When given a grid about where an oligopoly ends up selling its goods (its Nash Equilibrium), the answer is always symmetric (all firms sell at the same price) and usually not the highest price that a monopoly could sell at.

The monopoly questions look harder than they really are. The monopolist sets his price higher than marginal cost, which would be the optimal price from the standpoint of the public (or government). Instead, the monopolist price sets his price where marginal revenue equals marginal cost (MR=MC). If shown a graph, you may have to find the quantity where MR=MC, and then find the corresponding price on the demand curve. Note that a monopolist has no supply curve, because a supply curve represents many firms in an industry and a monopolist is the only firm in the industry.

There can be general questions about these markets. A perfectly competitive market uses resources in a perfectly efficient way. At the other end of the spectrum, a monopoly uses resources the least efficiently of all. Its high pricing causes a huge social loss ("deadweight loss") by eliminating consumer surplus. The monopoly reduces output in order to cause a scarcity that increases the price to an artificially high level. This is bad for everyone, except the owner of the monopoly, who enriches himself. This is how Bill Gates became the wealthiest person in the world.

Here is a puzzle to leave you with. What is the impact on quantity of a price ceiling in a competitive industry compared to a price ceiling in a monopoly? In which one (competitive v. monopoly) might a clever price ceiling actually increase quantity? Think about it, and learn to ask yourself questions like this in order to master economics. The answer is in this footnote.[2]

Be sure to spend time on the review sections in the prior lectures for more information about this and other topics on the exams.

A public good is a good which is nonexcludable and nondepletable. The first condition means that it is impossible to exclude consumers from partaking in the good, and the second condition means that one consumer's consumption of the good does not prevent others from consuming it.

Explained another way, a public good is available to all such that consumption by one person does not reduce its availability to others. An example of a public good is national defense, as it protects everyone and its benefits to one person does not diminish its benefits to others.

Other examples of public goods are law enforcement (protection by the police), public fireworks, clear air, street lights, radio and television transmissions, lighthouses, and some inventions. Some of these examples, such as lighthouses, are contested as to whether they must be a public good, as it is possible to charge ships port fees to pay for them. Also, while radio and television transmissions are available to all to receive them, it does cost money to buy radios and television sets, so these are not truly public goods either.

Liberals like to emphasize the concept of public goods on exams in order to support the argument for more government. Under this view public goods represent market failure and the need for government services supported by taxes.

Good test-taking techniques are particularly important to doing well on an economics exam. Simple questions are often intentionally disguised as something more complicated. It is easy to become confused and misguided in analyzing economic issues. 99% of the public would say that we would be better off if Congress put a price ceiling or cap on gasoline at $1 a gallon. It takes a bit more thought to realize that massive shortages would result, and we would all have to waste hours each week waiting in line for gasoline. Some who really need gas in hurry, such as people trying to take someone to a hospital, may not be able to obtain gas in time.

The ability to eliminate wrong answers can help. Let’s try the elimination technique on these questions:

Question: Consider the poverty-level of income for a family of four in America. Which of the following can be said about how the government defines this specific income level?

(A) It helps determine who is eligible for Social Security benefits. (B) It decreases when there is an increase in welfare benefits. (C) It proves that 50% of Americans live in poverty. (D) It is determined by tripling the cost of a nutritionally adequate diet by three. (E) Government does not adjust this number due to changes in the cost of living (inflation).

Virtually none of you would know the answer to this question at first glance. The question is not really appropriate for a microeconomics exam, but CLEP asks it anyway. Questions about poverty, gaps between the rich and poor, and government programs are always favorites among liberal educators. You will see many more questions about these issues than about the invisible hand or the creation of wealth.

So what do we do when faced with this question? Simply give up? Move to the next question and hope it is easier? Blindly guess at an answer? None of the above.

We can narrow the choices, and thereby reduce our risk of error, by eliminating wrong answers. Basic economic principles (or common sense) serve as our guide.

Let’s start with choice (C). Think about it: is half of our nation living in poverty? What would that mean for elections? Who would pay to run government? If we called half of us "poor", then what word would be use for the really poor? Choice (C) can't be true. Using common sense, we can eliminate this answer.

Let’s turn to choice (E). Why wouldn’t it be adjusted? Poverty must be relative to the cost of living. If the cost of living doubled, then the numbers in poverty would increase greatly. But failure to adjust for the cost of living would miss that effect. Again, common sense leads us to eliminate this answer.

Next we can turn to choice (A). That doesn't work either, because everyone who pays into Social Security has a right to receive benefits when they grow old, regardless of whether they are rich or poor. “Social security” is not “security only if you’re poor.” We can eliminate this choice.

We’re left with only two possibilities: (B) and (D). Realize that has increased our odds of choosing the right answer to 50% now. If you took the CLEP and at least narrowed every difficult question down to two choices, then you would likely pass the test. How do we next make our best choice among these final two options?

Option (D) seems to have the right amount of detail, and fits the question well grammatically. In contrast, Option (B) does not fit the question as well or make as much sense (definition of what the poverty level is should not change based on distributing some benefits). Even if you had no idea between (B) and (D), (D) is a better fit. It’s our best guess. (D), indeed, is correct.

It helps to choose an answer that gives the most meaning to the purpose of the question. The purpose of this question is to ask about how poverty-level income is calculated. Answer (D) most directly furthers that goal. It makes for a good guess if you did not otherwise know. You won’t always be able to guess the right answers, but by increasing your chances you can significantly increase your overall score.

Let’s try one more CLEP-inspired question, this time relating to labor:

Question: Assume a perfectly competitive market for both inputs and output. If capital is fixed and the price for the output increases, then a firm in the short run will increase its production by which of the following ways:

(A) increase capital until P=MR (B) increase labor until the value of the marginal product for workers equals the wage rate (C) increase capital until its average product equals the price of the additional capital (D) increase labor until its marginal product equals the wage rate (E) increase labor until the ratio of the price of the output to labor's marginal product equals the wage rate

This type of question benefits from being reread. “Capital is fixed,” according to the question. So capital cannot be increased. Answers (A) and (C) can be eliminated that easily. Sounds too obvious, but many students miss this. They fail to read and understand the question.

Only labor can be increased, which is possible under answers (B), (D) and (E). We've improved our odds of success to a 33% chance. Those are good odds on a difficult question like this. But we can improve our chances even more.

(B) and (D) look similar so let’s turn to (E) first. The “marginal product of labor” is the additional units (“product”) produced due to an additional unit of labor. Remember “MP”? The term does not include “revenue” or “price”, so it only gives you the quantity. We need to multiply that quantity by product price to obtain revenue, what the firm owner cares the most about. Choice (E) makes no sense by dividing terms that should be multiplied together. We can eliminate it.

Back to (B) and (D). The only difference between the two is the term “value of” in (B). Think about what “marginal product” is. It is a quantity, not a dollar amount. Yet we are comparing it to “wage rate,” which would be in dollars. We need to insert “value of” to convert a quantity into equivalent dollars. (B) is must be the correct choice because it compares dollars to dollars, while choice (D) does not.

The key to good test-taking, particularly on economics exams, is to make sure you fully understand each question before trying to answer it.

You have all learned a great deal of material in this course, information that will help you the rest of your lives. The insights and powerful concepts covered by this course can yield greater and greater benefits the more you think about them. Every week I see still something new and helpful in concepts taught in this course. Many students say that this is the best course they took from me, among other helpful courses. Use this course for your benefit.

If there is one unifying theme to this course, then I suggest it is summarized in Jesus's Parable of the Talents. Be productive, and God can multiply the benefits of your work. If you reach out, if you do more, if you make good use of your time, if you maximize your efficiency, if you consider the opportunity costs, and if you increase your output, then you give God more to work with. But if you bury your talents in the ground or if you are like the tree that does not bear fruit, then you give God less for His purpose.

Carpe diem. And be the good that drives out the bad as we discussed in connection with Gresham's Law.

Read this lecture and study for the final exam, which will be the first week in June. It will be 30 multiple-choice questions, similar in format to the quizzes.

? "Austrian economics" is an approach to economics that emphasizes the free markets, minimizing governmental interference, respecting private property rights, and promoting gold as a monetary standard. Beware, however, that Austrian economics organizations are often more libertarian than conservative on social issues, and Austrian economics itself has been slow in incorporating new economic insights such as the Coase theorem.? A price ceiling is a maximum price limitation, just as a real ceiling limits the height. A perfectly competitive industry is already selling at its maximum output, so a price ceiling can't help there. But a monopoly increases its price by reducing its output. If a price ceiling is imposed against a monopoly, then it must reduce its price and increase its output, for the benefit of the public.

View the original article here

White House Announces New Coordinator for Defense Policy, Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction, and Arms Control

White House Announces New Coordinator for Defense Policy, Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction, and Arms Control | The White House Skip to main content | Skip to footer site map The White House. President Barack Obama The White House Emblem Get Email UpdatesContact Us Go to homepage. The White House Blog Photos & Videos Photo Galleries Video Performances Live Streams Podcasts 2012: A Year in Photos

A unique view of 2012

2012: A Year in Photos

Briefing Room Your Weekly Address Speeches & Remarks Press Briefings Statements & Releases White House Schedule Presidential Actions Executive Orders Presidential Memoranda Proclamations Legislation Pending Legislation Signed Legislation Vetoed Legislation Nominations & Appointments Disclosures Visitor Access Records Financial Disclosures 2012 Annual Report to Congress 2011 Annual Report to Congress 2010 Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff A Commitment to Transparency

Browse White House visitor logs

President Obama greets White House visitors

Issues Civil Rights It Gets Better Defense End of Iraq War Disabilities Economy Jobs Reform and Fiscal Responsibility Strengthening the Middle Class A Plan for Refinancing Support for Business Education Energy & Environment Ethics Foreign Policy Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Immigration Reform Taxes Tax Receipt The Buffett Rule Rural Urban Policy Veterans Joining Forces Technology Seniors & Social Security Service Snapshots Creating Jobs Health Care Small Business PreK-12 Education Women Violence Prevention Now Is The Time

To do something about gun violence

Now Is The Time

Immigration Reform

Creating an Immigration System for the 21st Century

Immigration Reform

The Administration We the People

Create and Sign Petitions Now

We the People

President Barack Obama Vice President Joe Biden First Lady Michelle Obama Dr. Jill Biden The Cabinet 2010 Video Reports White House Staff Chief of Staff Denis McDonough Deputy Chief of Staff Rob Nabors Deputy Chief of Staff Alyssa Mastromonaco Counselor to the President Peter Rouse Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett Executive Office of the President Other Advisory Boards About the White House White House On the Go

Download our mobile apps

Download our mobile appsEaster Egg Roll

Be Healthy, Be Active, Be You: April 1, 2013

White House Easter Egg Roll Inside the White House Interactive Tour West Wing Tour Video Series Décor and Art Holidays Presidents First Ladies The Oval Office The Vice President's Residence & Office Eisenhower Executive Office Building Camp David Air Force One White House Fellows President’s Commission About the Fellowship Current Class Staff Bios News and Newsletters White House Internships About Program Presidential Department Descriptions Selection Process Internship Timeline & FAQs Tours & Events 2013 Easter Egg Roll Kitchen Garden Tours Take a Virtual Tour of the White House Mobile Apps Our Government The Executive Branch The Legislative Branch The Judicial Branch The Constitution Federal Agencies & Commissions Elections & Voting State & Local Government Resources /* Maximize height of menu features. */if(typeof(jQuery)!='undefined')jQuery.each($('#topnav'),function(i,v){var o=$(v),oh=o.height(),sh=o.siblings().height();if(oh HomeBriefing Room • Statements & Releases   The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release March 19, 2013 White House Announces New Coordinator for Defense Policy, Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction, and Arms Control

Today, National Security Advisor Tom Donilon announced that Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for European Affairs Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall will be moving to a new position on the National Security Staff as the White House Coordinator for Defense Policy, Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction, and Arms Control.  She will take up her duties on April 8. 
 
National Security Advisor Donilon said, “As one of the President’s closest advisors for the past four years, Liz’s leadership and advice have been instrumental as we have successfully strengthened our alliances and partnerships across Europe, helped to revitalize NATO, and worked with Europe to advance the President’s global agenda.  Liz brings deep expertise and a track record of accomplishment in defense issues and in proliferation prevention.  The President will look to her to bring significant energy and capability to his second term as we pursue the ambitious goals he set forth in his Prague speech in 2009 and prepare our military to defend the American people and our allies against the threats we face today and in the future.”

During the Clinton Administration, Dr. Sherwood-Randall served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia, where she played a central role in the denuclearization of Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus. She has also held positions at Harvard University, Stanford University, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the Brookings Institution, and previously served as the Chief Foreign Affairs and Defense Policy Advisor to Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr.

Extending Middle Class Tax Cuts

Blog posts on this issue March 19, 2013 11:00 AM EDTPromises Kept: Ending the Iraq War and Supporting Our Service Members, Military Families and Veterans

Ten years after the start of the Iraq War, President Obama remains committed to our service members, military families and veterans.

March 18, 2013 7:58 PM EDTAffordable Care Act at Three: Consumer Protections

The Affordable Care Act brings an end to some of the worst insurance industry practices that have kept affordable health coverage out of reach for millions of Americans, especially when they needed it most. Under the health care law, consumers can be confident that their insurance will protect them if they get sick and their families won’t be crushed by medical bills.

March 18, 2013 7:12 PM EDTPresident Obama Hosts a Celebration of Women's History Month at the White HousePresident Obama Hosts a Celebration of Women's History Month at the White House

The President vowed that he and his entire administration will do everything they can to ensure equality and opportunity for all women.

view all related blog posts ul.related-content li.views-row img {float: left; padding: 5px 10px 0 0;}ul.related-content li.view-all {padding-bottom: 3em;} Stay ConnectedFacebookTwitterFlickrGoogle+YouTubeVimeoiTunesLinkedIn   Home The White House Blog Photos & Videos Photo Galleries Video Performances Live Streams Podcasts Briefing Room Your Weekly Address Speeches & Remarks Press Briefings Statements & Releases White House Schedule Presidential Actions Legislation Nominations & Appointments Disclosures Issues Civil Rights Defense Disabilities Economy Education Energy & Environment Ethics Foreign Policy Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Taxes Rural Urban Policy Veterans Technology Seniors & Social Security Service Snapshots Women Violence Prevention The Administration President Barack Obama Vice President Joe Biden First Lady Michelle Obama Dr. Jill Biden The Cabinet White House Staff Executive Office of the President Other Advisory Boards About the White House Inside the White House Presidents First Ladies The Oval Office The Vice President's Residence & Office Eisenhower Executive Office Building Camp David Air Force One White House Fellows White House Internships Tours & Events Mobile Apps Our Government The Executive Branch The Legislative Branch The Judicial Branch The Constitution Federal Agencies & Commissions Elections & Voting State & Local Government Resources The White House Emblem En español Accessibility Copyright Information Privacy Policy Contact USA.gov Developers Apply for a Job

View the original article here

No, Conservatives, America Isn’t A Christian Nation: The Rise Of Religious Diversity

In conservatives’ preferred vision of America, we are a white Christian nation. And it is true that in the not too far distant past, we were, at least in numerical terms, an overwhelmingly white Christian nation.  In 1944, 80 percent of adults were white Christians.  But things have changed a lot since then.  Today only about 52 percent of adults are white Christians. By 2024, that figure will be down to 45 percent. That means that by the election of 2016, the United States will have ceased to be a white Christian nation. Looking even farther down the road, by 2040 white Christians will be only around 35 percent of the population and conservative white Christians, who have been such a critical part of the GOP base, only about a third of that—a minority within a minority.

Part of this of course is the inexorable march of race-ethnic change.  The white share of the population is declining at a rate of about a half percentage point a year and is expected to continue to do so for the next several decades.  But the other part of the shift away from white Christians is less well-understood: the rise of religious diversity.

There are two components to the rise of religious diversity: (1) increasing numbers of Americans who practice a non-Christian faith; and (2) increasing numbers of Americans who are secular or unaffiliated with any religion.  A recent Pew report sheds light on these important trends.

The Pew report aggregates data from their surveys between 2007 and 2012.  They found that those of non-Christian faiths have gone up from 4 to 6 percent over the time period, while those who are religiously unaffiliated have gone from 15 to nearly 20 percent of adults.  This is an astonishing rate of change, particularly for the unaffiliated who, according to some projections, were only supposed to hit 20 percent around the middle of the next decade.  This group’s growth is clearly way ahead of expectations.

Part of the reason for this rapid growth is generational.  Pew’s study notes that, among the youngest Millennial adults—those born 1990-1994, over a third (34 percent) have no religious affiliation.

There are significant social and political implications to these trends.  Pew and other data consistently show how liberal the unaffiliated are, particularly on social issues.  And they vote that way: in the 2012 exit poll, the unaffiliated supported Obama over Romney, 70-26.  In addition, those of non-Christian faiths supported Obama by 72-27.  To add to conservatives’ woes, their strongest group, white evangelical protestants (78-21 Romney) actually declined by 2 percentage points in the 2007-2012 time period.

Even conservatives should be able to do the math.  It’s time to give up on America as a white Christian nation and fully embrace its diversity–race-ethnic and religious.


View the original article here

Talk:Bestiality and Britain

(Difference between revisions)This is a disgusting article,--[[User:Patmac|Patmac]] 12:41, 27 May 2013 (EDT)This is a disgusting article,--[[User:Patmac|Patmac]] 12:41, 27 May 2013 (EDT):No, it's a dumb article. Basic fact checking reveals that the opening claim is false, and that the author was a fool to rely on a single secondary source. The 2001 study '''does not''' show a 5% prevalence of sexual assault for '''all''' dogs and cats requiring veterinary treatment. Rather, it shows a 6% prevalence for '''a very small sub-set of 448 dogs and cats''', namely those presenting with non-accidental injuries. [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1748-5827.2001.tb02468.x/abstract]:I note with sadness that this was pointed out to the author 18 months ago. [[User:JohanZ|JohanZ]] 21:37, 27 May 2013 (EDT)if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); }

It's often a good idea for the content of an article to actually match the title. For example, this article is entitled Bestiality and Britain (which I gather is the beginning of an exciting new series on bestiality by geographic location). Yet the content (at the time this was written) consists largely of two block quotes. The first addressing religiosity in Britain. The second dealing with bestiality in Sweden (which is not part of the UK). You see the problem here? You never actually address the issue of Bestiality in Great Britain. Other than that, it's up to CP's usual high editing standards. --SteveK 02:06, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

It is a Swedish news organization reporting on a British study. Conservative 07:08, 28 September 2011 (EDT) Yes, a British study of what? Bestiality in Sweden, the UK, American Samoa? Your source doesn't say. Who conducted the study? What was the methodology? So I guess you consider some random Swedish news site, quoting an unnamed study, as a reliable source. If that's an acceptable sourcing standard for CP, I can think of a ton of improvements I can make around here. ;-) --SteveK 17:47, 28 September 2011 (EDT) The UK has an incredibly high dog ownership per capita compared to the rest of the world and dog ownership is also a big deal online for UK people too (I think only the USA has a higher percentage of dog ownership).[1][2] Why would a British vet study incur the added expense of studying dogs/cats outside their country when they probably have the second highest dog/cat ownership in the world? Please show me a bunch of British dog/cat vet studies where they did the studies outside their country rather than the UK and then please compare the amount of studies with the overall amount of British studies done inside their country for dogs/cats. I don't think you are using common sense which is a common atheist trait seeing as you deny the existence of God despite the huge amount of evidence for his existence. (which is why Richard Dawkins is afraid to debate William Lane Craig) - see: Atheism and cowardice). Plus, the author of the article is using the British study to estimate the amount of bestiality of Sweden. Why wouldn't the author mention that the British vet study was done outside of Britain in terms of dogs/cats if that were the case? Conservative 16:12, 8 October 2011 (EDT)

I have taken the liberty of suggesting some improvements. How do you all like these edits:

Removed picture of Boteach as he has nothing to do with bestiality

Bestiality is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal.

In 2011, in an article entitled Godless Britain Shmuley Boteach reported in the Wall Street Journal:

Britain today has become one of the most godless societies on earth. Its principle religious exports today are thinkers who despise religion. From Richard Dawkins, who has compared religion to child abuse, to my friend Christopher Hitchens, who titled his 2007 book "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything," the British have cornered the market on being anti-God, at least the Christian and Jewish varieties.

While 92% of Americans believe in God, only 35% in Britain do and 43% say they have no religion, according to Britain's National Centre for Social Research. The number of people who affiliate themselves with the Church of England was 23% of the population in 2009 from 40% in 1983. In truth though, if Britain's Christian tradition is dying out, the leaders of the faith have only themselves to blame, for perpetuating the country's highly centralized religious structure.[1]


(nothing whatever to do with Bestiality)


On April 26, 2001, in an article entitled Swedes have more and more animal sex the Swedish news website Nettavision reported:

No one knows for sure how many animals that are abused, but a British study from 2001 indicates that every 20th dog or cat that receives treatment at veterinaries, the injuries are not a result of a direct accident, but the animal has been inflicted the injury as a result of a sexual assault.[2]
Unfortunately this has nothing to do with Britain

See also:

Bible on bestiality and study on bestiality

The Bible says that bestiality is a perversion and, under the Old Testament Jewish Law, punishable by death (Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 18:23, Leviticus 20:15 and Deuteronomy 27:21). The atheistic worldview does not lend itself to the establishment of morality within society and individuals (see: Atheism and morality and Atheism and deception).
Nothing to do with Britain

A study found that "Psychiatric patients were found to have a statistically significant higher prevalence rate (55%) of bestiality than the control groups (10% and 15% respectively)."[3] The atheist population has a higher suicide rate and lower marriage rates than the general population (see: Atheism and suicide and Atheism and marriageability and Atheism and health). In addition, Wired magazine made the observation that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men.[4]
Nothing to do with Britain —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DamianJohn (talk)

There is no evidence whatsoever. Whom is the British study referring to? I would guess since the article is about Sweden it is referring to Swedes, but since the distinction isn't made, you can't know whom the study is referring to. In light of this, there is no link b/w Brits and bestiality presented. GiveMeLiberty 12:14, 30 September 2011 (EDT)

The UK has an incredibly high dog ownership per capita compared to the rest of the world and dog ownership is also a big deal online for UK people too (I think only the USA has a higher percentage of dog ownership).[3][4] Why would a British vet study incur the added expense of studying dogs/cats outside their country when they probably have the second highest dog/cat ownership in the world? Please show me a bunch of British dog/cat vet studies where they did the studies outside their country rather than the UK and then please compare the amount of studies with the overall amount of British studies done inside their country for dogs/cats. I don't think you are using common sense which is a common atheist trait seeing as you deny the existence of God despite the huge amount of evidence for his existence. (which is why Richard Dawkins is afraid to debate William Lane Craig) (see: Atheism and cowardice). Conservative 16:12, 8 October 2011 (EDT) The study WAS conducted in the UK, but it only dealt with abused animals - deliberate injuries - not all injured animals. 6% of ABUSE cases were SUSPECTED to be sexual in nature. The total was 28 cases in one year. More details here. --GuntheR 18:20, 8 October 2011 (EDT)

Bestiality is illegal in the United Kingdom. See here. Did you know that only 32 states here in America have laws banning bestiality? It appears that many have banned it under animal rights codes, rather than because of morality. Also, here's an interesting paper about bestiality in early America. --SharonW 21:48, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

I am guessing that illegality affects rates of bestiality, but Washington state and bestiality shows that immoral people do ignore laws. The war on drugs in the United States has not been very effective for example because laws and attempted enforcement of those laws often can only do so much. Conservative 18:53, 8 October 2011 (EDT)

So you're saying b/c ONE brit had sex with an animal, ONE artist painted a painting (and a few were dumb enough to buy it), and they showed a documentary on the subject, the whole nation is one big animal sodomizing dystopia? This is ridiculous and offensive. User:Conservative, you should at the very least lift the protection or move this to essays as this in no way represents any version of reality except your own. GiveMeLiberty 09:13, 8 October 2011 (EDT)

I'm British, and my sex life has certainly gone to the dogs. --GuntheR 18:14, 8 October 2011 (EDT)

I do wonder if there's any evidence to suggest that atheists are more likely to commit bestiality than Christians. THIS suggests that it's not entirely unknown for Christian clergy to get a little bit too fond of man's best friend. --GuntheR 18:31, 8 October 2011 (EDT)

And here is another example. --GuntheR 18:37, 8 October 2011 (EDT) THIS case deals with the founder of a bible college, so probably not an atheist. The article talks about child pornography but other sources suggest that bestiality porn was also involved. --GuntheR 18:44, 8 October 2011 (EDT) And a case from Britain, although not Godless Britain - a regular churchgoer jailed for child molesting and owning bestiality porn. --GuntheR 18:48, 8 October 2011 (EDT) A church deacon from Virginia gets 22 years in jail for possession of child and bestiality porn... --GuntheR 18:51, 8 October 2011 (EDT) GuntheR, I expect with the paltry evidence you have offered so far, you are probably going to be wondering for a long time. Conservative 18:56, 8 October 2011 (EDT) What evidence have YOU offered that bestiality is more prevalent in atheists than in Christians? That would be none, right? --GuntheR 18:58, 8 October 2011 (EDT) Also, speaking as a conservative Bible believing Protestant, I cannot say I am very impressed with your paltry evidence. Conservative 19:02, 8 October 2011 (EDT) Where is YOUR evidence for bestiality being more prevalent in atheists than in Christians? I don't believe you've actually produced any, have you? --GuntheR 19:07, 8 October 2011 (EDT)

If you are going to treat this article as your own personal essay, shouldn't it be labeled as such? GiveMeLiberty 12:35, 10 October 2011 (EDT)


This is a disgusting article,--Patmac 12:41, 27 May 2013 (EDT)

No, it's a dumb article. Basic fact checking reveals that the opening claim is false, and that the author was a fool to rely on a single secondary source. The 2001 study does not show a 5% prevalence of sexual assault for all dogs and cats requiring veterinary treatment. Rather, it shows a 6% prevalence for a very small sub-set of 448 dogs and cats, namely those presenting with non-accidental injuries. [5] I note with sadness that this was pointed out to the author 18 months ago. JohanZ 21:37, 27 May 2013 (EDT)

View the original article here

Australian Sunshine Illuminates The Path Toward Massive Solar PV Growth

Global solar insolation average. Notice bright red oval on lower right. (Credit Mines ParisTech/Armines 2006)

Australia is climate change’s canary in a coal mine. It has been suffering heat waves, floods, and wildfires in a climate-fueled “angry summer” that demonstrates how critical reducing carbon emissions really is.

Australians are finding ways to use the sun’s energy to reduce fossil fuel consumption. According to a new report, Australia’s solar photovoltaic market could reach 10 gigawatts in five years:

The Australian solar PV market could tip the 10,000 mewagatt (10 gigawatt) mark as early as 2017, and could reach the “saturation” levels for owner-occupied houses in many areas in coming years, according to a new report.

The five-year forecast prepared by leading market analysts Sunwiz and Solar Business Services says that the Australian solar PV market – currently at 2.5GW – will likely grow to between 6GW and 10GW by 2017.

The actual outcome will depend on the speed of the growth in the largely untapped commercial sector, the pace of large, utility-scale solar farms, and the industry’s ability to penetrate more challenging parts of the residential sector.

That “saturation rate” has already been achieved in some areas of the owner-occupied residential sector — reaching 90 percent in some localities. Nationally, the average penetration rate is 20 percent. Adding apartment buildings into the mix, this share drops to 10 percent, and it is this rental market that offers the most promise for growth in solar installations.

You can see the prime driver of solar PV installation in Australia here:

(Credit reneweconomy.com.au)

The residential market has been, and will continue to be, the main force behind Australia harnessing the sun to power its homes and businesses. Rooftop solar photovoltaic is reshaping peak electricity demand curves, especially during the summer months (the last three months in the Southern Hemisphere). When Australians need electricity the most, solar panels on their roofs are supplying it. Over the last five years, midday electricity demand is down 15% despite higher nighttime demand.

What this means is that rooftop solar PV is reducing overall electricity demand by 3%. There is so much room to grow: As of November, more than 800,000 rooftops across the country hosted solar PV – out of eight million total. For illustration, here’s the most calming video about Australian solar rooftop leasing programs you will ever see:

Solar PV is also getting cheaper, with the price dropping a third in less than a year and a half. The concern going forward is that the easy installations have already happened, rebates are harder to obtain, and the price reductions have slowed.

The growth of the industry as a whole depends upon the participation of the commercial sector, which could reach 350 megawatts next year. If utilities impose higher standing charges, the report’s authors note that this will impact the growth of the commercial sector:

The entire electricity market is at the cusp of a radical evolution which will change the fundamental dynamics of energy generation, ownership, profit structure, competition and pricing — and the role of solar is highly significant.… This issue could be a major stumbling block — or opportunity — for our market, echoing international trends and issues.

New solar and wind power in Australia are cheaper than fossil fuelseven without a price on carbon. Michael Liebreich, chief executive of Bloomberg New Energy Finance puts it succinctly: “The perception that fossil fuels are cheap and renewables are expensive is now out of date.”

Globally, solar PV demand is set to increase from 29 gigawatts last year to 31 gigawatts in 2013. This is largely due to increasing demand from Asia and falling prices for solar PV systems, and despite decreasing demand from Europe, which has faced reduced subsidies. This skyrocketing demand has made prices drop. A report by Clean Edge released this week found that falling prices led to the first PV market contraction in more than 12 years, though installations expanded:

Solar photovoltaics (including modules, system components, and installation) decreased from a record $91.6 billion in 2011 to $79.7 billion in 2012 as continued growth in annual capacity additions was not enough to offset falling PV prices. While total market revenues fell 19 percent – the first PV market contraction in Clean Energy Trends’ 12-year history – global installations expanded to a record of 30.9 GW in 2012, up from 29.6 GW the prior year.

It’s an interesting time in the solar PV world, and homeowners in Australia are leading the way.

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery('#comment_submit').click(function(){if(jQuery('#comment_check:checked').length

View the original article here

Political cards

(Difference between revisions)| Makes them look weak, petty and paranoid.| Makes them look weak, petty and paranoid.| Make religious and social conservatives appear to be irrational "Bible-thumpers" who follow the Holy Bible nonsensically.| Liberal Hollywood degrading conservative preachers in movies such as ''Jesus Camp'' and ''Religulous''.| Alienates leaders of religious movements from the average person.| Creates straw men out of real conservatives, which ultimately backfires as stereotypes are dispelled.

Political cards are tactics used by liberals in politics, the media, and other adversarial settings in order to appeal to emotion or even prejudice rather than reason. The term is a metaphor for what happens in the card game of bridge, where one card can be played to "trump" (defeat) all other cards. Political cards are thus a form of thought-terminating cliché.

In contrast with most card games, however, a political card can be played at any time, no matter how irrational or irrelevant to the topic. Many liberal articles and commentaries consist of little more than playing one or more political cards.

A card is "played" when one side relies on a particular issue in order to gain an often-unjustified upper hand in the debate or controversy.

Liberals have had a difficult time playing a political card against the Tea Party Movement, due to its amorphous nature.

Political card Meaning Example Advantage Disadvantage allegations men are ignorant slobs and women need a protected status as a voting bloc within the Democratic Party. Lawrence Summers was driven from his presidency of Harvard for merely mentioning the possibility that women may not have as much aptitude for math as men. implies women are helpless unless they receive special treatment from the government Bringing race into a debate by suggesting that criticism is racially motivated or that one's opponent is racist Used effectively to silence criticism of Obama in 2008 prove you're not a racist is like saying, "when did you stop beating your wife?" Scare grandpa and grandma into thinking their government benefits will be cut off Under President Obama, Social Security for the first time in its history, has a negative cash flow and has been paying out more in benefits than the cash it demands from younger workers.[1] Slander your opponent for proposing solutions. Political and economic stagnation. Anything that highlights or is critical of the historical record of liberal governance. programmed response for liberal failures. Bringing country of origin into a debate by suggesting that criticism is motivated by a fear of foreigners (eg. Australians) Polite and responsible criticism of President Obama is deemed xenophobic.[3] At first seems to be an effective way to pose the opponent as racist. Ultimately fails when both debaters are of the same country or when the person making the original claim is from the country of the claim. Calling opponents of the homosexual agenda intolerant instead of focusing on the immorality of homosexuality. Used against Rick Santorum leading up to his defeat for reelection in 2006 African-Americans oppose the promotion of gay rights in greater numbers than the general population of the United States as a whole.[4] demonstrating inconsistencies in liberal ideology. the most despicable forms of liberal intolerance traditionally have been reserved for, and manifested in, the vile abuses heaped upon Black conservatives, Black Republicans, and Black Tea Party activists. in a democracy, the voice of opposition can always be labeled intolerant Used to support socialized medicine cite Ted Kennedy’s “dream”, the “the cause of my life”, “Senator Kennedy eloquently captured how our long-term care system is failing the American people when he said, too often, they have to give up the American Dream" [5] emotional appeal for passing legislation Only 26% of the population can relate to liberalism, the Kennedy card has zero effect on legislation. Used to imply a few Republicans, mostly RINOs, are "responsible." "During the health care battle, President Obama was unable to find a single Responsible Republican." [6] In 1990 President George H.W. Bush was hailed as a Responsible Republican for breaking his "read my lips" pledge. in typical MSM newspeak, anything right of center or not liberal. Polls show mainstream journalists are more liberal than the American public.[8] Attacking oil companies for their profits, even though oil companies create jobs and pay into the federal Treasury, and profits make up a reasonable portion of total revenue. Most people care about money and fairness. Seems hypocritical if the person using the strategy is wealthy (like most liberal politicians) or benefits from capitalism (like all Americans) millionaires and billionaires card President Obama said on June 29, 2011, "I'm proposing we get rid of tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires." [9] appeals to voters motivated by envy politicians that use it are dependent on campaign contributions from millionaires and billionaires. the one making the charge cannot explain facts. Hillary Clinton charged that her husband's behavior was the result of a "vast right-wing conspiracy". provides plausible reasons for the simple minded. contradictory evidence leads to more conspiracy theories. Accusing the opponent of having an irrational fear or hatred of homosexuals. Opposition to the radical redefinition of marriage as expressed in California's Proposition 8 was deemed homophobia.[10] Old stand-by in the arsenal of liberal slander attacks. Attempts to ostracize and criminalize an emotional disorder. Many if not most homophobes are gay. Accusing the opponent of having an irrational fear or hatred of Muslims Don't question behavior because an individual happens to be Muslim Scare people from speaking out or investigating Look foolish making excuses for a religion publicly committed to the downfall of the West. apparently there is a ready market for hyperbole and fear among leftists. Ignores the fact the Reagan reforms gave birth to the longest, most extended era of peacetime prosperity in U.S. history.[12] equates moderates with ignorant fascists. A claim that tries to portray the opponent badly by placing them as someone who "hates the environment". The simple-minded will swallow any line of garbage. failure to behave in a realistic manner and being afraid to upset people Plays on others' fear of seeming weak. Because a person is stupid, they are unqualified to be president. Reading from a prop, Dan Quayle once misspelled "potato", and liberals destroyed him by playing this card. A momentary lapse is seized upon to make a person look like an idiot. Works well until a liberal candidate utters a statement like the United States is made up of 57 states. seeks to link Islamic fundamentalism with Christian fundamentalism. appeals to the fears of atheists and religious bigots. cry "free speech," "free speech" for everything offensive to Christianity, while censoring the truth and limiting political speech Supreme Court ruled exotic dancing protected free expression but disallowed a high school football team's pregame prayer under the same grounds. Legally it is technically correct Just because something is "free speech" does not mean it is not wrong Creationism is an emotive issue for many people on either side of the debate, so this can be a clever way to side-track sensible argument. claims those asking unanswered questions are conspiracy kooks Truthers vs. Birthers: Not All Conspiracy Theories Are Created Equal [16] Senator Ted Kennedy implied that Justice Bork would turn back Roe V. Wade forcing women to have back-alley abortions. fear Republican laws and personal responsibility you can't run from your conscience and consequence of actions can lead to a lifetime of suffering mocking a conservative opponent rather than dealing with substantive issues Using snarky (sometimes even offensive) humor to attack the opponent. Rachael Maddow, Jon Stewart, etc. Often a cue for other liberals to "join in" the laughter Nobody else is laughing (or they are laughing at the snark attempt-er). Claiming "What would Jesus do" to try to paint the opponent as not a true Christian (a common liberal tactic when cornered on a religious issue, such as homosexuality) As noted above, liberals often use this to defend homosexuality [17] by claiming that Jesus never specifically mentioned it. A true Christian can easily find the flaws in such an argument by pointing our how it is taken out of context. slurs anyone who wants to take away defensive weapons The shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was blamed on Sarah Palin; opponents of Constitutional Rights immediately clamored for bigger and more government oppression.[18] Appeals to pro-gun-control people's negative stereotypes of gun enthusiasts. changing the definition of a word to suit one's purposes An insidious way to reframe debate that can be effective if one's opponents are not vigilant or use imprecise thinking. Liberals often use certain "trends" to support their claims. Citing the Clinton surplus vs the Bush deficit At first makes the user look like they have done their research Often taken out of context (for example the Clinton surplus was largely due to a Republican congress and the end of the Cold War, while the Bush deficit was caused greatly by two wars and need for Homeland Security. selectively picking out cases that support one's arguments from a wide variety of material and ignoring all the cases that don't Many people struggle with statistics, so poorly-informed observers may assume the user is correct. dishonest and easy to point out counterexamples never-admit-a-mistake card [20] Obama said his stimulus would hold unemployment below 8%; instead it rose to over 9% and straddled the U.S. with the debt ceiling crisis. [21] incrementalism leads to compromise Denying American exceptionalism. Trots out false examples of how European countries have better standard of living. Lies or distorts truth in order to win argument. Can impress ill-informed or credulous observers. You're only fooling yourself if you believe any of it. Impersonation of Conservatives to discredit their positions. Liberals often create straw men during this impersonation. Adds to negative stereotypes of real conservatives, especially where people have not met many genuine conservatives. claiming that a policy benefits the rich and powerful Appeals to people's "Robin Hood" impulse to support underdogs and mistrust the wealthy. arguing someone must be right because he has more compassion Attempts to paint opponents' pragmatism as cold-heartedness. claiming some inconsistency in positions The idea that a pro-lifer must oppose death penalty Often the people making the Hypocrite claim exhibit hypocrisy themselves (see Liberal hypocrisy) insinuating that someone is bad because he was once in the same room with some extremist look who's calling the kettle back. Many people still have trouble with new media and struggle to draw correct conclusions from search results. None that are currently known. Postures Democrats as advocates for people who hold jobs and have children. Politicians who employ such rhetoric invariably work to pass legislation that destroys jobs and undermines families. the idea people born in a given country are xenophobic exclusionary bigots. Opposition to the Ground Zero mosque. divides the people against themselves Liberal George Soros likened the Bush administration to the Nazi regime. appeals to emotion and extremists, and less educated leftists. Seeks to paint loyal Americans as racist. "patriotism is little more than a disguised form of racism"[23] Some "Patriot movement" groups call for tighter immigration control. Democrats can be sensitive to the charge of being unpatriotic. Implies Democrats are sympathetic to a person's immigration status, despite the fact there is no historical record of legislative achievements in this area and Democrats associate being opposed to illegal immigration as being "anti-immigration" as a whole, which is bigoted and completely insulting to people that come to this country legally. The Obama Dream Act, a "cynical exercise in political charades", failed to pass the Democratic controlled Senate, 55-41. Seeks to pit voters against each other along racial and ethnic lines, which Democrats view as a win. Nixon's Southern Strategy card implies Richard Nixon appealed to Southern Democrats and racists after Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. "probably the biggest lie that's been told to the blacks since Woodrow Wilson segregated the federal government" [24] ignores the fact that (1) Richard Nixon did not carry the South; a Democrat, George Wallace received 49 electoral votes exclusively from the South; and (2) passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was entirely dependent on Republican votes with Democrats in both houses voting against passage.[25] On the 150th anniversary of start of the Civil War, MSNBC's liberal hosts never missed an opportunity to associate today's conservative movement with the Confederacy, secession, slavery and racism.[26] implication rural inhabitants are uneducated and possibly racist Used to smear most conservatives pejorative aimed at Bluedog Democrats, Red State dwellers, and others in flyover country. When motivated, this group forms an important part of a center-right majority. bitter and cling to guns or religion card Why don't common people vote Democrat? Attempts to justify Democrat's failure to coffeehouse liberals, and persuade hick voters by belittling them. insinuates NASCAR fans are uneducated and racist NASCAR fans tend to vote Republican,[27] more so than fans of most others sports. Republicans failed to balance the budget by cutting $7.4 million from the Pentagon's sponsorship of NASCAR for Army recruiting. [28] NASCAR has an estimated 75 million fans. a former Miss California was stripped of her crown for saying she thought marriage was between a man and a woman. [29] ostracizing others among the unenlightened masses leads to feelings of superiority. not everyone keeps up to date on the lastest liberal tripe. accuse someone of being like the (false) liberal portrayal of Joseph McCarthy "Racist!" as an Epithet of Repression [30] baseless smear, such as calling someone a racist. Extremely flexible, and with great glee you can ruin someone's life just for fun. Requires no morals or conscience. Pretending to be a victim of the right wingers. Liberals looking for alleged conservative bias everywhere. Makes them look weak, petty and paranoid. Make religious and social conservatives appear to be irrational "Bible-thumpers" who follow the Holy Bible nonsensically. Liberal Hollywood degrading conservative preachers in movies such as Jesus Camp and Religulous. Alienates leaders of religious movements from the average person. Creates straw men out of real conservatives, which ultimately backfires as stereotypes are dispelled. ? http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/03/15/6273181-obama-agenda-social-security-still-the-third-rail? http://spectator.org/archives/2009/10/20/fcc-church-conspiracy-to-silen/print#? See:JournoList? http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2008/10/30/proposition_8? Dems invoke the ‘Kennedy Card’ to defend Obamacare in wake of failing CLASS Act, Daily Caller, October 26, 2011? http://www.slate.com/id/2251101/? Ibid.? The Liberal Media, Every Poll Shows Journalists Are More Liberal than the American Public — And the Public Knows It, Rich Noyes, Director of Research, Media Research Center, June 30, 2004.? The Washington Post Fact Checker column said, "in the context of a $4 trillion goal, it is essentially meaningless. The item is so small the White House could not even provide an estimate of the revenue that would be raised, but other estimates suggest it would amount to $3 billion over 10 years."? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/26/AR2010082605233.html? Paul Krugman Says GOP 'Zombies' Are Going to Eat Obama's Brain, Newsbusters.? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574344230339019304.html? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-roberts/global-warming-and-the-ho_b_74210.html? http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/on_comparing_global_warming_de.html? http://www.uncoverage.net/2011/03/new-tv-ad-for-epa-republicans-poison-babies/? Truthers vs. Birthers: Not All Conspiracy Theories Are Created Equal; Birthers aren't remotely as crazy — and dangerous — as Truthers. September 23, 2009 by Arthur Chrenkoff. Pajama's Media.? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-shore/what-would-jesus-do-if-in_b_480013.html? http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-01-09/news/27086902_1_gun-ban-sarah-palin-gun-incident? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124451592762396883.html? Thomas Sowell writes, (a) goals are redefined after the fact to give the public the illusion of success; (b) bad motives are ascribed to the opposition or society in general; (c) good intentions of the anointed are highlighted; and (d) they attack the accuracy of the data showing failure. Thomas Sowell, The Vision of the Anointed, Chap. 2.? http://www.abqjournal.com/main/2011/07/20/opinion/only-hope-is-undoing-obamas-mess.html Only Hope Is Undoing Obama’s Mess], Kenneth Brown And Micha Gisser, Albuquerque Journal, July 20 2011.? Google Search Results.? http://atheism.about.com/od/politicspoliticalissues/a/problempride_2.htm? Nixon's Southern Strategy: The Democrat-Lie Keeping Their Control Over the Black Community, Ken Raymond, June 6, 2011. associatedcontent from Yahoo.? Final tally in the House among Republicans was 138 to 34; Democrats 152-96; in the Senate 21 Democrats voted against passage while only 6 Republicans opposed. [1]? http://www.mrc.org/cmi/eyeonculture/2011/_MSNBCs_UnCivil_War_on_the_Right.html? http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/04/24/109269/-Why-do-NASCAR-Fans-Vote-Republican? http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/19/sports/autoracing/19nascar.html? http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2009/04/20/carrie-prejean-says-answer-gay-marriage-question-cost-miss-usa-crown/? “Racist!” as an Epithet of Repression, Dr. Paul Trout, Montana Professor Journal, Fall 1995.

View the original article here