Taxing easy sugars

OK, last post for today: another NY Times op-ed, this time from Nicholas Kristof (thanks to Dan for pointing this out).  He's talking about a proposal in New York to put a huge tax on soda.  The idea is that sugary drinks are one of the biggest contributors to obesity, diabetes, and billions of dollars of related health problems.  Kristof compares this to taxes on cigarettes, which have cut demand (especially for teens) and (if you believe the numbers) "saves 40,000 lives per year."  

One of the other points Kristof makes is that the high sugar content in soda preps Americans for greater amounts of sugar in their diet.  This is convenient, since high fructose corn syrup is in "demand" thanks to the continued subsidies provided by the American government.  We can complain about obesity, but there's going to be little effect until we change the fundamental diet of Americans and their easy sugars.

Coming from a state whose main livelihood is agriculture, and particularly corn, it's hard to say that we should ditch the subsidies altogether... The argument, though, is that the subsidies are subverting capitalism and supporting an unhealthy practice (both business and bodily).  Maybe it's time that we encourage farmers to take on naturally sustainable practices or find another way of supporting themselves.  (The corn that's being subsidized isn't necessary for the good of the American populace, and we won't fail without it.)

I like to think that I'm a socialist at some level, that the government would do good to help less fortunate -- but I don't like the idea of helping so much that people, such as corn farmers, become reliant and take advantage of the support being provided.

Insights on green cards

This one comes from Thomas Friedman and an op-ed NY Times article.  He's talking about changes that America needs to make in its fundamental approach to infrastructure to become competitive in a global (and tech) marketplace.  The quote that got me was one of the problems Friedman notes:  

...immigration policies that have our colleges educating the world’s best scientists and engineers and then, when these foreigners graduate, instead of stapling green cards to their diplomas, we order them to go home and start companies to compete against ours.

Working with some of these scientists and engineers, I can second that their options for immigration are crummy.  They have one, maybe two shots at getting a green card after completing their degrees, and it sounds like the proceedures for getting either a school visa or a green card are not easy.  So, yes, the US policies are pushing away some of the top minds because of Nationalistic philosophies -- even if helping these people immigrate would be better for the nation in the end.  I'm all for examinging and changing our immigration policies.

Other people's insights (the first of many)

I read Outliers (Malcolm Gladwell) last week, a book about how success is not merely a function of the individual but also the opportunities they are given (or find) through society and culture.  He argues that Canadian hockey stars are partly a function of their birthdate (and the cut-off date for the youth programs), that cultures with strong social hierarchies produce more crash-prone airline pilots, and that many powerful New York lawyers necessarily have the same background.  It's an interesting read -- with the caveat, of course, that Gladwell is looking at a few cases that support his argument well, and does not touch on individual motivation or skills.

One of the chapters focuses on the idea that it takes, according to the research Gladwell found, about 10,000 hours of practice to become a master at any particular task.  This, he says, is nearly irregardless of individual skill at the onset: given "enough" ability, a violin master can come from a child prodigy (ie, starting at an early age) or a well-practiced adult.  Either way, it takes about 10,000 hours to reach similar levels of skill.  Gladwell also looks at other achievements and finds a similar time commitment needed to become an expert.

What I find interesting is that, with standard 40 hour weeks, it takes almost exactly five years to reach 10,000 hours: the same amount of time as a nominal PhD.  

Sure, apply the same math to anything else: sports training, with 20 hours per weeks, would take about 10 years to become an expert, which might explain why Olympic gymnasts need to start so young.

What Gladwell doesn't talk much about is that, to put in 20 hours a week for ten years, you need a ton of personal commitment, motivation, and desire, and that these often stem from an initial ability -- enough ability to overcome the first several months or years of low-level performance.

ISSP link: