Skip to content

Total factor productivity is, roughly, the increase in productivity due to technological progress. The BLS reported today that it rose 0.7% in 2023:

This is right at the average of the past five years and slightly below the average since 2000. In other words, kind of meh.

I have a feeling that we're in a period like the '40s and the '80s right now, where there's been a lot of technological progress but it hasn't quite turned into productivity. It was pent up in the '40s by the Great Depression and World War II and in the '80s by the time it took to truly integrate the PC revolution into business practices. Eventually, in the '50s and the '90s, the pent-up change broke through and we saw some real progress.

Maybe we're still a few years away from that. I don't know. But my instinct tells me that AI, communications, biotech, energy production, and a few other things have been gaining steam and will soon turn into serious progress on the ground. Just a guess, though.

The Republican Study Committee—which includes nearly every Republican in Congress—released its latest budget proposal today. It's getting a lot of attention on Twitter because it includes cuts to Social Security even though Republicans have spent the past year angrily denying Democratic claims that they plan to cut Social Security.

But that's not what struck me. After browsing through it, it's clear that it's just a recitation of greatest hits:

  • Cut the pay of federal workers and make it easier to fire them
  • Reduce funding for the EPA, SEC, FTC, NLRB, OSHA, and presumably any other agency that annoys the business community
  • Raise the Social Security retirement age even more
  • Block grants for Medicaid
  • A big pile o' deregulation proposals
  • Drill baby drill
  • Welfare reform cuts
  • Fight waste fraud 'n abuse
  • Defund the IRS
  • Eliminate the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
  • Tax cuts for businesses and the rich
  • Eliminate the estate tax
  • Convert SNAP into a block grant
  • More defense spending
  • Health Savings Accounts
  • Premium support for Medicare
  • Block grant SSI
  • Balanced budget amendment
  • Make tax increases essentially impossible
  • Kill Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
  • Eliminate climate funding wherever it's hiding

Old timers will recognize most of these things as reliable warhorses in Paul Ryan's old budget proposals. In other words, the GOP isn't Donald Trump's party in any meaningful sense of the word. It's the same party it's been for decades, with the same old tired proposals.

POSTSCRIPT: There's some new claptrap in the budget too. Times change, after all. There's elimination of the Inflation Reduction Act, for example, and lots of anti-woke stuff. There's a whole section called "Oppose Socialistic Overregulation Related to the COVID-19 Pandemic." And a few lines about eliminating any last dregs of student loan forgiveness.

But mostly it's just the same old stuff.

Somebody help me out here. The Washington Post reports that in order to avoid posting a $454 million bond in his business fraud case, Donald Trump could file for bankruptcy:

As Donald Trump faces dwindling options to pay off a massive fine imposed as a result of losing a fraud case in New York, financial experts say filing for bankruptcy would provide one clear way out of his financial jam.

....Some of the people in Trump’s orbit think filing for bankruptcy makes financial sense — even if it could be politically problematic. “What is happening to him and his businesses right now is exactly why the bankruptcy code exists,” said one of the people.

I am not a bankruptcy lawyer, but I thought the reason the bankruptcy code existed was to provide a method of orderly liquidation for people who are, um, bankrupt. As in, liabilities greater than their assets and no plausible prospect of that changing.

But Trump is nowhere near that. His net worth is in the billions. The fact that he doesn't feel like selling property to pay a fine is not a justification for bankruptcy, is it? What am I missing here?

In other, completely unrelated news, the Wall Street Journal reports that Trump's Truth Social scam will soon net him a payday of $3.5 billion. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

Julian Assange's extradition hearing in London has been ongoing for weeks with seemingly no end in sight. Today the Wall Street Journal reports that the US is considering a plea deal that would eliminate the 18 espionage charges against him, leaving only a single charge of computer hacking:

If prosecutors allow Assange to plead to a U.S. charge of mishandling classified documents—something his lawyers have floated as a possibility—it would be a misdemeanor offense. Under such a deal, Assange potentially could enter that plea remotely, without setting foot in the U.S. The time he has spent behind bars in London would count toward any U.S. sentence, and he would likely be free to leave prison shortly after any deal was concluded.

This would be the right thing to do. Fred Kaplan describes a bit of the history here:

In 2019, the Department of Justice issued a single-count indictment against Assange, charging him—under a completely different statute—with conspiring to break into a computer containing classified information. The evidence was mountainous that he not only encouraged but instructed people with security clearances and a desire to leak secrets precisely how to tap into codewords and compartments to which they did not have legitimate access.

This charge was probably reasonable. The other 18 charges, however, were solely about obtaining and disseminating classified documents—something that ordinary journalists do all the time without repercussions. Just because Assange doesn't work for the New York Times doesn't mean he should be treated any differently.

Limiting the prosecution to the single charge of hacking makes sense. And since Assange has already spent five years in prison, it also makes sense not to impose any more time on him. Whether you like Assange personally or not, this has all gone on quite long enough.

Last month I took a picture of a globular cluster catalogued as M5. I wasn't able to do a great job with it, however, and thought I'd give it another try sometime. A week ago I was out in the desert again, but M5 was too low in the sky to image properly. Pretty much everything else was also below the horizon.

But there was one thing that wasn't: M3, a different globular cluster near the Big Dipper. So that's what I imaged. I cut my exposure time to 30 seconds and ended up with 672 usable frames over six hours.

So did this improve things? It did not. The final image was no better than the image of M5, and in the end I only used about a hundred frames. I did get a little bit more color than I did with M5, but that might be only because M3 is inherently more colorful.

I suspect there's only so much you can do with a globular cluster. They're stars, so they're bright and just don't need a lot of exposure time. I may do another one in the future, but probably not. I still find them kind of boring.

March 9, 2024 — M3 shot from Desert Center, California
February 12, 2024 — M5 shot from Desert Center, California

The EPA announced new tailpipe emissions standards today. The headline impact is that the new standards will spur sales of electric vehicles, but they'll also cut air pollutants substantially:

And here are the new rules for CO2 emissions between now and 2032:

This is all from the text of the final rule, which is 1,181 pages long if you're looking for some light afternoon reading.

The 2024 World Happiness Report was released yesterday, and it showed the youth of America becoming steadily unhappier.

Wait. No it didn't. Happiness among the young actually ticked up a bit in the latest report. But no matter:

Dr Vivek Murthy, the US surgeon general...described the report findings as a “red flag that young people are really struggling in the US and now increasingly around the world”. He said he was still waiting to see data that proved social media platforms were safe for children and adolescents, and called for international action to improve real-life social connections for young people.

Murthy added that the failure of governments to regulate social media better was “insane.” Since the report was sitting right in front of me, this got me curious. Does social media make people unhappy? I decided to take a crude look by comparing happiness to internet penetration in every country covered by the report. Here it is:

Hmm. More internet = more happiness. But what about young people specifically?

Same thing. But of course this doesn't tell us much. Rich countries have higher internet penetration, so all this says is that rich countries tend to be happier. So what if we restrict ourselves only to rich countries?

The regression line isn't as steep, but it still shows the same thing: more internet = more happiness.

Don't take any of this too seriously. Internet penetration is only a passable proxy for social media use, and I'm not sure how much I trust the happiness figures either. Nevertheless, to the extent the happiness report tells us anything, it doesn't tell us that internet use leads to unhappy kids. It might, but as usual there's not much real evidence to back it up.

What causes cavities? Lots of things, it turns out, but mainly sugar, just like you learned in grade school. However, sugar doesn't directly produce cavities. As with all things in biochemistry, the actual mechanism of cavity production is pretty complex.

But let's simplify. The main culprit in the conversion of sugar into cavities is a mouth bacteria called S. mutans. It does two things. First, it eats sucrose (table sugar) and produces a sticky biofilm that protects teeth. If you feed it enough sucrose this biofilm becomes quite thick and we call it plaque. Second, S. mutans binds to the sticky plaque and metabolizes any kind of sugar into lactic acid. If you provide enough sugar, S. mutans will produce more and more acid at its binding site. This acid eats away tooth enamel and creates cavities.

Wasn't that interesting? But why the lesson? It's because I recently heard about a product that modifies S. mutans and prevents cavities. All it takes is a single swab and you're more or less cavity free for the rest of your life. So why don't we have access to this? According to a widely cited piece by Scott Alexander, it's because of blinkered government obstruction:

The FDA demanded a study of 100 subjects, all of whom had to be “age 18-30, with removable dentures, living alone and far from school zones”.... The FDA wouldn’t budge from requiring this impossible trial.

As near as I can tell, this isn't really true. Here's the story.


It starts 50 years ago with Jeffrey Hillman, a professor at the University of Florida. He began examining S. mutans to see if it could be modified so it didn't produce lactic acid. That turned out to be possible, but S. mutans didn't survive the process. So then he replaced the gene sequences that produced lactic acid with gene sequences from Mexican beer that produced alcohol. Bingo! He had a strain of S. mutans that created tiny amounts of alcohol, which is harmless to teeth.

But that's not all. Hillman's strain also produced an antibiotic that killed competing strains. Shortly after you apply the new strain, it kills off all the ordinary S. mutans and colonizes your mouth forever.

In 1996 Hillman started a company called Oragenics to commercialize his discovery, which he called SMaRT (S. Mutans Associated Replacement Therapy). But there was an obvious problem. It was the product of recombinant DNA, a true transgenic that combined the genes of two different species. Not only that, it was specifically designed to kill off the original strain. If it escaped, it had the potential to kill off ordinary S. mutans everywhere, with unknown consequences.

This is why the FDA moved so slowly. Finally, though, after several years of lab and animal trials, Hillman got permission in 2004 for a safety trial on humans. First, though, he was required to create a special strain that died unless it was fed a specific amino acid daily. That way, if it escaped it would die of its own accord.

This is why the first trial involved people with dentures. It wasn't to test cavity fighting, it was solely to find out if Hillman's strain was safe. If anything went wrong, denture wearers could just bleach their dentures and stop applying the special amino acid.

This was a tiny trial—the actual size is a little unclear, but it was somewhere between two and a dozen volunteers under age 55—and it was apparently a success. Three years later Hillman got permission to try his new strain on people with real teeth, though the volunteers would be required to spend a week in biocontainment.

This is where the story trickles to a stop. In 2011 Oragenics finally announced the new trial, but I can't find any evidence that it ever took place. It's not in the FDA's database and Oragenics never announced any results.

Why? In 2014 the CEO of Oragenics said they had shelved it due to "regulatory concerns and patent issues," without specifying what those were. But that's probably not the whole story. In the intervening years the S. mutans project had spun off some research lines that turned out to be more promising than the original cavity-fighting research. SMaRT was most likely abandoned simply because Oragenics had better things to do with its limited resources.

In any case, Oragenics secured a patent in 2016 and then did nothing more until last year, when it licensed its patent to a company called Lantern Bioworks. Lantern has a twofold strategy. First, they're selling SMaRT in Próspera, a libertarian charter city on an island off Honduras that allows consensual testing of just about anything. Second, they're hoping to reclassify SMaRT as a probiotic, which has a simpler approval process.

Does SMaRT work? As far as I can tell there's no clinical testing to prove it. But one thing I find telling is that I dredged up a couple of articles about the prospects of using oral bacteria to fight cavities. One was from 2012 and doesn't mention SMaRT at all even though Hillman is quoted. The other is a journal review from 2019 that mentions a bunch of different ways S. mutans could be targeted to reduce cavities, but conspicuously doesn't mention genetic engineering to eliminate lactic acid production.

So that's that. Hillman retired from Oragenics in 2012, presumably after the decision to focus on different projects. As for the fears of Hillman's strain escaping and causing havoc, I can't say. It sounds like a reasonable concern in general, but I have no idea whether the FDA went overboard. I guess we're going to find out.

Today brings a limited but interesting decision from the Supreme Court. It involves Yonas Fikre, a US citizen from Sudan, who was placed on the no-fly list 15 years ago. Here's the summary:

Mr. Fikre alleged that he traveled from his home in Portland, Oregon to Sudan in 2009 to pursue business opportunities there. At a visit to the U. S. embassy, two FBI agents informed Mr. Fikre that he could not return to the United States because the government had placed him on the No Fly List. The agents questioned him extensively about the Portland mosque he attended, and they offered to take steps to remove him from the No Fly List if he agreed to become an FBI informant and to report on other members of his religious community. Mr. Fikre refused.

The whole affair is even worse than this: Fikre informed the US embassy of his business plans when he entered Sudan and was subsequently invited to lunch—where he was told he couldn't return to the US. A few weeks later he traveled to the UAE, where he was held and tortured for months at the instigation of the US. Fikre then ended up in Sweden, where he filed suit, and eventually returned to Portland years later on a private jet. After Fikre sued, the government took him off the no-fly list and then argued that the case was moot and should be dismissed.

This went back and forth for several years, and the Supreme Court's decision today was a limited one. All it says is that the government can't moot its own case and prevent judgment by the simple expedient of withdrawing:

Were the rule more forgiving, a defendant might suspend its challenged conduct after being sued, win dismissal, and later pick up where it left off; it might even repeat “this cycle” as necessary until it achieves all of its allegedly “unlawful ends.” A live case or controversy cannot be so easily disguised, and a federal court’s constitutional authority cannot be so readily manipulated.

The ruling was unanimous, but it doesn't mean Fikre has won on the merits of this case. It only means that he'll have his day in court—where the government will undoubtedly insist that national security would be devastated if it explained the reasons Fikre was placed on the no-fly list in the first place. The Supreme Court has been generally receptive to this argument, so there's no telling how the case will pan out.

The secret no-fly list is like civil asset forfeiture: something I flatly don't understand. It's inexplicable to me that the government can routinely strand citizens overseas without having to explain itself in any way, just as it's inexplicable that the government can seize assets just because it suspects they're adjacent to a crime. Neither of these things seem even remotely compatible with the notion of due process or the truism that you're innocent until proven guilty. I am gobsmacked that either of them has been allowed to continue.