I will not cease talking about this

Good McCain:

Through his lack of support for ethanol, a fuel made from corn that benefits Iowa's farm economy, McCain, who has not campaigned in Iowa, made it clear he would take a stand for his issues. This was true whether or not the issues favored Iowa--making him look as if he was trying to appeal to his New Hampshire supporters more than gain the support of Iowans.

"I'm here to tell you that I'm going to tell you the things that you don't want to hear, as well as the things you want to hear, and one of those is ethanol," McCain said. "Ethanol is not worth it. It does not help the consumer."

And over time, he has gotten worse. Click that link. Read it.

No really, read it. And here is McCain being flat out hilarious.

But here's what's frightening: I agree with Jeff Sachs.

The issue of spiralling food and energy prices is also fueling an emerging debate over how much the rising prices can be blamed on ethanol production. The basic argument is that because ethanol comes from corn, the push to replace some traditional fuels with ethanol has created a new demand for corn that has thrown off world food prices.

Jean Ziegler, United Nations Special Rapporteur On The Right To Food, has called using food crops to create ethanol "a crime against humanity".

"We've been putting our food into the gas tank," Sachs of Columbia University said.

I mean, damn. I don't buy the right to food thing, but crime against humanity isn't so far off. Here's some of the details from a great editorial by David Ridenour.

Never mind that ethanol is helping spike food prices. Corn prices have already increased by 70 percent since 2005, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture projects they will rise an additional 10 percent to 20 percent this year.

But that's not the half of it. Corn-dependent livestock are also increasing in price. The USDA estimates that corn feed price increases added nearly 9 percent to the price of beef last year. But this doesn't include the indirect costs. U.S. beef cattle herds declined by 338,000 in 2007, increasing beef prices further, in part due to higher prices for feed, according to the American Farm Bureau Federation.

Ethanol advocates claim that rising corn costs have contributed only modestly to the overall increase in food prices. They're not being entirely honest, as they're only counting the direct costs of ethanol. They don't count, for example, increases in soybean prices resulting from farmers switching to the more lucrative corn crop. Soybean crops dropped by 11 million acres last year — much of it used to produce corn.

Here am I discovering an initial supply shock and one of the problems of ethanol - it takes fuel to transport ethanol since you can't pipeline it. Here I note congress tries to punish gas makers for charging more with the new ethanol regulations. And finally, I play the role of the silly optimist, thinking that since these problems are so simple, why not just fix them like this? You could even pay the corn growers a subidy if you'd feel better, because at least it wouldn't screw with world food prices as much. Is that too much a price to pay to make food more affordable?

Local governments and sports stadiums

Lately, professional sports stadiums have been paid for through public financing more and more. Sports economists, though, have repeatedly stated that this is not an efficient use of taxpayer funding.

JC Bradbury has said a good bit over at Sabernomics about this, and he has a guest blogger, Frank Stephenson, talking about the Gwinnett Braves. Here's the traditional argument:

Adding together the $15,000 annual fee, the season ticket revenue split, and the naming rights, the Braves have paid $671,429 for their first five years in the stadium. A sensible way to compare this figure to the $14.9 million cost of the stadium is to think about the opportunity cost that taxpayers incur by having their $14.9 million tied up in a stadium rather than having it available for other uses. Economists typically measure such opportunity costs via an interest rate. Taking a conservative interest rate of 3%, taxpayers are sacrificing about $450,000 per year in interest in order to construct the baseball stadium. (Higher interest rates would imply a larger opportunity cost.) Since the Braves annual payments have averaged about $134,000 per year, they’ve paid a bit under one-third of the taxpayers annual cost of the stadium. Of course, the taxpayers aren’t really being repaid since the Braves payments go into the capital maintenance fund.

The "no, it does not pay for itself" argument, but something is missing. Fundamentally, there is the issue of the benefit derived from having a local team in terms of attracting and retaining people in the city. People who are more in demand have more options, and if given comparable salary packages when considering cost of living as well as similar advancement for oppurtunity, they may decide to go where the local amenities are more in their favor. Richmond has a symphony orchestra, a ballet company, colleges and universities, good roads, and it is within 2 hours of the beach or DC. But it is possible that someone may look at Richmond and say, there's no professional baseball team, so I will go to some other city instead.

If you think that sounds crazy, ask yourself if you would be willing to attend a large university, say more than 15,000 students, that does not have an NCAA division 1 football team. How much of Virginia Tech's reputation is based on the quality of their students, and how many of their students chose to go there at the margin because schools of similar cost and academic reputation did not have such a successful football team? If you compare schools with similar costs, reputation, often the tiebreaker will be a matter of which one looks like it will be more fun. By the same token, George Mason's applications drastically increased in 2006 during their Final Four run, and what did that do to average SAT scores and high school GPA? But what of their lack of an NCAA football team; how many musicians and music education majors were lost because they wanted to do marching band in college (although to be fair, how many were attracted because they hate marching band?)?

HPV Vaccine

Merck & Co. have a drug on the market that has the potential to be a hot-button political item. The Governor of Texas decided to bypass politics, as ABC Reports:

Bypassing the Legislature altogether, Republican Gov. Rick Perry issued an order
Friday making Texas the first state to require that schoolgirls get vaccinated
against the sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer.

The article reports that beginning in September 2008, Texas girls aged 11 and 12 will be required to get the vaccine, and further, the government would provide the vaccine to those who don't have health insurance and can't afford it. Many conservative groups are wary of the drug, feeling it will lead to greater sexual promiscuity.

There is another bit of interest burried further within this article. Specifically, the bit of interest relates to the governor's interests:

Perry has ties to Merck and Women in Government. One of the drug company's three lobbyists in Texas is Mike Toomey, Perry's former chief of staff. His current chief of staff's mother-in-law, Texas Republican state Rep. Dianne White Delisi, is a state director for Women in Government.

The governor also received $6,000 from Merck's political action committee during his re-election campaign.

The whole case here is quite interesting. For one thing, it interests me as a Merck shareholder. This does raise questions, though. I cannot help but think that the governor grossly overstepped his bounds to legislate a mandate on the population at large while bypassing the legislature. Why bother to have a legislature for that matter? One also cannot help but wonder whether this tells us something about the governorship of Texas as a means of ascent to the White House.

Reactions

But really, this is a bit tyrranical. The governor has dictated a law of himself which could have consequences. Interestingly, there are not only religious but also philosophical objections which are allowed for refusing vaccination in Texas, but nonetheless, it is incredibly alarming to see that the governor could make such a decision on his own. With the legislature, at least, the process ensures that the bill would be debated and discussed among state representatives, and those who objected could have made sure of such a thing. If it's that important, then couldn't parents get their kids this vaccine on their own? Or do people not get vaccines unless they are required to by law?

As for the bit regarding the moral implications, those are a bit ridiculous. For one thing, HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases are much more well-known in contemporary society than cervical cancer in the first place; how many people knew that this is largely caused by a sexually transmitted virus. The drug is not a birth control drug either. Further, there are plenty of other arguments that can be made regarding safe sex and abstinence, etc, that go beyond this, such as personal morality, emotional health, and the law of diminishing marginal returns.

Back to this particular case, I also find it particularly alarming that Merck is engaging in bribery as a way to do business. A politician can take a bribe - here, a campaign contribution - and be bought. But it's hard to judge Merck, though, as it is in a way getting revenge on the government. The Food and Drug Administration requires testing of all new drugs that come onto the market, requiring proof that they are "safe and effective." These testing requirements go beyond what is necessary to determine whether or not the drug is a good one, and all they give the drug maker is the right to make the drug. The FDA can screw up and approve dangerous drugs, but instead of the FDA, it is then the drug company which must pay the piper. The FDA requires extensive testing and then does not back it up at all.

So Merck just needs to make some money. So all they figure they have to do is to get the state to require it, and perhaps even pay for it. This helps to make the drugs in question far more profitable, which is after all the sole social responsibility of any corporation. This helps to offset the costs endured in the FDA testing stage, which cost not only money but also a lot of time.

The drug is a good drug, and lobbying by Merck is exactly what one should expect, as it is a very effective way to offset the research costs. I wouldn't want to limit Merck's ability to lobby, etc, without also limiting the power the FDA holds over drug companies, and I wouldn't count on either happening anytime soon. What I don't get is why Merck actually closed down a little on Friday.

Additionally

1) Here's some reading with tons of info on HPV. The Center for Disease Control has a lot of this type of information. One thing I saw:

HPV infection can occur in both male and female genital areas that are covered
or protected by a latex condom, as well as in areas that are not covered. While
the effect of condoms in preventing HPV infection is unknown, condom use has
been associated with a lower rate of cervical cancer, an HPV-associated disease.

Condom use can help, but it is very interesting to note that areas not covered by a condom could be so affected by the disease.

2) Here's a bit on required vaccinations. Vaccines for children are generally required, particularly for highly contagious diseases. Some vaccines, like flu shots, and other treatments for adults, are optional.