links for 2007-12-01
Posted by Mark Thoma on Saturday, December 1, 2007 at 12:06 AM in Links
Permalink TrackBack (0) Comments (5)
« Market Bailouts and the "Fed Put" | Main | Make Livelihoods, Not War »
Posted by Mark Thoma on Saturday, December 1, 2007 at 12:06 AM in Links
Permalink TrackBack (0) Comments (5)
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/423467/23845764
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference links for 2007-12-01:
The views expressed on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Economics or the University of Oregon.
Blog Established
March 6, 2005
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/america-loses-the-wireless-race-again/
November 30, 2007
America Loses the Wireless Race — Again
By Paul Krugman
I have a T-Mobile cell phone, which uses GSM technology; it works all over the world — and in parts of New Jersey. One of the parts of New Jersey where it doesn't work happens to be my own home.
As a result, I've been acutely aware of the price America paid for not doing what Europe did, and settling on a single mobile standard.
But defenders of the American non-system argued that it would pay off in the long run, by spurring competition that would lead to faster technological progress.
Never mind. From John Gapper: *
"I am afraid that history has not been kind to this argument. Europe has stayed ahead of the US in mobile telephony, and in 3G services. Having one technology standard has spurred competition among network operators and handset manufacturers while competition in the US has been stymied by a proliferation of technologies."
Europe is also pulling ahead on broadband, ** again because of judicious regulation. There's a lesson in here somewhere.
* http://blogs.ft.com/gapperblog/2007/11/the-myth-of-mob.html
** http://select.nytimes.com/2007/07/23/opinion/23krugman.html
Posted by: anne | Link to comment | December 01, 2007 at 06:28 AM
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/01/the-myth-of-low-population-density/
December 1, 2007
The Myth of Low Population Density
By Paul Krugman
Whenever I write about America's lag in telecommunications — how we're falling behind other countries both in wired * and wireless ** networks — some people point out that we have much lower population density than Europe or Japan.
This is true in a literal sense, but largely irrelevant. Yes, there are vast open spaces in America. But hardly any of us live there.
Way back when, I got my back up *** when George W. Bush declared that he goes to Crawford to ''stay in touch with real Americans.'' "And what are those of us who live in New Jersey — chopped liver?" I asked.
And the truth is that New Jersey is more typical of modern America than Crawford. In 2000, a sizable majority of Americans — 58% — lived in metropolitan areas with populations of more than a million people. Two thirds of us live in metro areas with more than half a million people.
The density issue isn't entirely irrelevant. South Korea surged ahead in broadband partly because so many South Koreans live in easily-wired large apartment buildings. But there's no excus for poor network coverage in the fairly dense sprawl in which most Americans live.
* http://select.nytimes.com/2007/07/23/opinion/23krugman.html
** http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/america-loses-the-wireless-race-again/
*** http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A03E4D91730F934A35756C0A9649C8B63
Posted by: anne | Link to comment | December 01, 2007 at 06:31 AM
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/01/krugmans-version-of-his-appearance-is-disputed/
December 1, 2007
Krugman's Version of His Appearance is Disputed
By Paul Krugman
I say I'm 6′4″, and thin as a rail. But this version is disputed * by Republicans and even some Democrats, who say I'm 5′7″ and could stand to lose a few pounds.
* http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/30/AR2007113002256.html
Posted by: anne | Link to comment | December 01, 2007 at 01:08 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/01/nyregion/01birds.html
December 1, 2007
A Rising Number of Birds at Risk
By ANTHONY DePALMA
Relentless sprawl, invasive species and global warming are threatening an increasing number of bird species in the United States, pushing a quarter of them — including dozens in New York and New Jersey — toward extinction, according to a new study by the National Audubon Society and the American Bird Conservancy.
The study, called WatchList 2007, categorized 178 species in the United States as being threatened, an increase of about 10 percent from 2002, when Audubon's last study was conducted. Of the 178 species on the list, about 45 spend at least part of the year in this region.
Among the most threatened is the rare Bicknell's thrush, a native of the Catskill and Adirondack highlands whose winter habitat in the Caribbean is disappearing. Although less at risk, the wood thrush — whose distinctive song was once emblematic of the Northeast's rugged woodlands — is on the list because a combination of acid rain and sprawl has damaged its habitat and caused its numbers to decline precipitously over the last four decades.
The Audubon list, which was released Wednesday, overlaps the federal government's official endangered species list in some cases. But it also includes a number of bird species that are not recognized as endangered by the federal government but that biologists fear are in danger of becoming extinct.
"We're concerned that there's been almost a moratorium on the listing of endangered birds over the last seven years under this administration," Greg Butcher, Audubon's bird conservation director and a co-author of the new study, said in a telephone interview. Placing a threatened bird on the new watch list can bring it the kind of attention it needs to survive even if the federal government does not act, he said.
"When we pay attention to these birds and do the things we know need to be done, these birds recover," Mr. Butcher said. "All these birds have a chance to rebound if we put the right actions in motion."
Those actions include channeling new development to established areas, being vigilant about new invasive species that can devastate habitats and limiting carbon dioxide emissions, which contribute to climate change.
The national watch list is divided into two categories: 59 species, including the whooping crane and the lesser prairie-chicken, are on the "red list" for species that are declining rapidly and facing major threats; 119 are on the "yellow list" for species that are declining or rare but are not yet endangered....
Posted by: anne | Link to comment | December 01, 2007 at 01:13 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/01/opinion/01sat4.html?ref=opinion
December 1, 2007
Endangered Species
In early June, the Audubon Society released a report chronicling the disturbing decline of some of America's most common bird species. This week, it issued a grim sequel: a survey that highlights the status of the species in most serious trouble, those at or near the verge of extinction.
In most cases, these are not familiar birds. Some, like the golden-cheeked warbler, live only in one small region. Others, like the ashy storm-petrel, live offshore and are not likely to be seen by casual observers. According to this report, called WatchList 2007, nearly a quarter of the 700 bird species in America are threatened, usually by direct human economic activity, like development and gas and oil production.
The shock of the decline of common species is easily felt by most of us, if only because the numbers involved are so large and the birds at risk — including several kinds of sparrows and the common tern — are so familiar. But the value of a species is not determined by its numbers. The loss of any species is a tragedy.
What the Audubon Society, and its partner the American Bird Conservancy, have compiled is an index of potential extinction. It makes it clear that humans are directly responsible for the threats that most of these birds face, but also that Americans have the ability to save many of these species by wise use of the Endangered Species Act.
The simple fact is that birds designated by that act, like the condor or the whooping crane, stand a much better chance of survival, and even population growth, than undesignated birds. What precedes protection, as always, is awareness — the recognition that a bird like the lesser prairie-chicken, which few of us are likely to encounter in the wild, also deserves to survive.
Posted by: anne | Link to comment | December 01, 2007 at 01:13 PM