Improving Richard Branson's Pledge

Sir Richard Branson today made the pledge to invest upto US$ 3 billion over the next decade into the search for alternative energy sources that would solve the problem of global warming.

I think that as reported, Sir Richard Branson requires a little advise to ensure that his pledge is used efficiently and that he could maximize its utility in the following ways.

First, the evidence that is available suggests that a number of research consortia and labs are already in the search for this alternative energy source. It is not necessary therefore to have to start again. Instead he ought to complement the ongoing research efforts by putting up his investment into a prize kitty that would be awarded to the researchers who provide the solution within the time frame.

Secondly, Sir Richard is best known for being a good investor in certain industries and making his companies grow. He does this while keeping overheads very low and leveraging on capital. He ought therefore to concentrate on making investments from which profits could be utilized to fill up the prize kitty and let all specialized research teams to compete for the prize. All he needs to do is define the technical parameters that the teams must meet in terms of energy costs and applications.

In this way, he would ensure that the appropriate division of tasks take place to provide the incentive towards provision of the the solution. Its about designing the appropriate incentives system.

Is The Battle of Ideas About Communication?

Animated discussion is one thing that yours truly does engage in not infrequently. I have recently come to wonder why very bad ideas of policy that are obviously couched in errors are not only often popular with academia and the laity but also dominate much of public approaches to issues such as trade, investment and immigration more especially.

One person who characterizes himself as a liberal posits that most of this has to do with the efficacy of communication. He proceeds to say that liberals in particular are very poor at resonating with people who are not as informed about a subject as they are. Granted that some very dangerous ideas are experessed in very simple terms, I am at a loss about how true this may be. Is it all about the efficacy in communication.

In other words, when it comes to public affairs, does style win hands down over substance? I will be back about this issue.

Trading off Perks for Parliamentary Immunity

Recent publications covering the application of economic thinking to everyday decision making and policy decisions appear to emphasize the fact that incentives are important for shaping behaviour. While I am largely in agreement, I retain the impression that this fact is oftentimes overstated. Leading publications here are probably Freakonomics by S. Levitt and S. Dubner on the one side and The Undercover Economist by Tim Harford.

However, nothing beats the real life application that the Prime Minister of Cambodia designed. It is argued that in the quest to undermine the opposition, a bill was brought before the legislature with the proposal substantially compromising the priviledge of immunity from prosecution for any speech while contributing to debates in the chamber. Contained within the same bill was a package consisting of pensions and other financial incentives. Legislators were then placed in the position where the rejection of one proposal meant that the whole bill would collapse.

The Economist Magazine dated 9th September 2006 reports on page 57 that the financial incentives, "..proved irresistible even to some in the opposition".

However, in respect of an adultery law, the PM had to resort to the majoritarian muscle of his party to pass a bill banning the practise. I wonder whether the same legislators would have opted to exchange the pensions and related privildges in order to prevent the imposition of criminal sanctions for adultery. Sometimes those who understand how incentives matter can get their way too easily. Apparently, Cambodian legsilators have led to the discovery of what legislative immunity is worth in financial terms.

Free, Clean and Constant Energy: Any Takers?

"We have developed a technology that produces free, clean and constant energy".

That is the claim made by a technology solutions firm based in Dublin. To my mind, the production of free, clean and constant energy is altogether impossible. While I remain skeptical principally because the claim remains irreconcilable with the conventional wisdom regarding matter and energy, I am impressed by the opennes by this firm in placing an advertisement in The Economist and its website challenging experts and researchers to apply as part of the jury to test the technology.

To the extent that I can tell, no bookies are taking odds on this and I will guess that the probability of the claim being verified is less than 5%. I will be keeping watch and please do so too at www.steorn.net

Whatever the outcome, this is science entering a new era. Do not blink!<

Quote of the Day

"For every complex problem, there is a simple solution- and its wrong". H. L. Mencken

Introduction

Hi Everyone,

This is without doubt a new experience for your blogger. I therefore start this posting with very modest expectations both of myself and whoever may favour this blog by reading or submitting comments.

Over the next couple of days, I will together with some friends put up the very limited set of rules that will guide any discussions here. We are minimalists.

Second, the interests and subjects will be very broad but there will be definite biases.

Finally, my hope is that we not only have interesting discussions but that whoever reads this will consider it worth their while.

Kwame.