LSAT Logic and Ad Hominem Attacks

I love the podcast LSAT Logic in Everyday Life. It takes a good look at if people are being logical about current events. This week's episode, Cocoa-Nuts was particularly good. Not because it dissected the arguments about whether or not cocoa is good for you (it only briefly touched on these arguments) but because it talked about not dismissing an argument just because those making the argument have an interest in the outcome. It specifically touched on the fact that we, as a society, are too often inclined to dismiss study results because of the funders of the study, especially if it was funded by a corporation. While we may want to take note of potential conflicts of interest, the mere existence of self-interest is not a weakener of the logic of an argument; an argument (or study) should stand on its own evidence, not the character of a particular advocate.

I didn't intend this when I started writing this post, but I'm suddenly reminded that this is a common argument against global warming skeptics. Just because skeptics are often funded by corporations doesn't make them wrong (or right, for that matter) any more than climate change proponents being funded by governments makes them right (or wrong). The arguments must be able to stand on their own logic and evidence, not on the identities of the studies' funders.

Extremely Disappointed in Cato

I am extremely disappointed in the recent Cato Daily Podcast episode called Microfinance in Hindsight (featuring Thomas Dichter). See, I tend to greatly enjoy the Cato podcasts and, when I first saw that this was the title I was really excited. For one thing, I think microfinancing (the idea of making loans of $75 to maybe $300 to people living in poverty rather than aid or something else) is an exciting idea, and for another thing, my brother is going to be doing the program this summer in Africa working on just that.

But when I listened to the podcast, Thomas Dichter was extremly pessimistic on the subject of microfinancing: he said it didn't work. It didn't work!?! The things I've heard of, and admittedly, that's mostly been the initial pilot programs, have sounded quite successful: the loan poor people small amounts of money, and the borrowers use that money to start businesses or improve their homes, and that there is an extremely high rate of repayment, in fact, at a higher rate than other banks get. So basically, extremely poor people who might not otherwise be able to get a loan, get a loan, improve their lives, and then pay it back such that the banks make money as well. I'm not really seeing the down side.

But the speaker claimed that this, improving the lives of the poor, while running to profit-making enterprise, was not the point. What microfinancing was supposed to be doing according to him, was stopping poverty. He pointed out that these countries where there they're trying to use microfinancing have many poor people. And that some of the reasons they have so many poor people are a not much of a rule of law, bad governments, bad government policies etc., and that, under these circumstances, microfinancing it did nothing to lessen the rate of poverty.

Well, no sh-t Sherlock.

When a society has a bad government, it's really nice when you can make some people's lives better, but it's ludicrous to think that lending money to some, presumably small, percentage of the population of the country will be enough to overcome all the problems that emanate from having a bad government. He also complained that people use the money to pay for things like medicine for their children were fixing up their houses (which he condescendingly called shelters). He then proceeded to suggest that these people would be better off if, in addition to getting their loan guide they would get education to show them how properly to use the loan. Again, very condescending, but more importantly, it seems very misinformed. One of the presumptions behind microfinancing (or, indeed, all of free-market economics), is that individuals know best what is most useful for them. I hardly think some kind of one-size-fits-all quick education plan is going to be particularly effective in improving people's lives. For one thing, any plan like that which removes the power from the individuals misses out on the fact that individuals tend to see what that individual needs as well as what are good of ways to investing in their own communities.

Now, going back to his complaints that people were using the money for her medicine in or or improving their houses, what do other people, for example, me, use their money for? Uh, mostly consumption. Basically, all of my money is used for me to consume in one way or another. Even my investments are just a form of consumption, because they are really awake for me to defray my consumption and improve my future ability to consume. I don't invest because "it's good for society," I only invest because I expect to get something from it. Selfish? Sure. But I'm really okay with that.

While he was complaining that people were daring to use their borrowed money for things they wanted, he also pointed out that they didn't seem to be trying to save money by putting it in banks. He then kindly pointed out that a possible reason for this is that many banks in these areas are actually not very safe. And someone who puts their money in one of these banks faces the very real possibility of not being able to get it out later. I was shocked that this was his idea of a complaint. I mean, if your money isn't safe in a bank and then you choose not to put it in a bank. Sounds to me like you're doing, the only intelligent thing under the circumstances. Why on earth would he suggest that we need to teach people to do something that's actually a really bad idea? And not only did he want people to follow this moronic suggestion, he acted in an extremely condescending manner, as if they were too stupid to realize that saving money means more later; actually, they are being quite smart. Furthermore, this is a classic example of the market working: when untrustworthy people ask others to invest in them, they will be by and large unsuccessful at getting that money.

Now, the speaker did make a few reasonable complaints: people get themselves into a cycle of borrowing from one microfinancing company to pay off another or else they borrow, spend it all, then try to get money from their social network to pay back the loan. This is not good.

Of course, as compared to borrowers from a successful country (e.g. Americans), it's not exactly unusual either. People do stupid or unthinking things all the time; not even economists are barred from such mistakes. But just because some people who use a program engage in the same foolish behaviors that others from other programs have, is no reason to denigrate the whole program.

Black History Month

In honor of Black History Month, I encourage you to read Black Innovators and Entrepreneurs Under Capitalism.

It's filled the tales of truly remarkable blacks who, in spite of their overcoming adversity, we don't normally hear about this month. It also reminds us that governmental interference in markets is more often used against minorities than for them.

Hat tip: FEE

The End of NYC as an Economic Center?

NYC seems intent on losing its position as a major center for economic activity.

I mean, people are already leaving the city (and the state) in droves* and we continue to have rent control in spite of the fact it's a known economic blunder**. The City has violated property rights in banning smoking and trans-fats***.

But these aren't the biggies. I mean, I suspect that most New Yorkers are unaware that many people are leaving since, y'know, where would they go? (New Yorkers tend to be a little...New York-centric.) And many people (who ought to know better) continue to be in favor of rent control because it seems like such a nice little idea, in spite of the reality. And explaining that the bans are a violation of property rights is a difficult, bordering on impossible, concept to get across to any but the most liberty-minded people. So, while these are all bad for the city economically, they tend to fly under the radar.

But the tax issue I mentioned in the previous post is going to be a major issue in the future. After all, there are plenty of other cities out there that won't cause headaches for corporate execs and, if most of them are flying in anyway, it's a simple matter to change the destination to Newark, NJ (only 10 miles away and it has an airport) or some other convenient city. 'Regular' people might not see it as an issue, but then, 'regular' people don't organize and pay for huge corporate meetings.

As bad as this is, many 'regular' people will be unaware. But there is something that everyone will be aware of, if it passes. The ban on 'gadgets.'

Yes, that's right a New York State Senator is proposing to ban the use of iPods, cell phones and other gadgets while crossing NYC streets, suggesting a $100 fine for people who ignore the ban. This is not only illogical (check out LSAT Logic in Everyday Life's podcast episode about this) and extremely annoying, it is also anti-business.

See, if you know NYC, you know that a ban while crossing crosswalks really means a ban while walking because you can't get much of anywhere without crossing a street. So nobody will be able to conduct any business unless standing still or on some form of transportation (which is funny considering that traffic conditions are horrendous and public transit is permanently overcrowded). And New Yorkers are known for hurrying between point A and point B. Imagine how much faster they'll have to go if they can no longer multi-task.

Not that this, or any of the other bad ideas, would be enough to shake the city off it's pedestal as economic powerhouse. But, it all adds up to a city that is persistently doing things to make doing business harder. At some point, you have to wonder if they are doing it on purpose.


One final thought: NYC is the only city in the country that has an income tax. And that tax is on top of an above average state income tax. Oh, AND the city double taxes some things that even the federal government realized were unfair.




*Check out New York Is Losing People at Fastest Pace in America and I'm Outta Here
**Read How Rent Control Drives Out Affordable Housing or Three Fallacies of Rent Control or The Effects of Rent Deregulation in Massachusetts...really it's an embarrassment of riches, I could have picked many other articles
***You could read Growing Up Means Resisting the Statist Impulse and New York's Anti-Resolution Resolution: Ban the Trans Fat ... but just because I enjoy them.

Updated: 1/200th

A month or so ago, maybe more, my father was telling me about maddening tax laws. He's a tax accountant so, yes, we do talk about things like this for fun. He told me about a particularly outrageous case he had dealt with recently:

One of his clients is an executive for a major, nation-wide corporation. She's down in Texas, or one of those other states with no state income tax. She came to New York for a big corporate meeting for executives from around the country. Just keep in mind, the corporation believes these meetings to be useful, this woman had no particular interest in visiting our state. But she came, went to the meeting, then went home. No biggie, right?

Well, not quite.

See, she was lucky that year and had a very nice income (as in, a lot of zeroes). I forget the exact method she acquired the money (stock options, some other type of bonus, income not connected to her job at all) but it was a nice chunk. So, good for her. She has chosen to live in a state that does not tax income, so, except for what the federal government takes, she gets to keep it. But New York has demanded some of it. See, she was in NY for 1/200^th of the year, so they demanded to tax her on 1/200^th of her yearly income. *

My jaw dropped when I heard this. I must have asked dad half a dozen times if he was serious. He was.

He also happens to be the proactive type. His recomendation to his client was, of course, to pay it (to avoid legal consequences) but to demand reimbursement from her employer. Just as they paid her travel expenses as a legitimate cost for her to attend a meeting that they wanted her to attend, they should pay this expense as she only incurred it because of that meeting. He also encouraged her to mention to them that she is probably not the only one with this problem and that maybe they should consider having meetings in a more economical state.



*The original post stated that the amount was 1/365^th of her income. Actually, NY considers only workdays and, since there are 200 of those per year, they took 1/200^th of her income. Which only makes it worse. Additonally, my dad told me about a different client who came into the city several times last year to be a consumer of personal legal and financial advice. While here, he was a consumer of other things as well, things like clothing, gifts, broadway shows...he too was charged 1/200^th of his income each day he visited the city.

You missed a great lecture last night...

Last night, at the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), Dr. Deepak Lal gave a great lecture about the long history of capitalists, the later historical unintended consequences that brought about capitalism and why some people continue to resist free markets (if the audio isn't up yet, it will be soon).

It was simpy fascinating to learn about how, around 1000 CE, the Church completely changed the social institutions of Europe (with beneficial economic consequences for themselves) and later created property law that, while intended merely to protect its newfound wealth, protected property rights for everyone under the Church's control. And it is the fear of having their social institutions changed that leads some other cultures to resist capitalism.

In addition to the lecture, the cocktail and dessert hours were great. Lots of good talk about current events with interesting people including Garner Goldsmith of Liberty Conspiracy (who hasn't been to meetings in a while).

Nice evening all around.

Giuliani Sounds Good

Powerline has video of Rudy Giuliani on Hannity and Colmes. The man is sounding good. Even on the things I might not totally agree with, he makes a reasonable case. He also manages to get in quite a few of points in a short amount of time such that, after hearing him for only 8 and a half minutes, I feel pretty comfortable that I know where he stands on a number of issues. And, truth be told, his positions are very appealing to me.

Hat Tip: GayPatriot

Cute Video

Gizmo Flushes

Hat Tip: Snopes.com

Quick Thought: Holograms

As I mentioned in my review of "2057: The City," I don't think we will see holograms the way they appear in the show. However, I was watching "Star Trek Voyager" earlier today and they spent some time on the Holodecks. It occurs to me that the real life technology potentials could be turned into something that would be very effective in an enclosed and dedicated room.

Can't wait for my own Holodeck!

The Trouble with SVU

*Look, it occurs to me that this is going to contain massive spoilers for a couple episodes of Law & Order: SVU. If you don't want to read it, don't read it because I can't edit them out.*

Law & Order: SVU has been going leftist. And it is really annoying me because it is such a good show otherwise. This week's show was the second (that I can think of off of the top of my head) that was so over-the-top in its crusade that it completely ruined any enjoyment of the episode and makes me not want to watch next week's show.

The first one that really bugged me, Storm, was about 3 girls abducted after Katrina who were taken to NYC. The twist (L&O always has a twist) was that their kidnapper had anthrax, which led the detectives to some very sleazy people who were selling dangerous biologicals, which were supposed to have been destroyed, on the black market. Federal agents shut down the detectives' investigation without explanation and the former kidnap victims disappear. Benson and the others are worried about the girls they have just rescued and so force the federal officials to let them know what happened to the girls. The girls get adopted by a family friend and, presumably, go off to live happily ever after. The end, right?

Wrong. The federal agents have returned the girls, but make sure anything connected with the anthrax is still classified. Now, I can think of several reasons why they might want this: they could be conducting an undercover investigation, they might have leads that publicity might scare off, they may have reason to believe that the fewer people who know, the less likely the biologicals will get into terrorist hands, they might think that the risk of panic is more dangerous to the public safety than the risk of it being used or any of several other reasons.

But Benson can't accept this, and goes off half-cocked. She has decided that she knows more about an investigation she stumbled into than investigators who are specializing in it. So what does she do? She reveals classified information to a reporter, who prints it, regardless of the risk. And she, along with the reporter, is portrayed as a hero. She has no way to know if she made the problem better or immeasurably worse. For all she knows, she may have altered the situation from the anthrax being in the hands of a couple of two-bit hoods on the verge of being caught to one where terrorists are alerted of the possibility of getting their hands on it.

The show does not even consider that possibility.

This week's episode, Loophole, seems like a classic child molestation case, but turns out to be one about illicit testing of chemicals on unsuspecting and vulnerable children. Horrible, right? Even more so when you consider that the chemical appears to cause brain function impairment while several of the children exposed already had developmental disabilities and that one of the (non-developmentally disabled) children now has cancer.

Of course, as Dr. Warner points out* to detective Benson, since we don't know what causes most types of cancer, no one can say conclusively whether or not this child's cancer was caused by his exposure to that chemical or even if the chemical was a contributing factor especially since the child was also exposed to rat and roach droppings as well as any number of unidentified chemicals that pre-existed in his apartment.

It's sad, of course. Tragic even. But by this point in the show, the sleazy man who tricked the parents into signing the release forms is dead. Time to move onto the next case, right?

Um, not according to Benson. See, she wants to go after the company that manufactures the chemical, which was intended to be presented to the EPA as a pesticide. The company had contracted out for testing and the testing company contracted out with the sleazeball who sprayed an untested chemical in a residential area.

Just for the record, I'm pretty sure that this would not only be illegal, but it also would not be an acceptable method for proving the safety of a product, so there is no reason why the company would try to test this way. But, of course, the show made it seem like this would be perfectly fine for testing purposes, presumably so that Benson would have the opportunity to be filled with righteous anger.

While she and Detective Fin were berating an EPA agent about the incident, they claimed that the company was engaging in an observation study and that the concept of 'observation' studies is a loophole (where the episode gets it name). Now, observation studies simply allow observing people engaging in dangerous behavior when it would be unethical to deliberately expose them by forming a double-blind experiment. While yelling they brought up that the EPA was no innocent as it had also tried to hurt children. As their evidence for this, they brought up the Children's Environmental Exposure Research Study (CHEERS). As you can see on the link, Snopes points out that this was an observation study, where any harm that might befall the children was by virtue of living in an area that used pesticides and that, regardless of whether or not they were observed, the children would continue to be exposed.

I was so thoroughly annoyed that Fin and Benson were equating observing a potentially dangerous situation that involved legal pesticides already in use to determine how dangerous they might actually be with deliberately exposing unsuspecting children to a completely untested chemical instead of following normal, double-blind procedures as required for all new chemicals, that I was hardly able to pay attention to the rest of the episode. I suppose Benson and Fin would equate the recent observation that damage to a certain section of the brain reduces addictions including the addiction to smoking with actually causing strokes in people to see what would happen.

The rest of the show involved Benson breaking the law to find out information that put the ADA in a better position to 'bargain' with the evil chemical company to essentially blackmail them into paying the cancer-stricken child's medical expenses after implying that, without this, the kid's mom wouldn't be able to afford medical care and what would happen without affordable medical coverage? As if the kid, an American citizen in a family well below the poverty line with serious medical expenses, wouldn't qualify for Medicaid. But no, if they had mentioned that, they wouldn't have been able to indict the American medical system.

Those were just the 2 episodes that were so egregious in their political message that I felt that there were no redeeming qualities. But there are any number of other episodes that, while good overall, had leftist (most often anti-business) messages. I hope they give the politics a rest, because I love the twists that Law & Order is known for.



*and I do admire the fact that they took the time to point it out

Review of Children of Men

Science fiction, the best science fiction, takes the world as we now know it and gives it a twist. Then, the author traces out the implications of the twist and gives us a picture of what that world would look like. Whether it's life on a world with a tiny fraction of Earth's gravity, time travel, the aftermath of a killer virus, humans interacting with robots, faster-than-light space travel or a human raised by aliens, the true genius of the best sci-fi stories is the part where it makes the audience ponder this world that is slightly askew from our own...and forces us to think about our own world.

In Children of Men, this is accomplished beautifully by positing a world where a disease attacked the reproductive systems in humans, making the current generation the last of the human race. Set in England, this is a bleak, dystopian future shows a completely disheartened populace. The youngest man on earth, slightly more than 18 years old, has just died, bombings are rampant and many people take government-provided suicide pills ("guaranteed to work").

And then, a young woman finds herself pregnant.

The central question of the movie is whether what this child represents will be enough to bring hope back to the world. But in this world where mercenaries might be heroes, patriots might only be looking out for their own agendas, and the government might be more interested in getting rid of fugees (refugees) than in this miraculous event, it seems doubtful. The characters themselves are split on what this could mean, one saying flat out that even if fertility returned the next day, it was too late to bring the world back to what it once was while another believes that mere word of this situation will change everything instantly.

I won't tell you who, if either of them, was right.

I will tell you that I was worried that I wouldn't like this movie. I went to see it because, well, it was sci-fi and seemed to have an intriguing premise. But, while I found the scenes dealing with immigration to be heavy-handed, I'm not at all sorry that I saw it.

Visions of the Future: "The World" in 2057

The story in "2057: The World" follows two astronauts on the verge of solving the worldwide energy crisis. See, in 50 years the two superpowers (China and the US) send a joint expedition to the space station to work on the solar panel problem. See, solar panels are too inefficient; they only capture a small part of the spectrum. To be truly feasible as an energy source, they need to be at least 50% efficient (right now, in 2007, they're only about 20% efficient). But the scientists don't seem to be getting closer, so the superpowers pulled everyone off the station with the exception of our 2 heroes, one from each nation.

Meanwhile, on Earth, the energy crisis is causing the world to ration the oil supply and China and the US start skirmishing over the remaining fields. While talking about the fighting, the program shows us some of the really neat possibilities of future body armor. It will feel like normal clothing but become bulletproof when a high-velocity object (e.g. a bullet or shrapnel) hits it. Also, micro cameras and screens might make soldiers invisible while GPS, monitoring devices and doctors on the other end will be able to help wounded soldiers. Very cool.

Back to the space station and our astronaut buddies have a visitor. She's a tech support person and she commuted to space by taking an elevator. The elevator cable is made of carbon filaments (incredibly strong, incredibly thin things that have recently been created). By placing the 'bottom' of the elevator on a platform in a part of the Pacific that has relatively mild weather and the 'top' in geosynchronous orbit, the imaginings of Robert Heinlein and other science fiction greats might become real.

After she leaves, the astronauts have a breakthrough and suddenly seem to have created solar panels with 83% efficiency. After a brief explanation of how current experiments with different substances might lead to at least a doubling of current solar panel efficiency, we see the Chinese astronaut get a call from his government stongly encouraging him to steal the discovery and give it to them without letting the Americans see it. When he seems reluctant, they threaten his wife and give him 4 hours to deliver the data.

Lest we think the Chinese are bad guys, the Americans promptly call and give the US astronaut the same suggestion: give it to us and don't let the other guys have it. Although, since they don't threaten anyone's life, their suggestion does not have the same impact and the two astronauts try to work together to save Chinese astronaut's wife. They come up with a plan and demonstrate a new use for an old technology: lasers. In the future, we will harness the power, speed and carrying capacity of lasers to be an amazing method of communication. Our heroes bypass their normal communications that go through one or the other of their governments to directly contact the media with their discovery.

They save the wife and the world. After, there is a ridiculously sappy scene with the two men making comments about the futility of trying to predict 50 years into the future and some silly little predictions of their own.

The End!

Now, my complaints.

First, I know that a discovery a few years ago revealed that "metamaterials" can block out specific wavelength of light and that there is hope that, by combining these metamaterials we could eventually have an invisibility cloak of some kind. When the promo for this show had 'invisible soldiers', I expected something about this. I know it's petty, but I was disappointed.

Now, on to real complaints: Scientists may be brilliant about science, but they are complete morons about economics.

The program correctly pointed out that, at this time, solar panels cannot compete with oil as a major source of energy. They are simply not efficient enough. Now, if we were to increase the efficiency of a given size panel, we could make them more competitive with oil. Other possibility to shift the competitiveness of solar power would be to decrease the costs involved in collection of solar energy or increase the cost of oil. And that is what the program completely missed.

If there really was an energy crisis in 2057, all that would mean (in the absence of government interference) is that the price of oil skyrocketed. If that happened, it would eventually cost more than the solar energy. When that happened, people would switch over in droves, even if solar panels were not yet efficient in an objective sense. It's all a matter of relative costs and benefits.

Now, the most stupid thing about this program is the mention of rationing of oil. Nothing, and I do mean nothing is more harmful to the production of a needed commodity and its alternatives that rationing. You only need to ration when you have an artificially low price for something. If you have that artificially low price, you discourage innovation and exploration because those things are expensive. If there isn't hope of a high return on your costs, why would you spend the money? It also discourages investments in the alternatives to the product in question because those things are kept at a relatively high price as compared to the artifically low one. Rationing, by its very nature, causes a supply crisis in whatever was supposed to be fixed.

I have no doubt that one day we will get the bulk of our energy needs satisfied from something other than oil. Whether it is one of the 'alternatives' currently on the table or something we haven't thought of yet, I don't know. But I know that rationing and other forms of government interference will only delay that day, not help it along.



Oh, and just a personal pet peeve. The US officials in contact with the American President via videophone (talking about the armed conflicts, energy crisis and progress by the astronauts) were standing in a semicircle at small podiums with lights shining directly on each person in an otherwise dimly lit room. It looked futuristic and all, but there is no way you can convince me that people will ever conduct business that way, with nowhere to sit, with bad lighting and nowhere to spread out papers and other business paraphernalia.

Visions of the Future: "The City" in 2057

"2057: The City" had lots of interesting tidbits and one big problem, but nothing that disturbed me on the level that "The Body" did, so I'll run through them quickly.

• Holograms: Scientists have found ways to create 'curtains' of micro-water droplets, so light and fine that a person sticking their hand in it won't get wet and yet substantial enough that they can project a holographic image on it.* Cool. They have also developed computer programs that can instruct the holographic image to 'follow' a person around the room, limited by where the 'curtain' is. Very cool. They believe that, in the future, people might have holographic 'pets' following them around. Um, unlikely. In the first place, it would be difficult, bordering on impossible, to get enough water (or other) particles into midair to project the images on if the source of the particles (a device attached to the person) was constantly moving. In the second place, even if it could work, it couldn't be used the way it was on the show. On the show, a child's holographic dolphin was flying all around his head, jumping in and out of the way of passers-by. While the hologram could not actually block the way of pedestrians, it looks substantial enough to be a problem and would likely be banned as a public nuisance. I do see potential in presentation situations: anything you might want to show on a large screen (e.g. movies, office presentations, slide shows) could be shown without one just by using water droplets as your screen, also it could be very effective in plays and other performance arts.
• Robots: They spent a long time analyzing the particular problems with creating humanoid-type robots. Movement, recognition and decision making have all been extremely problematic because what humans can do is actually quite complex and we have difficulty replicating it. While advances are being made, we are unlikely to have a Data or a C-3P0 in the next 50 years.
• Self-driving cars: Experiments in and contests for systems in cars that would allow the cars to drive without input from humans are creating better and better software. While there is still a ways to go, I would not be surprised if it such cars were on the road by 2057.
• City control of cars: While the coordination efforts would be considerable, the development of cars that would allow a city's computer system to drive it and of a computer system similar to the self-driving system but capable of handling many hundreds of cars and figuring out the best routes for those cars is an entirely feasible possibility.
• City's run by computers: The idea that more and more control of routine functions will be transferred to computers is hardly even a prediction; we are already moving in that direction as fast as we can. However, the idea that a 20-year-old computer virus, accidentally let into the computer system, would wreak the havoc seen in the program is ludicrous. It is ridiculous to think that an entire city's system would be centralized (everyone knows the danger of putting all of your eggs in one basket) and, technobabble aside, computers will not lose the ability to defend against old viruses just because the new ones are different. Otherwise, any hacker would just use old, outdated viruses. I realize this was necessary to inject 'drama' into the program, but seriously.

*When I was in high school, my family went to Disney World where they had a show that utilized a similar projection system, but used more substantial amounts of water.