Motley mix of Econs and Physics

Recently, I have taken to following news from a certain econs blog, Cafe Hayek. Recieving feeds from that blog just today, I found something I believe is relevant to our latest chapter for econs, on International Trade. Here are are 2 posts:

http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2007/08/you-want-balanc.html
http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2007/08/for-whose-benef.html

Following his second post, (i.e. the second link above) it is most odd that Americans complain that they cannot out compete 1.5 billion low paid workers, but yet they themselves also complain they cannot out compete billions of high-tech machinery used as capital during production. Surely if you cannot out compete machines because machines have more skill than you do, than being more skilled than the 1.5 billion low paid workers, you would be able to do much better relative to them. Which goes to show alot of people dont quite think when they complain.

On the physics side, I am most infuriated to see poorly asked physics question, compounded by the fact that this particular question came out in a RGS paper.

Which of the following shows an inaccurate process of energy transfer?
1. Heating a kettle of water on stove - Conduction
2. Heating up the interior of the car by Sun - Convection
3. Cooling a cup of coffee with a metal spoon - Conduction
4. Warming your hands by a fireplace - Convection

The answer is all of the above, except option 3. For option 1, what if the stove is one of those radiator coils? The option should have put gas stove. But maybe I am nitpicking for this option.

Option 2 is a really ambiguous one. Heating up the interior of the car can be argued to take place mainly by radiation. This is because of the sunlight that enters the car, the infra-red rays are trapped by the glass windows when the rest of light escapes from the windows. So, we can approximate this case to a black-body, and safely say that all the infra-red rays trapped inside the car are totally absorbed by the car. But we are forgetting the case of the air inside the car. Surely, air inside the car becomes heated by means of convection. Since by the interior of the car, we mean the interior of the car, then we must include the interior carbody, as well as the air inside the car. An ambiguous case.

Option 4 is another ambiguous one. We all know from experience in BBQ, that the you can warm your hands by the glowing charcoal. Because the glowing wood, is so hot that it is emitting infra-red rays. Thats why its called red-hot. The same thing occurs at the fireplace. However, the effect is made ambiguous because, the air surrounding the fireplace is hot. And the air in the room with the fireplace, is heated via convection. You can tell this effect, if you walk from one cool room to another room with hot air in it. So, you can just as well warm your hands/whole body, by just being surrounded by hot air. Another ambiguous case here.

Bad physics. Totally asking for the wrong concepts. Unbeknowst to the examiners, you can teach the wrong things by asking the wrong questions.