Sunday, April 30, 2006
May's Most Random Wikipedia Page Is....
This month we honor RTÉ One On-Air Identity, a page that carefully catalogs the various logos of an Irish television station. For other "ident" chronicles, see here for ABC, here for NBC, here for BBC and here for PBS.
Saturday, April 29, 2006
Into the Mind of a Statist
Taking a break from studying, I decided to watch a Star Trek (Voyager) episode entitled Future's End. The crew are taken back in time due to an accident with a vessel (the Aeon) from the 29th century (fyi, this series of Star Trek takes place in the 24th century). The (far) future vessel is also flung back in time. Both ships end up on earth, which the 29th century vessel crash landing the 60s and the 24th century vessel, Voyager, appearing in the 90s.
Star Trek has a general anti-libertarian bias but this two parter easily stands in the top ten. A local discovered the Aeon which he used to create massive advancements in the computer industry, building an extensive corporate empire. The crew realizes that the digital revolution that swept the 20th century was never supposed to have happened.
We find the CEO getting ready to send the Aeon to travel back into the future so he can get more technology to develop in (our) present. When told he doesn't understand the ship enough to safely travel and if he tries, the entire solar system in the 29th century will be destroyed, he proceeds anyway. "Captain, The future you're talking about, that's 900 years from now. I can't be concerned about that right now. I have a company to run."
While attempting to capture the CEO, two Voyager crew members crash land in Arizona where they are taken by redneck locals. They are clearly libertarian, believing the pair are from "the Beast" (the Federal government). The unnamed leader turns to them at one point and says "The are two forces at work in the world. The drive toward collectivity and the drive toward individuality. You are the former and I am the latter." They are painted as racist, arrogant, paranoid, violent and stupid.
From this episode we can peer into the mind of a statist with chilling clarity. They find libertarians crude and violent at best, dangerous and twisted at worst. So wanting to demonstrate the virtues of solidarity over capitalism, the writers transformed one of the greatest free market victories in recent history (the computer revolution) into cheap thugery.
People tend to clump with others like them; it's only natural. But with that internal association comes the danger of trivalizing the other side or misrepresenting what they complain about. There's a tendency to revel in what they dispise as we (libertarians in particular) remember only how our fellows perceive the display and forget how others will misunderstand it. Sometimes this tactic holds important shock value (such as when I call greed potentially ethical) but often it is counterproductive. One of the major neglected areas of libertarianism is remembering what the counter-argument is so one can better understand and relate to others. This is why I find this Voyager episode so painfully valuable.
Star Trek has a general anti-libertarian bias but this two parter easily stands in the top ten. A local discovered the Aeon which he used to create massive advancements in the computer industry, building an extensive corporate empire. The crew realizes that the digital revolution that swept the 20th century was never supposed to have happened.
We find the CEO getting ready to send the Aeon to travel back into the future so he can get more technology to develop in (our) present. When told he doesn't understand the ship enough to safely travel and if he tries, the entire solar system in the 29th century will be destroyed, he proceeds anyway. "Captain, The future you're talking about, that's 900 years from now. I can't be concerned about that right now. I have a company to run."
While attempting to capture the CEO, two Voyager crew members crash land in Arizona where they are taken by redneck locals. They are clearly libertarian, believing the pair are from "the Beast" (the Federal government). The unnamed leader turns to them at one point and says "The are two forces at work in the world. The drive toward collectivity and the drive toward individuality. You are the former and I am the latter." They are painted as racist, arrogant, paranoid, violent and stupid.
From this episode we can peer into the mind of a statist with chilling clarity. They find libertarians crude and violent at best, dangerous and twisted at worst. So wanting to demonstrate the virtues of solidarity over capitalism, the writers transformed one of the greatest free market victories in recent history (the computer revolution) into cheap thugery.
People tend to clump with others like them; it's only natural. But with that internal association comes the danger of trivalizing the other side or misrepresenting what they complain about. There's a tendency to revel in what they dispise as we (libertarians in particular) remember only how our fellows perceive the display and forget how others will misunderstand it. Sometimes this tactic holds important shock value (such as when I call greed potentially ethical) but often it is counterproductive. One of the major neglected areas of libertarianism is remembering what the counter-argument is so one can better understand and relate to others. This is why I find this Voyager episode so painfully valuable.
Friday, April 28, 2006
Noise Is Golden
I hate loudness. Few things are as intrusive as someone pumping up their stereo to some ungodly level or the sound of screaming kids. But I like freedom, more. If someone wants to run around and do those things in their free time, go for it. Just stay the hell away from me.
What's "loud" is of course a relative term. Just like chemicals, it's the dose that makes the poison. And because it's expensive to establish property rights over the air, we enter into a lot of commons problems. This is why it's not so confusing that Turkey bundled their new environmental laws with banning "noise pollution" with a $150 to $4,500 fine if you break the law.
A lot of these laws seem to stem from reasonable logic. A lot of people like silence. A lot of people like clean water. We get those things from a source no one owns, so a law is made to force everyone to comply. No free riding.
Yet this reasoning carries with it an assumption that we live in a world of black and white, right and wrong. In the real world, what's noise pollution to you is natural to me is too quiet for my Great Aunt Esther. Setting absolute standards for all of society, which is needed for laws due to enforcement reasons, ignores the fact that people are different.
A better solution would be to throw out the law and privatize public places. Those that like it quiet can congregate in Park A, where a local rules set the acceptable decibles very low. Noisy people can go to Park B, where it's fine to be louder. Just as some restaurants have a dress code, some places can have a noise code.
Admittedly there's potentially still spillover, especially if Park A is next door to Park B. But banning "noise pollution" all together suggests those in B are worth less than those in A. Laws tell everyone how to live. At least without the law there's the opportunity to discover a way for both parties to be happy. But I guess some people just can't stand knowing others are having a good time.
What's "loud" is of course a relative term. Just like chemicals, it's the dose that makes the poison. And because it's expensive to establish property rights over the air, we enter into a lot of commons problems. This is why it's not so confusing that Turkey bundled their new environmental laws with banning "noise pollution" with a $150 to $4,500 fine if you break the law.
A lot of these laws seem to stem from reasonable logic. A lot of people like silence. A lot of people like clean water. We get those things from a source no one owns, so a law is made to force everyone to comply. No free riding.
Yet this reasoning carries with it an assumption that we live in a world of black and white, right and wrong. In the real world, what's noise pollution to you is natural to me is too quiet for my Great Aunt Esther. Setting absolute standards for all of society, which is needed for laws due to enforcement reasons, ignores the fact that people are different.
A better solution would be to throw out the law and privatize public places. Those that like it quiet can congregate in Park A, where a local rules set the acceptable decibles very low. Noisy people can go to Park B, where it's fine to be louder. Just as some restaurants have a dress code, some places can have a noise code.
Admittedly there's potentially still spillover, especially if Park A is next door to Park B. But banning "noise pollution" all together suggests those in B are worth less than those in A. Laws tell everyone how to live. At least without the law there's the opportunity to discover a way for both parties to be happy. But I guess some people just can't stand knowing others are having a good time.
Instant Lion
Paradoxically, South African Environmental Affairs and Tourism Minister Marthinus van Schalkwyk will soon be presenting legislation that harms not only the tourism industry, but also the rich animal diversity the country offers.
According to Business Day, the regulation will probably ban "canned hunting," which is just a strange way of saying "breeding animals so people can shoot them later." Sounds like canned hunting is great for the environment. There are clear private property rights established over the animals, prohibiting the tragedy of the commons. Just like sheep, cattle and pigs are unlikely to go extinct, allowing people to raise lions and elephants ensure they never will, either.
The "problem" with the old system was it lacked coherenty. Filled with loopholes and difficult to enforce, they might as well not exist. But like a madman bent on jumping out of a window, the government is now reworking the laws to create "national uniformity." Sameness. Conformity. Solidarity.
It's just tragic.
According to Business Day, the regulation will probably ban "canned hunting," which is just a strange way of saying "breeding animals so people can shoot them later." Sounds like canned hunting is great for the environment. There are clear private property rights established over the animals, prohibiting the tragedy of the commons. Just like sheep, cattle and pigs are unlikely to go extinct, allowing people to raise lions and elephants ensure they never will, either.
The "problem" with the old system was it lacked coherenty. Filled with loopholes and difficult to enforce, they might as well not exist. But like a madman bent on jumping out of a window, the government is now reworking the laws to create "national uniformity." Sameness. Conformity. Solidarity.
It's just tragic.
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Our Extra States
Brian Hollar recently referenced Alex Tabarrok and Arnold Kling concerning America's number of states. From Tabarrok,
Having fewer people per state can be quite nice: easier for governments to understand the needs of the people, creates more accountablity, creates more competition between states. Of course, it could also be worse; the local knowledge can be used to better control the locals and people are more likely to be compliant.
But that's really another post. Instead I'd like to point out to Brian (and Alex Tabarrok and Arnold Kling) that in a lot of ways, we have more than 50 states. No, I'm not talking about Puerto Rico. I'm talking about cities. NYC, Chicago, Houston, LA, Boston, and so on create a sort of competition between living in the metro area and living outside the city limits.
This may or may not be a good thing. At the same time, some of the most invasive rules come not from DC or your state capital but from the city you reside in. But I'm not sure adding states will change much unless you split parts of a city into federalized units with equal and independent power. Good luck with that.
...in 1789 the United States had 13 states and four million people. If the number of states had grown as fast as the number of people or if w in the United States had about the same amount of federalism as do the contemporary Swiss we would today have about 1000 states.
Having fewer people per state can be quite nice: easier for governments to understand the needs of the people, creates more accountablity, creates more competition between states. Of course, it could also be worse; the local knowledge can be used to better control the locals and people are more likely to be compliant.
But that's really another post. Instead I'd like to point out to Brian (and Alex Tabarrok and Arnold Kling) that in a lot of ways, we have more than 50 states. No, I'm not talking about Puerto Rico. I'm talking about cities. NYC, Chicago, Houston, LA, Boston, and so on create a sort of competition between living in the metro area and living outside the city limits.
This may or may not be a good thing. At the same time, some of the most invasive rules come not from DC or your state capital but from the city you reside in. But I'm not sure adding states will change much unless you split parts of a city into federalized units with equal and independent power. Good luck with that.
Monday, April 24, 2006
War On Drugs Claims More Victims
A plane carrying an anti-narcotics team overran the airstrip and crashed into several buildings earlier today. Among the dead was a three-year-old Afghan girl; a casualty of war.
The Helmand province, where the crash took place, is a hot bed of opium growing, supplying an astonishing 20% of the world's supply. The area is also claimed by Taliban insurgents who no doubt use the drug moeny to fund rather nasty practices, a fact the DEA surely uses to justify their presence in the area.
I have a better way of tearing apart this source of income for the Taliban: make drugs legal. Suppliers in more suitable countries (closer to the demand, better infrastructure) who don't fund terrorism will pop up and at the least the Taliban will have to lower its prices (if that arm of their organization don't disappear altogether). It's worth noting drug lords want drugs to be illegal, just as the mafia loved prohibition: less competition and more profit. That alone is a good sign to end the war on drugs.
And a little girl just might be alive right now, too.
The Helmand province, where the crash took place, is a hot bed of opium growing, supplying an astonishing 20% of the world's supply. The area is also claimed by Taliban insurgents who no doubt use the drug moeny to fund rather nasty practices, a fact the DEA surely uses to justify their presence in the area.
I have a better way of tearing apart this source of income for the Taliban: make drugs legal. Suppliers in more suitable countries (closer to the demand, better infrastructure) who don't fund terrorism will pop up and at the least the Taliban will have to lower its prices (if that arm of their organization don't disappear altogether). It's worth noting drug lords want drugs to be illegal, just as the mafia loved prohibition: less competition and more profit. That alone is a good sign to end the war on drugs.
And a little girl just might be alive right now, too.
Friday, April 21, 2006
Dancing in the Rain
Earlier this week, Lou Dobbs commented on President Hu's visit to the US. In a move that resonated in the minds of economists and non-economists alike, Hu paid a visit to Bill Gates before President Bush.
Like most non-economists Mr. Dobbs groaned at the news. Calling China a "Red Storm Rising," he blamed the US government for allowing manufacturing jobs to go abroad and creating a "...dependency on China for our clothing, computers, consumer electronics and a host of other products..."
Mr. Dobbs is incorrect. The US is not dependent on China for these products no more than I am dependent on McDonald's for lunch. Firms choose to have their goods made there because it's cheapest and if China disappeared, we would still have them; they would just cost more.
Dependency implies the US economy is vunerable which is why this word is so completely inappropriate for describing outsourcing. Opportunities like moving factories to China makes the US economy more resilient, not less. Options can never make a person worse off. "Dependency" would require laws that force firms to produce in the country and no where else. Thankfully, the government isn't demanding people to put all their eggs in one basket.
Storms are violent but helpful things. They nourish the worthy and wash out the decripted so new life can grow and maybe florish. This process of creative destruction is one Mr. Dobbs finds so unfair, if he lived a hundred years ago he would certainly call for trade barriers so people wouldn't leave their farms to build the manufacturing sector he is now so desperate to protect.
Like most non-economists Mr. Dobbs groaned at the news. Calling China a "Red Storm Rising," he blamed the US government for allowing manufacturing jobs to go abroad and creating a "...dependency on China for our clothing, computers, consumer electronics and a host of other products..."
Mr. Dobbs is incorrect. The US is not dependent on China for these products no more than I am dependent on McDonald's for lunch. Firms choose to have their goods made there because it's cheapest and if China disappeared, we would still have them; they would just cost more.
Dependency implies the US economy is vunerable which is why this word is so completely inappropriate for describing outsourcing. Opportunities like moving factories to China makes the US economy more resilient, not less. Options can never make a person worse off. "Dependency" would require laws that force firms to produce in the country and no where else. Thankfully, the government isn't demanding people to put all their eggs in one basket.
Storms are violent but helpful things. They nourish the worthy and wash out the decripted so new life can grow and maybe florish. This process of creative destruction is one Mr. Dobbs finds so unfair, if he lived a hundred years ago he would certainly call for trade barriers so people wouldn't leave their farms to build the manufacturing sector he is now so desperate to protect.
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
The Really Thick Silver Lining
As French car manufacturer Peugeot-Citreon shut down a British plant, cutting 2,500 jobs, the BBC thought it would be informative if they relayed the thoughts of one laid-off worker, Paul Taylor.
Mr. Taylor is 46 and has worked for the plant for seven years. No doubt his whole life is turned upside down, a reality made worse knowing his once-co-workers are in the same position. He's concerned: "Now we have got 2,500 people looking at the same job....It is easier for them to close this plant than a plant in France. They can get away with it here....It is hard to see a future in this industry - manufacturing is dying." He ends his thoughts with "It would be nice to hear something positive."
Ok.
-Because the operations are moving to Eastern Europe, those there will benefit from the new job openings. Families in Eastern Europe grow richer.
-Because it's cheaper to operate there, the company will save money, allowing them to spend it on other things and by definition employ yet more people.
-Either that, or cars will be cheaper, but probably a mixture of the two will happen.
-Society will benefit from the additional services these newly employed people provide.
-2,500 are not looking for "the same job." I doubt you can build a car with over two thousand people who only know how to install windshields. The compeition isn't as bad as he thinks.
-There are now 2,500 smart people hungry to fill new gaps in the economy, contributing something valuable to society along the way. Some of them might retire but I'm confident the rest will find jobs.
-The ease of closing a plant in England as opposed to France is a testiment to progress. Adaptability in a world of constant change ensures society will continue to grow richer, even in unpredictable weather. Capitalism rarely stagnants.
-Manufacture IS dying in most developed countries, just as farming was mostly phased out a hundred years ago. Not a bad deal as most would prefer an air conditioned office to a factory floor to a dirty patch of land as a work environment.
-As long as the UK economy remains adaptable, a new sector(s) will rise up. Adaptability means opportunity.
-In all, there is a small net gain for global society in the short run and a much larger gain in the long run once new jobs are found. That might not matter much to you but your children (and their children) will thank you.
If you don't believe me, ask what you think would happen if UK textile manufacturers couldn't fire expensive workers during the twentieth century. Even if you weren't working a loom, your clothes would cost a lot more.
Mr. Taylor is 46 and has worked for the plant for seven years. No doubt his whole life is turned upside down, a reality made worse knowing his once-co-workers are in the same position. He's concerned: "Now we have got 2,500 people looking at the same job....It is easier for them to close this plant than a plant in France. They can get away with it here....It is hard to see a future in this industry - manufacturing is dying." He ends his thoughts with "It would be nice to hear something positive."
Ok.
-Because the operations are moving to Eastern Europe, those there will benefit from the new job openings. Families in Eastern Europe grow richer.
-Because it's cheaper to operate there, the company will save money, allowing them to spend it on other things and by definition employ yet more people.
-Either that, or cars will be cheaper, but probably a mixture of the two will happen.
-Society will benefit from the additional services these newly employed people provide.
-2,500 are not looking for "the same job." I doubt you can build a car with over two thousand people who only know how to install windshields. The compeition isn't as bad as he thinks.
-There are now 2,500 smart people hungry to fill new gaps in the economy, contributing something valuable to society along the way. Some of them might retire but I'm confident the rest will find jobs.
-The ease of closing a plant in England as opposed to France is a testiment to progress. Adaptability in a world of constant change ensures society will continue to grow richer, even in unpredictable weather. Capitalism rarely stagnants.
-Manufacture IS dying in most developed countries, just as farming was mostly phased out a hundred years ago. Not a bad deal as most would prefer an air conditioned office to a factory floor to a dirty patch of land as a work environment.
-As long as the UK economy remains adaptable, a new sector(s) will rise up. Adaptability means opportunity.
-In all, there is a small net gain for global society in the short run and a much larger gain in the long run once new jobs are found. That might not matter much to you but your children (and their children) will thank you.
If you don't believe me, ask what you think would happen if UK textile manufacturers couldn't fire expensive workers during the twentieth century. Even if you weren't working a loom, your clothes would cost a lot more.
Sunday, April 16, 2006
Greed's Trilemma
Last week I ranted that greed has a bad rap and it some forms (especially in capitialist societies) it is actually quite ethical. In part this argument spawned from a post I did last year about how greed's definition is arbitary and effectively useless in today's society.
Last week's greed rant attracted a bit of response, notably from Brian, engendering a lengthy debate between the two of us (and some others). The biggest criticism I've faced is that I'm turning greed into the same as self-interest in order to make it a good thing. My counter is, again, that greed's definition is arbitary and unless I want to throw aside the wisdom of crowds, that's the only way. I have yet to hear a more satisfying definition.
Thus I turn to you, the reader. In effect, my argument is that defining greed faces a trilemma. There are three elements it should have but we can only pick two. Here are the choices:
1. Congruent with popular use.
2. Contains no arbitrary words.
3. Always undesirable.
We can ignore #1 and call greed "demanding beyond what's earned," which means forcibly taking what you have no right to take, though this would not fit when people refer to "corporate greed," etc. (I admit, this is still a little arbitrary but it's good enough to satisfy 2, though if someone comes up with something better I'll listen.)
We can ignore #2 and refer to the dictionary, knowing that the definition is insufficent because "excessive" is a matter of taste and perspective.
Or we can ignore #3 and admit that greed can be a good thing. I've used definitions of "focused self-interest," a burning desire to want more of X, and "the desire to improve our own welfare regardless of the impact it has on others." (The latter being suggested by Brian, though I showed how such a definition doesn't have to be bad....see the link to Brian's post.)
The question for the reader is: can you break the trilemma?
Last week's greed rant attracted a bit of response, notably from Brian, engendering a lengthy debate between the two of us (and some others). The biggest criticism I've faced is that I'm turning greed into the same as self-interest in order to make it a good thing. My counter is, again, that greed's definition is arbitary and unless I want to throw aside the wisdom of crowds, that's the only way. I have yet to hear a more satisfying definition.
Thus I turn to you, the reader. In effect, my argument is that defining greed faces a trilemma. There are three elements it should have but we can only pick two. Here are the choices:
1. Congruent with popular use.
2. Contains no arbitrary words.
3. Always undesirable.
We can ignore #1 and call greed "demanding beyond what's earned," which means forcibly taking what you have no right to take, though this would not fit when people refer to "corporate greed," etc. (I admit, this is still a little arbitrary but it's good enough to satisfy 2, though if someone comes up with something better I'll listen.)
We can ignore #2 and refer to the dictionary, knowing that the definition is insufficent because "excessive" is a matter of taste and perspective.
Or we can ignore #3 and admit that greed can be a good thing. I've used definitions of "focused self-interest," a burning desire to want more of X, and "the desire to improve our own welfare regardless of the impact it has on others." (The latter being suggested by Brian, though I showed how such a definition doesn't have to be bad....see the link to Brian's post.)
The question for the reader is: can you break the trilemma?
Friday, April 14, 2006
Free Market Gives Us More Free Stuff
Google now offers Google Calander, which is supposed to be quite good (and given Google's reputation, I bet it is). I don't really have a lot of meetings and events to keep track of, but I'm going to use it anyway, just to see.
Some people don't like it when firms give away their product (like Microsoft's Internet Explorer). These are the same people who run up the free sample ladies in grocery stores and kick them in the shins.
Some people don't like it when firms give away their product (like Microsoft's Internet Explorer). These are the same people who run up the free sample ladies in grocery stores and kick them in the shins.
Sunday, April 09, 2006
The Virtues of Capitalism
Deirdre McCloskey kicked off the first annual James Buchannan seminar this past Friday. I've only known McCloskey through the book she wrote on the rhetoric of economics (entitled The Rhetoric of Economics) and naturally assumed this was to be her topic on Friday. It is, after all, one of her most famous and important areas of research.
I was completely wrong: McCloskey instead tackled the virtues of economics and how economists focus too much on "prudence." Prudence is a strange virtue in that it descibes a sort of patience and sound judgement, in other words things that are smart to have in them of themselves. The other virtues are good--if that's the right word--because they help others. Prudence, in its most basic form, helps the actor only.
Economists talk about prudence a lot and we have different names for it. Self interest. Risk-aversion. Rational expectations. The other thing we talk a lot about is greed, much to McCloskey's dismay.
She feels greed is not a dimension of capitialism and capitalism requires all the virtues. Vices have no place in genuine free market activity. I take issue with this. Not only does greed play a fundamental (and moral) role, the flavor of greed economists talk about captures the very virtues McCloskey thinks we are ignoring.
Greed can be quite holy. Most generally it is about desiring a better life (usually for yourself, but it can also be for others). This is Hope. It also must, by definition, include the idea that people believe money (or whatever tickles their fancy) is a means to the end that is the better life. This, for a lack of a better word, is Faith. (We can expand the means framework beyond "money" to explain suicide bombers and so forth, again finding they have faith that their strategy will grant them what they hope for.)
We economists talk about the ethics of greed, we do not say greed is always good. We agree that taking others' stuff by force is not a moral manifestation of the so-call vice. Greed must be the motivation for trade (not theft) for it to be ethical. This is Justice. Greed also generates Courage, for it is what motivates people to take chances and stand up for what they believe in, and Temperance, for those that are too "couragous" don't achieve their desires. Love is perhaps the most closely connected to Greed itself: Love for money, Love for fame, Love for others.
It's just like Quark (from Star Trek: Deep Space Nine) said. "Greed is the purest, most noble of emotions."
I was completely wrong: McCloskey instead tackled the virtues of economics and how economists focus too much on "prudence." Prudence is a strange virtue in that it descibes a sort of patience and sound judgement, in other words things that are smart to have in them of themselves. The other virtues are good--if that's the right word--because they help others. Prudence, in its most basic form, helps the actor only.
Economists talk about prudence a lot and we have different names for it. Self interest. Risk-aversion. Rational expectations. The other thing we talk a lot about is greed, much to McCloskey's dismay.
She feels greed is not a dimension of capitialism and capitalism requires all the virtues. Vices have no place in genuine free market activity. I take issue with this. Not only does greed play a fundamental (and moral) role, the flavor of greed economists talk about captures the very virtues McCloskey thinks we are ignoring.
Greed can be quite holy. Most generally it is about desiring a better life (usually for yourself, but it can also be for others). This is Hope. It also must, by definition, include the idea that people believe money (or whatever tickles their fancy) is a means to the end that is the better life. This, for a lack of a better word, is Faith. (We can expand the means framework beyond "money" to explain suicide bombers and so forth, again finding they have faith that their strategy will grant them what they hope for.)
We economists talk about the ethics of greed, we do not say greed is always good. We agree that taking others' stuff by force is not a moral manifestation of the so-call vice. Greed must be the motivation for trade (not theft) for it to be ethical. This is Justice. Greed also generates Courage, for it is what motivates people to take chances and stand up for what they believe in, and Temperance, for those that are too "couragous" don't achieve their desires. Love is perhaps the most closely connected to Greed itself: Love for money, Love for fame, Love for others.
It's just like Quark (from Star Trek: Deep Space Nine) said. "Greed is the purest, most noble of emotions."
Sunday, April 02, 2006
April's Most Random Wikipedia Page Is...
On Mike's request, I decided to repeat last month's theme post and offer the most random Wikipedia page for April: TLA. Be sure to check out this subsection of the article.
A close runner up was The Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands, which is quite an extensive article for a country that doesn't exist.
A close runner up was The Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands, which is quite an extensive article for a country that doesn't exist.
Friday, March 31, 2006
When Women Copy Governments
During our class break in macroeconomics on Wednesday, I faced a classic economic problem: Should I buy Starbursts, knowing I'd be paying for flavors I didn't like, or go hungry but retain 85 cents? Standing with me in front of the vending machine, Michael Thomas chirped up and offered to shoulder the burden. He paid me 35 cents in exchange for whatever flavors I didn't want.
This was quite gutsy on his part, for I could have easily discovered all the flavors looked appealing. Luckily for him, about half--eight total--weren't for me, so I passed them on. We were both satisfied with our decisions.
Walking back into class Michael's girlfriend noticed our gains. "Oh candy!" she said. Michael reflexively passed her a Starburst and she happily consumed it. I stopped in my tracks as Michael crossed the room to sit down.
She and I discussed the events that just happened, particularly the exchange between her and her boyfriend. She didn't see anything at all wrong with it. About halfway through this conversation, she promptly stood up and declared she wanted more candy. Seconds later she returned with two Starbursts. She gave one to Brian, who was sitting next to her and also not seeing the connection between what transpired and taxes.
If you don't see it either, then considered what Michael told me after I asked him why he gave up his hard-earned candy: "My life is easier if she's happy." Ah, there's the rub. Most women reading this might think he's talking about nice things she does for him, but most men know he referring to all the ways she can make his life harder, but holds back if she's happy.
Taxes are the same way. I could choose not to pay them, but I will find government will make my life harder as a response. When I pay them I'll find my money distributed to others, just like the Starburst that went to Brian. And when I comply with the enforced rules, I give the rule-makers every reason to tighten their grip; on a whim, her "tax rate" increased from 12.5% to 37.5%!
Keen readers will quickly note that unlike governments, you can opt out of a relationship. Yet many people can change citizenship and even more can move within a country, escaping local injustices. Economists usually don't focus on that option because it's unreasonable to require people to uproot their entire lives just to escape a transfer payment. (Note that when those costly demands escape the costs of moving, people try to, despite the risks. The curreny debate over immigration is an obvious example, as are the countless who brave the Caribbean to leave Cuba.) Similarly, as relationships move forward, it becomes more costly to end them, so the tolerable level of extortion increases. Marriages are thus potentially the most oppressive of relationships, a theory justified by countless testimonies of married folk.
The couple have been seeing each other for some time now (I want to say six months, but I don't know the exact number). It would be costy to end it. She knows this so she exploits it with some annoying, but not tremendously burdensome, punishment. While early in the relationship, Michael would have handed her candy to demonstrate he's a good guy (and thus get something out of it), he now does it out of fear of reprisal. Michael is living under tryanny.
I suppose it's reasoning like this which explains why my longest relationship was three months.
This was quite gutsy on his part, for I could have easily discovered all the flavors looked appealing. Luckily for him, about half--eight total--weren't for me, so I passed them on. We were both satisfied with our decisions.
Walking back into class Michael's girlfriend noticed our gains. "Oh candy!" she said. Michael reflexively passed her a Starburst and she happily consumed it. I stopped in my tracks as Michael crossed the room to sit down.
She and I discussed the events that just happened, particularly the exchange between her and her boyfriend. She didn't see anything at all wrong with it. About halfway through this conversation, she promptly stood up and declared she wanted more candy. Seconds later she returned with two Starbursts. She gave one to Brian, who was sitting next to her and also not seeing the connection between what transpired and taxes.
If you don't see it either, then considered what Michael told me after I asked him why he gave up his hard-earned candy: "My life is easier if she's happy." Ah, there's the rub. Most women reading this might think he's talking about nice things she does for him, but most men know he referring to all the ways she can make his life harder, but holds back if she's happy.
Taxes are the same way. I could choose not to pay them, but I will find government will make my life harder as a response. When I pay them I'll find my money distributed to others, just like the Starburst that went to Brian. And when I comply with the enforced rules, I give the rule-makers every reason to tighten their grip; on a whim, her "tax rate" increased from 12.5% to 37.5%!
Keen readers will quickly note that unlike governments, you can opt out of a relationship. Yet many people can change citizenship and even more can move within a country, escaping local injustices. Economists usually don't focus on that option because it's unreasonable to require people to uproot their entire lives just to escape a transfer payment. (Note that when those costly demands escape the costs of moving, people try to, despite the risks. The curreny debate over immigration is an obvious example, as are the countless who brave the Caribbean to leave Cuba.) Similarly, as relationships move forward, it becomes more costly to end them, so the tolerable level of extortion increases. Marriages are thus potentially the most oppressive of relationships, a theory justified by countless testimonies of married folk.
The couple have been seeing each other for some time now (I want to say six months, but I don't know the exact number). It would be costy to end it. She knows this so she exploits it with some annoying, but not tremendously burdensome, punishment. While early in the relationship, Michael would have handed her candy to demonstrate he's a good guy (and thus get something out of it), he now does it out of fear of reprisal. Michael is living under tryanny.
I suppose it's reasoning like this which explains why my longest relationship was three months.
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Dare To Be Different
Mike just sent me a link to this article on Slate. Nice to see Mason's victories have a nice tie in to our economics department. Looks like they are not so disjointed as I originally thought.
Saturday, March 25, 2006
V For Values
Abdul Rahman is currently on trial in Afghanistan for converting to Christianity. The death penalty is a virtual certainty and the people, we are told, are calling for his head.
Paradoxically, Said Mirhossain Nasri (top cleric at Hossainia Mosque) defended execution over exiling. "If he is allowed to live in the West, then others will claim to be Christian so they can too." Here's a crazy idea: maybe the reason people want to leave the country is because they could die for things like converting from Islam.
V For Vendetta references a similar time. It opens with the Gunpowder Plot of 1605, when Guy Fawkes tried to blow up Parliment in defiance of the king's criminalization of Catholicism.
A less obvious parallel is the movie's commentary on people in charge. Just as the new Afghan government is made up of those who were terrorized by the Taliban, a Big Brother-type character in this future dystopia is played by John Hurt, who portrayed protagonist Winston in a movie adaptation of 1984.
Laws beget laws. Those once under the thumb of tyranny struggle to "liberate the people" and impose a new ideal onto everyone else. They quickly forget that their exiled masters never thought themselves as tyrants nor do they recognized how quickly they become the very thing they fought against.
Paradoxically, Said Mirhossain Nasri (top cleric at Hossainia Mosque) defended execution over exiling. "If he is allowed to live in the West, then others will claim to be Christian so they can too." Here's a crazy idea: maybe the reason people want to leave the country is because they could die for things like converting from Islam.
V For Vendetta references a similar time. It opens with the Gunpowder Plot of 1605, when Guy Fawkes tried to blow up Parliment in defiance of the king's criminalization of Catholicism.
A less obvious parallel is the movie's commentary on people in charge. Just as the new Afghan government is made up of those who were terrorized by the Taliban, a Big Brother-type character in this future dystopia is played by John Hurt, who portrayed protagonist Winston in a movie adaptation of 1984.
Laws beget laws. Those once under the thumb of tyranny struggle to "liberate the people" and impose a new ideal onto everyone else. They quickly forget that their exiled masters never thought themselves as tyrants nor do they recognized how quickly they become the very thing they fought against.
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
Patriot Games
I know very little about basketball and you'd have to pay me to be excited about us being the "sweet sixteen." In fact, I can't remember another time when my interest level was so little compared to everyone around me. Ok, I care a little that Mason was on the cover Sports Illustrated and more people know who we are now, but I have zero interest in the simple fact of Mason's standing.
Yet I am surrounded by those that do care and they care an awful lot. So much so, that they are externalizing the costs of them caring, of which I am in part bearing.
-A housemate of mine keeps talking about the upcoming game and wants to talk about it with me.
-Yesterday, my coworkers had a hard time talking about little else, of which I had to hear and exhibited an opportunity cost of conversation.
-Outside the office, the past two games are playing on a really large screen, which I, again, have to hear.
-The campus is now blanketed with posters about the team's standing and I don't care.
There have also been some annoying demand curve shifts.
-When Jeremy and I went to lift yesterday, the weight room was abnormally crowded, making it more costly for me to do the workout I want. (We attributed the sudden rise in gym attendence to "sports fever.")
-It was harder for me to find a good parking spot at the field house (where the weight room is located) because about 30 people were there, camping in line for tickets.
-While trying to find a spot, I had to navigate around a TV van parked in the road, as well as some campers playing football.
-There's a big line for "Sweet 16" T-shirts, spilling out of the bookstore and into the main area of the Johnson Center, making it more crowded.
And then there's one that's a bit of both.
-The topic is crowding out virtually all normal radio conversation; I would almost certainly enjoy the opportunity cost more.
I really hope we loose on Friday.
Yet I am surrounded by those that do care and they care an awful lot. So much so, that they are externalizing the costs of them caring, of which I am in part bearing.
-A housemate of mine keeps talking about the upcoming game and wants to talk about it with me.
-Yesterday, my coworkers had a hard time talking about little else, of which I had to hear and exhibited an opportunity cost of conversation.
-Outside the office, the past two games are playing on a really large screen, which I, again, have to hear.
-The campus is now blanketed with posters about the team's standing and I don't care.
There have also been some annoying demand curve shifts.
-When Jeremy and I went to lift yesterday, the weight room was abnormally crowded, making it more costly for me to do the workout I want. (We attributed the sudden rise in gym attendence to "sports fever.")
-It was harder for me to find a good parking spot at the field house (where the weight room is located) because about 30 people were there, camping in line for tickets.
-While trying to find a spot, I had to navigate around a TV van parked in the road, as well as some campers playing football.
-There's a big line for "Sweet 16" T-shirts, spilling out of the bookstore and into the main area of the Johnson Center, making it more crowded.
And then there's one that's a bit of both.
-The topic is crowding out virtually all normal radio conversation; I would almost certainly enjoy the opportunity cost more.
I really hope we loose on Friday.
Friday, March 17, 2006
See David Loot
I would just like to extend my thank yous to all the taxpayers out there. I spent part of this break exploring some of the museums and monuments the DC area has to offer, provided free of charge to anyone who enters.
This is a classic example of transfer payments from most of the US to museum-and-monument-attending residents (and their visiting counterparts). Oh sure you could say anyone gets in free (even foreigners who don't pay US taxes) so it's fair, but that's like defending a thief who steals money, hides it halfway across the country and e-mails the location of the goods to the original owner.
In other words it's still wrong, but I went anyway.
This is a classic example of transfer payments from most of the US to museum-and-monument-attending residents (and their visiting counterparts). Oh sure you could say anyone gets in free (even foreigners who don't pay US taxes) so it's fair, but that's like defending a thief who steals money, hides it halfway across the country and e-mails the location of the goods to the original owner.
In other words it's still wrong, but I went anyway.
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Slumlord of the Rings
Last night I added another wikipedia article, slumlord. I was amazed it wasn't already there. And I have to pat myself on the back: I did a pretty good job keeping POV on this topic.
I have no problems with slumlords; they provide a valuable service. Slumlords keep rent prices low by not spending the money to fix a property. Those that have the least amount to spend on housing (the poor and students) have a place to live thanks, in part, to slumlords.
Ironically, the people who tend to hate slumlords tend to dislike gentrification. The former makes it easier for the poor to afford housing and the latter makes it harder. Not that I have anything against gentrification, either (one man's trash is another man's fabulous townhouse). In fact, they need each other. If a neighborhood gentrifies, the poor that live there need to move. If every other place is forced to be neat and clean, they have no where to live. Slumlords sell them a roof over their heads they can afford.
I have no problems with slumlords; they provide a valuable service. Slumlords keep rent prices low by not spending the money to fix a property. Those that have the least amount to spend on housing (the poor and students) have a place to live thanks, in part, to slumlords.
Ironically, the people who tend to hate slumlords tend to dislike gentrification. The former makes it easier for the poor to afford housing and the latter makes it harder. Not that I have anything against gentrification, either (one man's trash is another man's fabulous townhouse). In fact, they need each other. If a neighborhood gentrifies, the poor that live there need to move. If every other place is forced to be neat and clean, they have no where to live. Slumlords sell them a roof over their heads they can afford.
Friday, March 10, 2006
PETA's Thought Police
The office I work in gets regular copies of The Chronicle of Higher Education, a weekly newspaper documenting recent news in academia. One article this week caught my eye: Undercover Among the Cages.
It's common knowledge that PETA doesn't like it when other people experiment on animals. Now, thanks to advances in hidden camera technology, PETA sympathizers are increasingly inflitrating research labs. They record how the animal subjects are treated in an effort to encourage more government enforcement of the morality laws surrounding lab animal welfare.
Not once does the article question the ethical bedrock of what PETA is doing, even when it metnions the inflitration Columbia University (a private organization) in 2003. Instead it frames the spying as investigative journalism. To be clear, investigative journalism tries to demonstrate when an organization cheats (like scams and rip-offs) people. What PETA is doing is violating people's rights to privacy and liberty to push their own agenda.
This is not dissimilar to the illegal wire-tappings the Bush administration is engaging in: both of them steal away privacy to impose their will, their version of ethics, onto others. Big Brother is watching you.
It's common knowledge that PETA doesn't like it when other people experiment on animals. Now, thanks to advances in hidden camera technology, PETA sympathizers are increasingly inflitrating research labs. They record how the animal subjects are treated in an effort to encourage more government enforcement of the morality laws surrounding lab animal welfare.
Not once does the article question the ethical bedrock of what PETA is doing, even when it metnions the inflitration Columbia University (a private organization) in 2003. Instead it frames the spying as investigative journalism. To be clear, investigative journalism tries to demonstrate when an organization cheats (like scams and rip-offs) people. What PETA is doing is violating people's rights to privacy and liberty to push their own agenda.
This is not dissimilar to the illegal wire-tappings the Bush administration is engaging in: both of them steal away privacy to impose their will, their version of ethics, onto others. Big Brother is watching you.
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
Shafting the Space Elevator
Colleague and friend Brian Hollar commented yesterday concerning the possibility of a space elevator: a robotic machine that runs up and down a teather with one end anchored on earth and the other anchored to an object in orbit.
Brian thinks the idea is very promising, quoting Business 2.0's comparison of the idea: "The space elevator is where the PC was in the 1960s: The theory is solid, the materials exist, and people in garages are starting to tinker with the next step."
But the biggest hurdle to the space elevator is that NASA has latched on to it. The elevator is destined to be expensive (estimates start at about five billion USD) adding to the already high likelihood that it'll make a lot of headlines. This is more of a weakness than a boon. When NASA projects make headlines before they are complete, the project becomes a political pawn. The focus changes, the budget fluctuates, projects are added on and taken off, rivalries and infighting overcome the goals and, if you're lucky enough to finish what you started, it'll be a shadow of what it was supposed to be. The ISS is the first example that comes to mind.
Don't get me wrong; there are some things NASA's starting to do right. Following the X-Prize lead, it's offering annual prizes for those that solve certain technology obstacles the elevator faces. But the prize money is tiny ($50,000 for each of the two elevator-related prizes) and while one has thus far received an impressive following (19 teams this year for the tether prize), the other is proceeding lacklusterly (4 teams last year, only two so far this year).
NASA's core problem with its approach on this strategy is that it's missing the whole point of the prize system. The idea is to encourage novel solutions of achieving goals, not to simply outsource your R&D department. By stating how NASA would like to get into space (the elevator), that strategy is embodied in the rules and hampers engineers from using their own ideas. For example, the tether prize states all tethers must form a closed loop, weigh a maximum of 2 grams, have an inner circumference of 2m long, +/- 1cm, and can be no wider than 200mm.
The goal isn't to get into space with an elevator; the goal is to get into space cheaply.
Brian thinks the idea is very promising, quoting Business 2.0's comparison of the idea: "The space elevator is where the PC was in the 1960s: The theory is solid, the materials exist, and people in garages are starting to tinker with the next step."
But the biggest hurdle to the space elevator is that NASA has latched on to it. The elevator is destined to be expensive (estimates start at about five billion USD) adding to the already high likelihood that it'll make a lot of headlines. This is more of a weakness than a boon. When NASA projects make headlines before they are complete, the project becomes a political pawn. The focus changes, the budget fluctuates, projects are added on and taken off, rivalries and infighting overcome the goals and, if you're lucky enough to finish what you started, it'll be a shadow of what it was supposed to be. The ISS is the first example that comes to mind.
Don't get me wrong; there are some things NASA's starting to do right. Following the X-Prize lead, it's offering annual prizes for those that solve certain technology obstacles the elevator faces. But the prize money is tiny ($50,000 for each of the two elevator-related prizes) and while one has thus far received an impressive following (19 teams this year for the tether prize), the other is proceeding lacklusterly (4 teams last year, only two so far this year).
NASA's core problem with its approach on this strategy is that it's missing the whole point of the prize system. The idea is to encourage novel solutions of achieving goals, not to simply outsource your R&D department. By stating how NASA would like to get into space (the elevator), that strategy is embodied in the rules and hampers engineers from using their own ideas. For example, the tether prize states all tethers must form a closed loop, weigh a maximum of 2 grams, have an inner circumference of 2m long, +/- 1cm, and can be no wider than 200mm.
The goal isn't to get into space with an elevator; the goal is to get into space cheaply.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
