Not being able to understand the titles actually added to the experience, I think; provided more focus on the sheer beauty of the animation and thus the story within my own imagination.
In a world of things like this, hope remains.
Another Potential Book for Our Yet-To-Be-Established Book Club.
Slapped by the Invisible Hand: The Panic of 2007 by Gary B. Gorton.
Steve Landsburg sums up the thesis of the work here.
Steve Landsburg sums up the thesis of the work here.
Bootleggers and Baptists 2.0
This new FCC regulation has Bruce Yandle's Bootleggers and Baptists Theory written all over it.
The story that best exemplifies the Bootleggers and Baptists Theory concerns the Clean Air Act of the 1970s (forgive me if I leave out details as I'm not an expert on this event). The Act was lobbied for by numerous large energy/coal/car companies. One such company was GM. An amendment that passed during this time was a regulation that required all vehicles driven in the United States to be equipped with catalytic converters, a mechanism that limited vehicular emissions. It seemed strange that a company like GM would lobby for such requirement, which would no doubt increase costs.
Nonetheless, the regulation went into effect. What was even stranger though was that Honda, whom had developed an engine that reduced emissions more than a GM engine with the catalytic converter, was still required to install said coverter in all of its vehicles if sold in the US.
No big deal, it would be unfair and unreasonable to preclude some from the regulation. Maybe. But here's the real kicker.
GM owned the patent to the catalytic converter required by law to be installed in all cars.
So what's my point? Regulations, at face value, are simply clever, if not deceptive, pieces of marketing. They appeal to emotions. Health care reform to save the uninsured. Cap and Trade to save the planet. Financial reform to protect the middle class. And maybe there truly are noble intentions behind such legislation (though I have my doubts). Either way, it doesn't matter. Massive, sweeping pieces of legislation like this will attract special interests from every corner of the globe. They want an edge, and the best business edge in history is to ally with Big Government.
This isn't new what I'm talking about, and I don't wish to come across as naive. My only desire is that people would look beyond the face value of laws, bills and regulations and challenge themself (and their representatives) by asking the question "but what happens next?"
The faster people realize that self-interest is not absent from the political process but is in fact far more damaging to the public because it lacks the checks the market provides, the better.
Here's Russ Roberts on the issue (he also illustrates why I stopped going to CNN for my more general news coverage).
The story that best exemplifies the Bootleggers and Baptists Theory concerns the Clean Air Act of the 1970s (forgive me if I leave out details as I'm not an expert on this event). The Act was lobbied for by numerous large energy/coal/car companies. One such company was GM. An amendment that passed during this time was a regulation that required all vehicles driven in the United States to be equipped with catalytic converters, a mechanism that limited vehicular emissions. It seemed strange that a company like GM would lobby for such requirement, which would no doubt increase costs.
Nonetheless, the regulation went into effect. What was even stranger though was that Honda, whom had developed an engine that reduced emissions more than a GM engine with the catalytic converter, was still required to install said coverter in all of its vehicles if sold in the US.
No big deal, it would be unfair and unreasonable to preclude some from the regulation. Maybe. But here's the real kicker.
GM owned the patent to the catalytic converter required by law to be installed in all cars.
So what's my point? Regulations, at face value, are simply clever, if not deceptive, pieces of marketing. They appeal to emotions. Health care reform to save the uninsured. Cap and Trade to save the planet. Financial reform to protect the middle class. And maybe there truly are noble intentions behind such legislation (though I have my doubts). Either way, it doesn't matter. Massive, sweeping pieces of legislation like this will attract special interests from every corner of the globe. They want an edge, and the best business edge in history is to ally with Big Government.
This isn't new what I'm talking about, and I don't wish to come across as naive. My only desire is that people would look beyond the face value of laws, bills and regulations and challenge themself (and their representatives) by asking the question "but what happens next?"
The faster people realize that self-interest is not absent from the political process but is in fact far more damaging to the public because it lacks the checks the market provides, the better.
Here's Russ Roberts on the issue (he also illustrates why I stopped going to CNN for my more general news coverage).
Sobering Fact of the Day
Via the Cato Institute's Ian Vasquez:
Though the deaths are the first in which Mexican drug cartels appear to have so brazenly targeted and killed individuals linked to the U.S. government, illicit drug trade violence has killed some 18,000 people in Mexico since President Calderon came to power in December 2006—more than three times the number of American military personnel deaths in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined.
Though the deaths are the first in which Mexican drug cartels appear to have so brazenly targeted and killed individuals linked to the U.S. government, illicit drug trade violence has killed some 18,000 people in Mexico since President Calderon came to power in December 2006—more than three times the number of American military personnel deaths in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined.
Care vs Insurance
Here's a comment I recently made on the blog Cafe Hayek in response to this question (made by another commenter):
"So what do Americans propose to do for people who have a pre-existing condition and cannot afford health insurance." [sic]
I don't think you're framing the question correctly. It should read, "So what do Americans propose to do for people who have a pre-existing condition and cannot afford the health care services needed to alleviate the problems caused by said pre-existing condition?"
I don't know the answer. But I think it is very important use the correct language. Care, not insurance.
Consumers with pre-existing conditions are probably not priced out of the market because of their own lack of funds, but much more because there is no market to accomodate them. Why? Because there is no risk! Just like you will never find a fire insurance underwriter who will write a burning building, you will never find a health insurance underwriter who will write a person with a pre-existing condition. That's because doing so would defeat the very nature of the product.
Treating people with costly, long-term medical ailments is a serious predicament for our country. Some private/public plan (HSAs + a shorter-term, slimmed down Medicare/Medicaid style contingency option?) is probably the way to go. But insurance companies are the LAST entity that should be looked out for dealing with this issue.
"So what do Americans propose to do for people who have a pre-existing condition and cannot afford health insurance." [sic]
I don't think you're framing the question correctly. It should read, "So what do Americans propose to do for people who have a pre-existing condition and cannot afford the health care services needed to alleviate the problems caused by said pre-existing condition?"
I don't know the answer. But I think it is very important use the correct language. Care, not insurance.
Consumers with pre-existing conditions are probably not priced out of the market because of their own lack of funds, but much more because there is no market to accomodate them. Why? Because there is no risk! Just like you will never find a fire insurance underwriter who will write a burning building, you will never find a health insurance underwriter who will write a person with a pre-existing condition. That's because doing so would defeat the very nature of the product.
Treating people with costly, long-term medical ailments is a serious predicament for our country. Some private/public plan (HSAs + a shorter-term, slimmed down Medicare/Medicaid style contingency option?) is probably the way to go. But insurance companies are the LAST entity that should be looked out for dealing with this issue.
Debt and Growth: More than Meets the Eye
Timely post from Krugman on the relationship between debt and growth. I particularly liked this seemingly obvious but actually quite interesting take:
What I think I’m seeing, although I haven’t tested this carefully, is that the causal relationship largely runs from growth to debt rather than the other way around. That is, it’s not so much that bad things happen to growth when debt is high, it’s that bad things happen to debt when growth is low.
He references two Carmen Reinhart papers in this post. I don't have the time, energy or, quite frankly, ability to read many academic economic papers, but I've read and listened to numerous interviews with Reinhart and she is defintely one of the go to people when it comes to debt and growth.
What I think I’m seeing, although I haven’t tested this carefully, is that the causal relationship largely runs from growth to debt rather than the other way around. That is, it’s not so much that bad things happen to growth when debt is high, it’s that bad things happen to debt when growth is low.
He references two Carmen Reinhart papers in this post. I don't have the time, energy or, quite frankly, ability to read many academic economic papers, but I've read and listened to numerous interviews with Reinhart and she is defintely one of the go to people when it comes to debt and growth.
Is Capitalism No Longer Capitalism?
James P. Hoffa writes today in the The Detroit News, "Protesters blame "big government" for their woes, but their anger is misdirected. It's the big conglomerates that are fleecing them. The fact is that institutional power has moved away from government to Wall Street and large corporations."
Bryan Caplan recently posted about whether "capitalism" is no longer the right term to describe capitalism. I think it no longer might be. Whether we like it or not, words evolve and take on different meanings over time and across culture. I think this is clearly happening to the word "capitalism". Michael Moore's "Capitalism: A Love Story" is probably the most appropriate example of this. The documentary, from what I understand (never saw it), should be titled "Crony Capitalism: A Love Story" or "Corporatism: A Love Story". People, I think, are more and more thinking of capitalism not as idealistic free-market enterprise valiantly defended by the likes of Smith, Hayek and Friedman, but instead as the anti-liberty cozy relationship found between Big Government and Big Business.
And they should be.
The ironic thing is the more people are upset at Washington, the more they seem to rely on it. This is what concerns me most. Government is dangerous when it is the problem, but it is terrifying when it is viewed as the sole solution.
Bryan Caplan recently posted about whether "capitalism" is no longer the right term to describe capitalism. I think it no longer might be. Whether we like it or not, words evolve and take on different meanings over time and across culture. I think this is clearly happening to the word "capitalism". Michael Moore's "Capitalism: A Love Story" is probably the most appropriate example of this. The documentary, from what I understand (never saw it), should be titled "Crony Capitalism: A Love Story" or "Corporatism: A Love Story". People, I think, are more and more thinking of capitalism not as idealistic free-market enterprise valiantly defended by the likes of Smith, Hayek and Friedman, but instead as the anti-liberty cozy relationship found between Big Government and Big Business.
And they should be.
The ironic thing is the more people are upset at Washington, the more they seem to rely on it. This is what concerns me most. Government is dangerous when it is the problem, but it is terrifying when it is viewed as the sole solution.
What I've Been Reading
Beowulf - I can see where Tolkien got much of his inspiration. Not as entertaining as The Song of Roland; not as enthralling as The Nibelungenlied. The battle with Grendel was a bit underwhelming.
Ethics by Aristotle - I haven't read much Greek Philosophy, just some of the Socratic Dialogues. I'm only about a fifth of the way through, and often times I feel like I am going in circles. But I like his discussion so far with happiness serving as the central tenet. I am interested to see where it leads.
The Corner by David Simon and Ed Burns - I recently finished David Simon's Homicide: Life on the Killing Streets. If you are a fan of The Wire, buy it. Reading like a novel, the work offers a glimpse into the fascinating if not slightly terrifying and mostly depressing life of a Baltimore Homicide Detective. The Corner offers a similar unique insight, but this time from the angle of the dealers and addicts.
Titan by Ron Chernow - A mammoth work that I have been chugging through for a couple of months now at around fifty pages a week. Reading it is exhausting, I can only imagine what researching it must have been like. If you like biographies on industrial giants, not one to miss.
Gang Leader for a Day by Sudhir Venkatesh - Picked this up after reading Superfreakonomics, as this author and Steve Levitt have done academic work together. The premise is a young sociology student (of Indian descent) befriends a local gang leader and becomes an informal member of the projects tribe. Starts off strong, but tails off at the end. Venkatesh tries too hard, in my opinion, to not hurt anyone's feelings.
Othello by Shakespeare - For some reason I just never really got into this one. I didn't find any of the characters particularly interesting, even Iago (who by the way was very much brought back to life by Christoph Waltz's epic performance as Col. Hans Landa in Inglourious Basterds). I'll give it another shot in the future; I'm sure my reaction will be different.
More Stuff on the Euro
Dennis Gartman on the euro situation. As someone long gold, short the euro, I found this comment particularly interesting:
What's really interesting is that gold in euro terms is well above the high that gold in dollar terms made in early December. Gold in euro terms is actually at new highs. So if you've been long gold and short euros, creating a synthetic long gold in euro terms, you're actually feeling pretty good. You're ahead of the game. You're so far ahead on the euro side of the trade that the entire trade is enormously profitable, whereas if you had bought gold in U.S. dollar terms, you're still behind by quite a bit.
So then how do I buy gold in euro terms?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
