Welcome Justin
First and foremost let me welcome Justin. A future blood-sucking lawyer, he is sure to add tons to the discussion. And don't let his affinity for the hapless Braves or 23 minute long guitar solos alter your opinion of him.
A couple things before I respond to Justin's post on this piece. One, I'm not a fan of modern jazz but more an avid follower of Cool Jazz and Jazz Standards (was that douchey enough sounding?). On a more serious note, Justin refers to my "blatant conservatism". I do not consider myself a conservative and actually disdain the term. I consider myself a classical liberal or libertarian and disagree with modern American conservatives on a plethora of issues.
I'm not sure I understand Justin's first point. Of course Obama is very smart. Of course he works hard. But so what? What has he ever accomplished that deserves serious recognition? What material substance has he contributed to the world that garners the unbelievable praise, dare I say worship, he constantly receives, which culminated in the granting of this award?
I absolutely disagree with Justin's second argument. Since when is it "arrogant" to hope that the government that rules you fails? Were the founders "arrogant"? Was Thoreau arrogant? King, Jr.? Of course not. They were extremely courageous men who fundamentally disagreed with their government's policies and consequently took action to try and stop their success. To do any less would be to sacrifice their core principles and beliefs.
Concerning your final points:
1. I'm not even sure the award itself really matters. I just find the motives for awarding it and people's reactions to the recipient very interesting.
2. From a practical standpoint, I have great difficulty awarding a "peace" award to someone who has shown little aversion to ending either war, ending the Wars on Drugs, Prostitution, etc..., empowering the federal government to detain virtually anyone they want for whatever they want for however long they want... You get my point. He ain't much different than Bush in any discernible sense (at least not yet).
3. His acceptance or rejection of the award really shouldn't determine peoples' views of him. History and one's own interpretation should do that. But there I'm definitely being too idealistic.
Great post Jbo. Look forward to hearing your thoughts.
A couple things before I respond to Justin's post on this piece. One, I'm not a fan of modern jazz but more an avid follower of Cool Jazz and Jazz Standards (was that douchey enough sounding?). On a more serious note, Justin refers to my "blatant conservatism". I do not consider myself a conservative and actually disdain the term. I consider myself a classical liberal or libertarian and disagree with modern American conservatives on a plethora of issues.
I'm not sure I understand Justin's first point. Of course Obama is very smart. Of course he works hard. But so what? What has he ever accomplished that deserves serious recognition? What material substance has he contributed to the world that garners the unbelievable praise, dare I say worship, he constantly receives, which culminated in the granting of this award?
I absolutely disagree with Justin's second argument. Since when is it "arrogant" to hope that the government that rules you fails? Were the founders "arrogant"? Was Thoreau arrogant? King, Jr.? Of course not. They were extremely courageous men who fundamentally disagreed with their government's policies and consequently took action to try and stop their success. To do any less would be to sacrifice their core principles and beliefs.
Concerning your final points:
1. I'm not even sure the award itself really matters. I just find the motives for awarding it and people's reactions to the recipient very interesting.
2. From a practical standpoint, I have great difficulty awarding a "peace" award to someone who has shown little aversion to ending either war, ending the Wars on Drugs, Prostitution, etc..., empowering the federal government to detain virtually anyone they want for whatever they want for however long they want... You get my point. He ain't much different than Bush in any discernible sense (at least not yet).
3. His acceptance or rejection of the award really shouldn't determine peoples' views of him. History and one's own interpretation should do that. But there I'm definitely being too idealistic.
Great post Jbo. Look forward to hearing your thoughts.
First Blog
Hello all. Will recently invited me to join this blog, and having deeply considered the implications of such participation, I have decided it would be best for Will’s morale to contribute. The tremendous aftershock from taking such a rare firm stance on a personal issue left my mind utterly confused about a topic to blog about, especially since I am decidedly ill-informed on matters that tend to entertain Will, such as the economy, the formative history of the Wu-Tang Clan, modern jazz, and royally beating up rival fraternity members.
Luckily enough for me, as soon as I began traversing this blog, Will’s blatant conservativism manifested itself in the form of an article which Will determines to be “One of the more insightful takes on Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize that (he) has read.”
Now, I think it would be difficult for me to prove the entire gist of the article wrong, but I do think that I can show that the esteemed writers over at “Chicago Boyz” are in fact, far from insightful. First of all, the writer is determined to show that Obama’s success has been more a result of his race than his accomplishments—that he has never had to “knock down a door with his skill,” but rather has enjoyed the fruits of being the prospective first black person to gain the particular office or accolade. This writer points to Obama’s selection as the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review as an example of this exact situation, but I feel the need to point out that he is not correct. The writer proclaims: “Any black Harvard law student with acceptable grades could have served such a symbolic purpose. Obama was nothing special.” I’m at law school now, so I’ll enlighten you folks on how this works. First of all, to even be considered for a law review, a student has to be in the top ten percent of the class. This means that at Harvard Law School, where students almost entirely attended the nation’s top undergraduate schools, scored in the 99th percentile on the LSAT, and had GPA’s near 4.0, Obama had better scores than nine out of ten students. To be voted the editor (and it’s possible that his race may have helped him here), he would have necessarily had to commit hundreds of hours spent on meticulous research and writing to gain any sort of respect from the other members. If “Obama was nothing special” for accomplishing this task, then I am in fact convinced that he is still a genius for somehow achieving this accolade without skill and hard work.
My second problem with this writer is that he asserts that he would like to see much of Obama’s domestic plans fail. This seems to be one of the most arrogant political statements that anyone could make. This writer determines here that he would rather his own political views be proven correct than the country actually be a better place under an opposing party, and I find this to be a major problem with the current state of politics. Shouldn’t we be rooting for the United States to improve all the time, not just when our guy is responsible for it?
Finally, I have a couple of questions about the main argument concerning the Nobel Peace Prize. First of all, I agree that Obama has compiled very little tangible evidence of promoting peace. However, I would have liked to see this writer respond to common counter-claims: is it possible that the objective to instill peace is sufficient? That such an objective is a symbol of something greater? At the very least, such goals represent the desire to transfer one of the most powerful nations in the world from a state of war to a state of peace, and if we know anything from Vietnam, we know these things take time. Also, doesn’t the argument for refusing the prize carry with it some possibly disturbing implications? Our perception in the world is just now improving from probably its worst point ever under good ol’ GW. Part of this improved perception is the belief that by voting for Obama, we have rejected Bush’s war policies. What does it say to the world if our president rejects the international award for peace? How arrogant do we appear for telling the Nobel Prize Committee that we know better? Where are the answers to these possible solutions in this article? Sorry it’s so long, won’t happen again.
Luckily enough for me, as soon as I began traversing this blog, Will’s blatant conservativism manifested itself in the form of an article which Will determines to be “One of the more insightful takes on Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize that (he) has read.”
Now, I think it would be difficult for me to prove the entire gist of the article wrong, but I do think that I can show that the esteemed writers over at “Chicago Boyz” are in fact, far from insightful. First of all, the writer is determined to show that Obama’s success has been more a result of his race than his accomplishments—that he has never had to “knock down a door with his skill,” but rather has enjoyed the fruits of being the prospective first black person to gain the particular office or accolade. This writer points to Obama’s selection as the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review as an example of this exact situation, but I feel the need to point out that he is not correct. The writer proclaims: “Any black Harvard law student with acceptable grades could have served such a symbolic purpose. Obama was nothing special.” I’m at law school now, so I’ll enlighten you folks on how this works. First of all, to even be considered for a law review, a student has to be in the top ten percent of the class. This means that at Harvard Law School, where students almost entirely attended the nation’s top undergraduate schools, scored in the 99th percentile on the LSAT, and had GPA’s near 4.0, Obama had better scores than nine out of ten students. To be voted the editor (and it’s possible that his race may have helped him here), he would have necessarily had to commit hundreds of hours spent on meticulous research and writing to gain any sort of respect from the other members. If “Obama was nothing special” for accomplishing this task, then I am in fact convinced that he is still a genius for somehow achieving this accolade without skill and hard work.
My second problem with this writer is that he asserts that he would like to see much of Obama’s domestic plans fail. This seems to be one of the most arrogant political statements that anyone could make. This writer determines here that he would rather his own political views be proven correct than the country actually be a better place under an opposing party, and I find this to be a major problem with the current state of politics. Shouldn’t we be rooting for the United States to improve all the time, not just when our guy is responsible for it?
Finally, I have a couple of questions about the main argument concerning the Nobel Peace Prize. First of all, I agree that Obama has compiled very little tangible evidence of promoting peace. However, I would have liked to see this writer respond to common counter-claims: is it possible that the objective to instill peace is sufficient? That such an objective is a symbol of something greater? At the very least, such goals represent the desire to transfer one of the most powerful nations in the world from a state of war to a state of peace, and if we know anything from Vietnam, we know these things take time. Also, doesn’t the argument for refusing the prize carry with it some possibly disturbing implications? Our perception in the world is just now improving from probably its worst point ever under good ol’ GW. Part of this improved perception is the belief that by voting for Obama, we have rejected Bush’s war policies. What does it say to the world if our president rejects the international award for peace? How arrogant do we appear for telling the Nobel Prize Committee that we know better? Where are the answers to these possible solutions in this article? Sorry it’s so long, won’t happen again.
Obama and Fox News
Over at The Nation, John Nichols makes an excellent point about the Obama Administration's current feud with Fox News:
Obama should sit down with Fox reporters and anchors and do interviews. That does not mean that the president has to put up with the emotional wreckage that is Glenn Beck. But there is no reason why he shouldn't go another round with Bill O'Reilly (as Obama did during the 2008 campaign) or sit down with Chris Wallace (as Bill Clinton did).
Obama should sit down with Fox reporters and anchors and do interviews. That does not mean that the president has to put up with the emotional wreckage that is Glenn Beck. But there is no reason why he shouldn't go another round with Bill O'Reilly (as Obama did during the 2008 campaign) or sit down with Chris Wallace (as Bill Clinton did).
If the Fox interviewers are absurdly unfair, the American people will respond with appropriate consternation. On the other hand, if they are aggressive and pointed in their challenges, Obama will rise or fall on the quality of his responses. His aides, if they have any faith in their man's abilities, should bend over backwards to accept some Fox interviews. They should also accept an invite from PBS' Bill Moyers, who would pose tougher – and, yes, more informed -- questions than the Foxbots.
Now who says leftists don't love markets?
Does Baseball Need Umpires?
WSJ asks the question on every baseball fan's mind. I vote use them as little as possible. The less human error, the more pure the competition.
And here's a truly controversial, ludicrous question (it just came to me). Does an error like Phil Cuzzi's hurt the "purity" of the game (define that as you will) more than a player who uses PEDs? I think it very well may.
And here's a truly controversial, ludicrous question (it just came to me). Does an error like Phil Cuzzi's hurt the "purity" of the game (define that as you will) more than a player who uses PEDs? I think it very well may.
Tyler Cowen on Obama's Nobel Win
And Tyler Cowen's take on what the award will mean for Obama's future "bargaining power".
Obama and the Nobel Peace Prize
One of the more insightful takes on Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize that I have read.
The Film Industry
Alex Tabarrao's brother Nicholas is guest blogging over at Marginal Revolution. His first post is quite interesting. I recommend it along with the long comments section that follows. Nicholas writes:
One interesting thing that I've always found about the film business from an economic point of view is that unlike in any other business I can think of, the cost of manufacturing the product has no affect on the purchase cost to the consumer. For example Honda can make a cheaper car with less features and cheaper finishes than BMW without losing all of their customers to the superior car because they sell their product for less. You spend less to make something, you charge less for it. Makes complete and obvious sense. Not so in the film business. I am an independent film producer and I make films that typically cost somewhere between $5M and $10M. But when I make, say, an $8M film it has to compete at the same price level as the studios' $80M or $100M film. It costs the consumer the same $12 at the multiplex (and whatever it costs to rent a DVD from Blockbuster these days) for either film. There is no price advantage to the consumer for choosing to see a less expensive film. This naturally makes it terribly difficult for smaller films to find an audience. I find this quite fascinating and I can't readily think of another industry like it.
There are a couple of things to point out here. One is I think he is confusing the idea that production cost is directly correlated with price. It's not. Price is a function of supply a demand, an equilibrium in which cost in various forms is a major variable in ultimately determining that price. Prices, really, are just information. So if costs a lot to make something, he's right, most likely you are going to demand more to compensate for you producing it. But levels of demand and profit models (volume vs margin) have more influence in the long-run.
More practically speaking is how theaters make money. Relatively little profit is earned from ticket sales. Instead concession sales are the real moneymakers. So it makes sense that a theater manager would try and maximize the volume of customers by trading off ticket sale profits for increased concessions revenue.
One interesting thing that I've always found about the film business from an economic point of view is that unlike in any other business I can think of, the cost of manufacturing the product has no affect on the purchase cost to the consumer. For example Honda can make a cheaper car with less features and cheaper finishes than BMW without losing all of their customers to the superior car because they sell their product for less. You spend less to make something, you charge less for it. Makes complete and obvious sense. Not so in the film business. I am an independent film producer and I make films that typically cost somewhere between $5M and $10M. But when I make, say, an $8M film it has to compete at the same price level as the studios' $80M or $100M film. It costs the consumer the same $12 at the multiplex (and whatever it costs to rent a DVD from Blockbuster these days) for either film. There is no price advantage to the consumer for choosing to see a less expensive film. This naturally makes it terribly difficult for smaller films to find an audience. I find this quite fascinating and I can't readily think of another industry like it.
There are a couple of things to point out here. One is I think he is confusing the idea that production cost is directly correlated with price. It's not. Price is a function of supply a demand, an equilibrium in which cost in various forms is a major variable in ultimately determining that price. Prices, really, are just information. So if costs a lot to make something, he's right, most likely you are going to demand more to compensate for you producing it. But levels of demand and profit models (volume vs margin) have more influence in the long-run.
More practically speaking is how theaters make money. Relatively little profit is earned from ticket sales. Instead concession sales are the real moneymakers. So it makes sense that a theater manager would try and maximize the volume of customers by trading off ticket sale profits for increased concessions revenue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
