Make Me A Hypocrite

Wages and Competition

2012-10-16T20:59:00.001-06:00

Thought experiment for the day:

Imagine all teachers went on strike and said "We want to be paid like movie stars, $1 million per year. If you want a small class size, you will pay $40,000 per student. A larger class size will be $20,000 per student." What would you do? What could you do?

The real answer is that some teachers would say "Well, I don't need a million, send your students to me for $15,000 each." Then another would step in and say "No, I'll take your students for $10,000 each. As many as you want!" I hope it's obvious by now where I'm going. People would agree to teach children for less and less, trying to attract as many as possible until the market rate of $2-3K per child was in effect.

(Actually this is not how it works at all given the public school system as it exists today. But it is a useful exercise for distilling the concept of how wages are set in competitive markets. Also ignore administrative and infrastructure costs that account for the fact that we spend almost $10K per child per year.)

As another alternative, if teacher salaries were too high, you could quit your job and educate your own children. If imparting K-12 education on a child cost $40,000 per year per child, you could "save" money by quitting your $60K per year job and teaching your 2 children. However, at the real rate of $2K per child, your job is still profitable for your household.

Who Benefits From GMOs?

2012-10-16T20:46:00.001-06:00

Michael Pollan has [predictably?] come out in favor of California's Proposition 37, which requires food labels to identify genetically modified components. I'm not sure of the actual implementation, but the intent seems to be a closing of an information gap. A gap which, I might note, consumers have not exactly been clamoring for a solution to.

I wish him - and the rest of the food "movement" - the best of luck.

But I can't stand idly by while he makes statements like this:

"Presumably that silence owes to the fact that, to date, genetically modified foods don't offer the eater any benefits whatsoever - only a potential, as yet undetermined risk."

He could have said "no nutritional benefits" but he went with no "benefits whatsoever". I'm sorry, Mr. Pollan, but GMOs provide several benefits. They increase yields, reduce fertilizer usage, reduce tilling and erosion of topsoil, among other things. To act as if nobody has a say in this, that the arch-enemy Monsanto [cue scary music] has forced its evil seed upon the Earth, is intellectually dishonest.

I am wondering whether Pollan would be more satisfied with a study that conclusively proves GMOs are harmful than the other way around?

Things Jim Lehrer Should Say That He Won't

2012-10-03T19:45:00.003-06:00

1) Shut up!

2) I know it's hard to take turns but you are two grown adults and the only way this thing works is if you listen to me so please...

3) Ok, srsly guys, shut up.

4) I know it's hard not to get the last word, but if you actually had a good argument you would leave your opponent somewhat speechless and stumbling for a good retort, which is as good as it gets.

5) TWO MINUTES! TWO MINUTES! TWO MINUTES! LALALALALALALALALA

Things Obama Should Say That He Won't

2012-10-03T19:42:00.000-06:00

1) I don't know what I'm doing with the economy. To be fair nobody does. We keep trying to tinker and meddle in people's lives (Cash for Clunkers, artificially low interest rates, thousands of pages of regulations regarding how your doctor gets paid) and every time some unintended consequence comes back and throws us off the tracks. I think we need to take a step back and simplify the rules so that people stop gaming them to create outcomes we did not consider or intend.

2) As champions of an unobtrusive government, I am flabbergasted at Mr. Romney's and other Republican's insistence on creating a society he deems acceptable via government fiat.

3) I smoked marijuana and even harder drugs. Look at me now. Clearly recreational drug use does not lead to a life of crime and vagrancy. Let's stop punishing consenting adults for using substances we do not approve of. Let's stop putting them in cages (prisons) and prompting them to become lifetime criminals.

4) Americans - as much as they hate to admit it - are under-taxed. Medicare is wildly popular because we tax people at 1/3 of the actual cost. Let's raise taxes to make Medicare raise enough revenue to reflect what it actually costs. If people want to talk about abolishing it then, great. But you can't make a useful judgement when the prices are not sending the right information. Everybody would be flying on private jets if a ticket cost $500 instead of $10,000.

...More to come later, perhaps.

Things Romney Should Say That He Won't

2012-10-03T19:24:00.003-06:00

Time to make the debate less boring! What could Romney say that would leave the President speechless?

1) Come out against the drone attacks, indefinite detainment, targeting killing of American citizens (while at the same time looking RIGHT AT THE CAMERA and telling law-and-order Republicans that he does not support excessive Executive Branch power regardless of who is in office and he will not continue aggressive campaigns against faceless groups such as "Al Qaeda" and "terrorists")

2) "The poor and indigent on unemployment are not lazy. They are not hopeless. They are not leeches on society. They are responding perfectly rationally to the set of incentives we have built for them. I want to skew the incentives towards making them self-sufficient."

3) He could stop saying the term "middle class". He could look RIGHT AT THE CAMERA (notice a trend?) and say "referring to the middle class is a politician's way of trying to include as many people as possible in their plan. 90% of Americans think they are middle class and when we say something affects them we are trying to address 90% of the population at once while sounding fair."

4) Jobs are not, in and of themselves, an end game. We should focus on items within our purview, namely creating an environment for individuals to work, save, and invest in ways that maximize both their happiness and capital accumulation.

...More to come possibly later.

A Tax By Any Other Name...

2011-11-05T15:05:00.004-06:00

Whenever I throw out the statistic that 47% of households don't pay any Federal taxes (how much more progressive can the tax code be?), people usually mention that I'm not taking into account Medicare and Social Security taxes.

Fair enough.

But at the same time - when I try to argue that marginal tax rates are too high and payroll taxes are part of what's keeping employment from picking back up - the same types of people will argue that Social Security isn't a tax, it's a defined contribution for which you receive a defined payout later in life (a tenuous fact at best, as long as you don't invoke images of individual accounts set up in your name, you still have some grip on reality).

So which is it?

It can't be a tax when you want it to be a tax, and a contribution when you want it to be a contribution. Pick a side (as Colbert would say: we're at war!) and deal with the pitfalls of whichever name you decide to give it. Nobody said every plan has to be all upside and no downside, at least be internally consistent.

Consumer Spending, Redux

2011-09-19T19:49:00.000-06:00

I feel like I've made this argument before, even on the pages of this blog. Sad that there aren't enough prominent voices out there to stop the same faulty arguments from being made:

Several readers have been parroting the call by politicians and economists to put more money in the hands of consumers. Their arguments are conspicuously devoid of fact. Here are the pertinent ones.

According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, real personal consumption is currently above $9.40 trillion. It has already surpassed its previous peak in late 2007 of $9.35 trillion. During the absolute worst the recession threw at us, it bottomed out at $9.00 trillion, less than a 4% drop. Given this information, can a lack of consumer spending really be considered the root cause of the problem?

Looking at another measure, Real Private Direct Investment, gives us a more promising lead. At the beginning of 2006 it peaked at $2.25 trillion and subsequently fell to $1.40 trillion, a 37% drop. It is currently still below $1.80 trillion. Whether or not you believe that depressed levels of investment in new and existing capital stock are the key to our moribund recovery is subject to a more in-depth discussion. But it is a much more compelling story - backed by verifiable facts - than the call for consumer spending to be further stimulated.

Steve Schow

Lakewood, CO

I think the Bush rebate checks from 2001-2002 and then again in 2007 were the nail in the coffin that made the default position, "More consumer spending is always needed and is always good regardless of the alternatives."

Perhaps this is just a downside of our heavy service-sector economy. People without exposure to businesses investing in capital to increase wealth seem a little puzzled by the prospect that anything other than going out to eat or getting your nails done counts as economic activity.

Score One for California!

2011-09-08T17:51:00.001-06:00

As the (D)'s and the (R)'s fight it out in Washington D.C., score one for California Governor Jerry Brown. I am reminded why it's less and less important to look for the (D) or (R) after somebody's name. People of all walks of life can do stupid things.

Or awesome things, as highlighted in the veto letter he sent back to the state legislature below:

"Not every human problem deserves a law"

"Not every human problem deserves a law"

Is there any way to get this chiseled into the frame above all the doors of the Capitol building?

Anecdotal Confirmation of My Bias

2011-09-06T17:46:00.003-06:00

Some people talk about electronic medial records as if they are some sort of panacea for the industry's ills. More productivity! Less errors! Take that you free-market cowards!

Well, yes. But let's not forget trade-offs. There is no free lunch.

Today I was denied an appointment at the doctor because I was a new patient and they weren't taking anyone new until they had figured it out. I am allowed to see the physician's assistant but only during the day (not before or after work) and I will be paying for the office visit as opposed to it being billed as preventive care. Trade. Offs. Less errors occur because the doctors are practicing less medicine! Ha!

Maybe I'm just grumpy because something negatively affected me and now I have to finagle a furniture delivery, doctor's appointment, and work on a Wednesday afternoon.

But that doesn't mean you e-records people finally got your free lunch.

Made From Scratch Does Not Automatically Mean Healthy

2011-08-31T17:22:00.000-06:00

Letter to the Denver Post over a Sunday Perspective article about increasing the healthiness of school lunches by making them from scratch:

In "A Better Class of Lunch", Dottie Lamm describes the measures being taken to mitigate childhood obesity by making school lunches healthier. The photo accompanying the article depicted a cafeteria employee assembling re-fried beans and cheese on a flour tortilla. Really? I am not arguing that this particular meal is the pinnacle of gluttony and empty calories. The point is that schools are throwing money down the drain by paying more for food because they have been duped into believing that "made from scratch" is synonymous with "healthy."

There is probably some ideal mix of lunch quality and physical activity (not to mention the required funding) that will result in kids of a healthy weight. I don't claim to know what that is. But don't be surprised when the made from scratch movement fails to solve the problem.

Steve Schow
Lakewood, CO

It's just really frustrating to see schools think that they are solving the problem and then completely missing the mark. You can't take each food fad (organic, raw, made from scratch, "natural") in and of itself and come up with a coherent, healthy diet. Organic cheese still has lots of saturated fat. I could eat an entire loaf of bread - made from scratch - and be left with a 1,200 calorie carb-induced hangover.

[Warning: Gross oversimplification ahead!]

Calories in. Calories out. Problem solved.

Everyone Is A Genius

2011-08-18T17:12:00.001-06:00

I like this quote, and really hope it isn't mis-attributed (people like taking random things and jazzing them up by saying Einstein said it - although in this case it wouldn't dampen my fondness for it):

It goes back to something I think of often. People spend a lot of time thinking about which jobs or careers are "better" or "higher-skilled." I like to think of everyone as just "differently skilled." I know, I know, that sounds like a politically-correct pipe bomb just exploded inside my house. But hear me out.

There is no escaping the reality that people are compensated differently based on what skill they decide to bring to market. Want to watch children in a daycare? Your time is worth maybe $10-15 an hour. Do you know how to run a business and make decisions to maximize investment in capital and labor? You may be compensated in the hundreds or thousands of dollars per hour.

But to focus on the compensation as the end goal - the pedestal upon which all humans stand - is only going to lead to a lot of bad decisions (sacrificing time and money to get your M.D. when you're not passionate about medicine) and an unnecessary sense of inferiority (being the best car mechanic in your town but only making $40,000 per year).

There is nothing fair about the distribution of skills and talents with which we are born. Some may think - among other things - my natural talent in math and science gave me a leg up on a good career. True, I guess. But I'm awful at public speaking. I could be making $50,000 per lecture if I was great at public speaking. I'm also not built to be a professional football player. Should I bemoan my lack of millions because of my pitiful lot in life to be merely a good scientist?

Getting back to the quote at the top: if you work in a restaurant, don't let somebody tell you you're an awful businessman (though if you want to be a businessman, do it; but do it for yourself, not others). If you are a gym teacher, don't let somebody tell you you are bad at math. Don't try to climb a tree if you are a fish and you weren't meant to.

To paraphrase: the grass could always be greener, don't waste your time thinking about how somebody has more or does something better than you, think about how you can do your best with what you have.

Somebody Was Asleep During Day 2 of Econ 101

2011-08-16T18:22:00.001-06:00

Remember when there were gas shortages in the 70's? No? Well me neither, I'm too young. What happened was OPEC restricted the supply of oil they exported. The US at the same time put a price ceiling on gasoline. This meant that instead of conserving the now more scarce resource, people went on buying the same amount - resulting in lines, rationing, and some very upset drivers. Simple economics: demand curves slope downward, supply curves slope upward.

The Denver Post's Sunday editorial on finding the "whys" of drug shortages resulted in me taking the editorial board to task for forgetting to say the magic word:

It disturbs me that the Post spent 13 paragraphs on an editorial about drug shortages without once using the word "price." You even go so far as to support giving more power to the FDA rather than simply state the following: drug manufacturers need to be free to operate in a market that includes charging a higher price for something when supply drops or demand increases.

It would be great if we lived in a world where everyone got what they absolutely needed first, and then we spent the remaining resources on producing all of life's frivolities. But until you are willing to show up to work and write stories for free - or be forced to work in a factory producing essential goods - then I suggest you start championing the tools that markets have developed to improve people's lives through the self-interested actions of a multitude of strangers.

Steve Schow

Lakewood, CO

All of this talk about giving the FDA "tools" to deal with the shortages is deceiving at best. The ultimate tool they are shooting for is to have the FDA walk into your facility and say "we need 10,000,000 more doses of Lipitor, nobody leaves until it's in our hands." And then windows all over the medical world start breaking, as politicians cheer the swift delivery that their brute force resulted in, while others silently die due to shortages of - or the lack of creation of - their needed drug.

As a side note: some government contracts stipulate that they reserve this right (the ones I've encountered were referred to as a "DX clause") - but it is wholly different to impose this submission on a company than making them agree to it as part of the terms of a voluntary contract.

Another Al Lewis Airball

2011-07-26T18:05:00.000-06:00

Mr. Lewis just tries so hard. He reads and he reads and then interjects with some poignant commentary that gets you thinking.

Or does he not even read the thing he's bashing at all?

I hesitate to come to the rescue of Ayn Rand and her ubiquitous novel "Atlas Shrugged", if not because it is so cliche on a Libertarian leaning blog, then because I can't read Ayn Rand without the overwhelming sensation that some of her bedrock arguments are deeply flawed (most notably on IP).

But...Mr. Lewis has the Wall Street Journal to espouse his nonsense so Ms. Rand needs all the no-name-blogger help she can get.

His ending argument - after several paragraphs of ad hominem attacks of her drug use and mentoring of the bubble-inducing Greenspan - is that she never imagined the world we lived in today and thus never could have accounted for all of the "bold action" (my words, not his) that we had to take.

Here's the meat of it:

"Unproductive citizens of the welfare state, whom Ms. Rand dubbed "parasites," "looters" and "moochers," lobbied politicians to regulate businesses, confiscate wealth and destroy productivity. We now know corporations are the real "parasites" in an economic crisis.

Mr. Rand warned, "Government 'help' to business is just as disastrous as government persecution." And I agree. But she did not imagine executives would loot their shareholders, cause an economic crisis and then beg for government help.

Her brand of laissez-faire capitalism led to corporations growing bigger and bigger until "too-big-to-regulate" became "too-big-to-fail." She never imagined big business telling big government what to do or a government that only takes over failing businesses - not successful ones."

The last sentence really drives home to me that Mr. Lewis has not made it through even 100 of the books 1000+ pages. The heroine's own brother - James Taggart - is an executive at a failing business that lobbies with other failing businesses to effectively ban competition and subsidize their operations. Rand did understand that lazy, un-inventive businessmen were the root of the problem. She just clarifies that they are powerless to do anything without a ready and willing legislature to use the police power of the state to do their bidding.

A - B - C - E - F - G

2011-07-25T20:13:00.001-06:00

There's a pretty bold - and often times hilarious - resignation letter from a Whole Foods bulk-food purchasing employee circulating the internet right now. It was emailed to "ALL" employees, apparently.

You can read the whole thing if you want, but I found something interesting that feeds my insatiable confirmation bias that all self-proclaimed environmentalists are also economically illiterate. Apropos of the title of this post, the resigning employee makes a logical jump that sets alarm bells off in my head. Read these two passages that appear in completely separate areas of the letter (emphasis mine):

"Consider checking some of the "stats" and "facts" used in your in store education. They're often faulty logic, myths, misconceptions and lies used by so-called "environmentalists". I agree we're currently destroying our environment and I'm quite liberal and all for natural living. But evidence and credible sources very often disagree with the propaganda spouted to us at Whole Foods. It's just a little too extreme and biased sometimes which I believe just discredits the environmentalist movement in general, sadly."

Seems legit so far. I appreciate her questioning shoddy evidence and acknowledging how building an argument on lies only discredits your standing in the future. But then this happens:

"Oh, you purchase products from Israel (Or any distant country) if they're slightly cheaper than local alternatives? (Caring about our communities and our environment)"

The propaganda surrounding local food is just about as bad as it gets. How many times are we going to focus on the seen (local farmers getting paid less) and ignore the unseen (all consumers saving money on food)? In a narrow definition of "caring about the environment", you may have a point. I'm sure it takes a lot of fuel and electricity to transport onions from Israel instead of driving them up the road in Ontario. However, the price system is the best mechanism for determining how many resources were deployed to create, ship, market, and sell a product. If the Israeli onions are still cheaper after being trekked halfway around the globe, that means the Israeli farmers must have more productive land, lower labor costs, better packaging facilities, or any number of other resource-saving tools.

So outside the narrow environmentalist definition of how much gasoline was burned to truck a piece of food to the store, buying cheaper produce is buying the produce that had the smallest impact on the Earth in the sense of how people use the land, their time, and their machinery.

By buying the cheaper onions, farmers in Ontario may be able to focus on farming a more productive crop, or a more interesting fruit or vegetable that people desire. We will never know the exact right mix of products that should be sold. Arnold Kling calls it "patterns of sustainable specialization and trade". But always deciding that the local product is the best product is to ignore everything that happens other than the ride from the field to the market.

Trees, Meet the Forest

2011-07-14T17:13:00.000-06:00

First off, I'm about two weeks off the news cycle - I'm well aware. But if you'll allow me to pick nits here, the whole corporate jet tax break brouhaha is a little much.

Regardless of who created the tax break and who now wants it gone, I find the narrative around this topic to be so wasteful. We are missing the forest for the trees here. We are here, finally examining some incredibly detailed minutiae concerning the tax code and all we can do is muster some wealth envy?

How many of you hear about how Republicans want to uphold the "tax break for corporate jets" and just imagine some fat cat completely dodging taxes on what he spent on the plane? Because that's just not the truth. The boring fact is that the stimulus plan allowed jets used for corporate travel to use a 5-year MACRS depreciation schedule vs. the 7 years that is usually allowed for commercial jets.

Yes, this allows them to pay less taxes (though only due to the time value of money, something that several economically-inept congressmen know nothing about). Forget the dollars and cents here. Shouldn't somebody be asking why accelerated depreciation schedules were created? Why corporate jets apparently lose value faster than commercial ones? Why you are allowed to depreciate an asset that lasts 15, 20, or even 30 years over 7?

Have we ever had a better chance to get the public involved in something so trivial and unjustifiable that they might finally throw up their hands and show some support for tax simplification?!

I assure you that this is not the only situation where "loopholes" exist. Why not use this instance to springboard into a debate about our complex tax system instead of direct anger at people who are just following the law as written?

Perfectly Free Market for Taxi Cabs Riddled With Inefficiencies!

2011-07-12T08:00:00.001-06:00

Cab drivers in the city of Denver are constantly seeking out new ways to serve customers. More efficient dispatch systems, time-sensitive fare structures, online reservation systems, coupons, cleaner cars, and friendly service are all on the table when it comes to trying to out-do their competitors. The end result? A slew of options for anyone seeking to outsource their transportation needs. Do you want a quick, though slightly more expensive trip? Are you willing to wait longer for pick up if it means you save a few dollars? No matter what you are looking for, Denver's cab companies will be able to make your day.

Whoops, caught me asleep at the keyboard there. Must have been dreaming. Anyways, here is the "state of the union" for Denver's taxi cab regulatory nightmare.

Denver has approved 300 more licenses to operate a taxi, on top of the 1,300 already available. Some are complaining because the town is already too crowded. Cabbies are breaking the law that says you have to take every fare, even if only for a few blocks, and it means you will miss out on a lucrative $60 airport run. Cabbies can't avoid the short fares because they have to wait in designated lines. There's no bargaining for fares. Little communication. Supply and demand are out of whack.

And the answer is to "refuse additional permits until the forum has a chance to adopt a code of conduct and address other issues?"

Maybe Denver doesn't need more taxis, but restricting supply and fixing the price is no way to find out. Like I've said before, nobody is writing hard-hitting exposes in the paper about the grocery industry or the Lasik eye surgery industry. When will people wake up and realize the regulation is the source of the industry's ills?

As long as we have people claiming that Bush's supposed deregulation of banking caused the recent financial crisis, I won't be holding my breath. (I'm fully aware that link goes to the Heritage Foundation website. Read it for verifiable facts, not opinion...)

I'm No PhD in Neuroscience, But...

2011-07-11T08:00:00.002-06:00

Maybe I'm simplifying this way too much, but could obesity - and the general overabundance of calories available to humans - be a stepping stone to the next stage of evolution?

In this month's Scientific American, Douglas Fox describes the work of researchers who are studying the link between brain size and intelligence. See a teaser of the article here (you need a subscription to see the whole thing): The Limits of Intelligence

He notes that humans, dolphins, and to a lesser extent, cats, are "brain size outliers" in that their brains are abnormally large for their body weight. On the opposite end are whales, pigs, and bats, whose brains are small for their body weight. He then concludes that we may be reaching the physical limits of intelligence, since our brains cannot get much bigger or efficient.

Several upgrades over our current brain could provide the answer, but all have their downsides. [I'm assuming a basic understanding of neurons and how the brain functions here to shorten the explanations a bit]:

1) Pack more neurons into the existing space. Can be achieved by shrinking neurons and/or axons. Downsides? Signals may fire randomly if cells get too small.

2) Increase signaling speed. Can be achieved by making axons thicker. Downsides? Thicker axons consume more energy and take up more space.

3) Increase interconnectedness of neurons. Adding links between distant neurons would aid communication speed. Downsides? The extra wiring consumes more energy and space.

4) Increase brain size. More neurons means more processing capacity. Downsides? Larger brains would have longer axons, which would consume more energy and slow down signal speeds.

So how did I reach my crazy conclusion about obesity being a positive for human progress?

Time for some jokes. This post was getting a little heavy. Ba-dum-chhh!

Well, 3 out of those 4 scenarios point out that the cost of making us smarter is a higher energy requirement. Where-oh-where will all of this extra energy come from? Perhaps some, or most, of it could be siphoned off of a large mass of subcutaneous fat cells?

Again, I'm not purporting to know the mechanism by which the brain will all of a sudden start requiring more energy and tap into fat stores. I'm just saying that in the long run, if a lack of energy is the only thing holding us back from increasing our brain power, it seems like we've done our part to eradicate that roadblock.

Less time worrying about when our next meal comes from means more time to ponder the finer things in life. Or...ya know...catch up on the latest episode of Dancing With The Stars. On second thought...

Quick Thought in IP

2011-07-10T17:11:00.000-06:00

...IP being "intellectual property", not "innings pitched" for all you sports types...

I was doing a little bit of reading on lithography (because of my new job), and stumbled across a WikiHow article on how to make your own stone/metal plate lithographs. They discussed the process of creating a master-etching, from which you can create a series of impressions. As many as you want. What to do with the stone when you are done with it?

There is no greater proof I have come across to hammer home my point that IP laws destroy wealth. An artist is instructed to destroy a piece of capital that would have brought value and joy into somebody else's life in order to artificially drive up the price of his existing prints.

This may seem like a trivial example. But if you've been following the tech & wireless industry lawsuit-bonanza, you will begin to see how this type of thinking can get out of control and stifle any benefits we (the consumers) may have seen from a great idea sheltered by IP law.

Thoughts on the Casey Anthony Verdict

2011-07-05T19:31:00.000-06:00

First, a link with the relevant info: Not Guilty

I was about as shocked as everyone else. With the constantly changing stories, a mother who seemed cold to the fact that her child had died, and a shoddy alibi by Casey's mother, I figured the prosecution had this one in the bag.

What is important to remember - however outraged you may be - is that 12 jurors spent over a month listening to testimony, reviewing evidence, and compiling the facts in their heads. Those facts, combined with the saving grace of having to prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt", are what saved Casey from a long prison sentence (or worse).

How many hours did you spend pouring over the detailed, time-stamped minutiae of the case? Or did you just hear sound bites from paid-to-be-obnoxious commentators, read the occasional over-the-top headline, and have Nancy Grace show up at your front door with a torch and pitchfork asking for Casey's head?

Open mouth, insert...ridiculous diatribe

It's times like these it makes me glad we have trial by jury and not just a public opinion poll of random hooligans who may or may not have an agenda to put everyone behind bars because...well...somebody died so somebody has to pay! Even if it's the wrong person! Whether or not you believe she actually did it, if you were in her shoes, and you really didn't kill your daughter, you would be praising the jury system as well.

The only lingering, and obvious, question is: If Casey didn't do it...who did?

American's Hate Bargains....Wait, What?!

2011-07-03T21:49:00.000-06:00

I can't find the article or commentary I was responding to, but all you need to know is that Mr. Hammond was worried that we were so occupied with figuring out who was paying medical bills when people are, metaphorically or not, dying on the streets.

William Hammond tries to shrug off the question of "Who pays?" for medical care. In the past fifty years, third party payments have risen from 42% to 86% of total medical care expenditures. This is not a trivial issue. Do we make jokes about how frugal businessmen are with their expense accounts? No. We understand in that situation how - no matter how kind-hearted, honest, and virtuous an employee - they will be less careful with each purchase when the dollars do not come directly out of their pocket.

To refocus the debate, let's agree to put emotional stories about penniless car crash victims aside, which contribute far less to the problem than Mr. Hammond assumes. Instead, let's find a way to cut a few dollars out of each of the millions of healthcare transactions occuring daily by transforming us from expense accounters into the coupon-clipping, 50%-off, buy-one-get-one-free consumers we are deep down inside.

Steve Schow
Lakewood, CO

I favor any legislation that transfers purchasing decisions back into the wallets of consumers. The most wonderful part of that solution is that it is the solution. No further tinkering required. Nobody worries about how to get people more access to cell phones, TVs, food, or gasoline, because we humans are pretty damn smart when left to our own devices.

Uncomfortable Conversations

2011-06-29T21:56:00.000-06:00

This Denver Post article brings up some interesting points, but falls short in several ways. My response to the Post, then some additional commentary below:

From a technical perspective, I appreciate the state's data-driven approach to reducing Medicaid expenditures for the highest cost patients. However, I can't help but feel like they are missing the forest for the trees.

If I have a choice between a free ambulance ride, or an uncomfortable conversation with a foreign neighbor for a ride to an appointment, I will take the ambulance every time. I may even take the free ambulance ride over asking a close relative. The program hints at trying to find other, cheaper ways to arrange travel. The underlying problem is not cultural barriers but the incentives involved with "free" services.

So the solution does not need to be so complex as to coordinate buses or taxis. The answer is to charge a nominal sum for the ambulance ride instead of giving it away for free. You would be amazed at how quickly that uncomfortable conversation with the neighbors takes place.

Steve Schow
Lakewood, CO

I know we're talking about Medicaid, so I don't expect the full actual cost to be charged. But $25-50 should be enough to cause a shift in behavior. I just don't get why we need to hire some math majors to do their thing when the answer - once again - lies in the economics of free stuff.

Some Things Never Change

2011-06-28T21:17:00.000-06:00

I feel a strange mix of horror and comfort that people have been making the same flawed arguments for over 125 years. On the one hand, you would think we would have enough real life data to refute the scare tactics by now. On the other hand, perhaps the misinformed parties have less influence than I imagine. After all, we've still had unheard of technological progress even with their calls for stifling legislation.

Remember this quote when someone doubts or demonizes a new technology based on rapacious levels of profit, unsustainable costs, or displacement of old - and now outdated - jobs:

A new source of power... called gasoline has been produced by a Boston engineer. Instead of burning the fuel under a boiler, it is exploded inside the cylinder of an engine.

The dangers are obvious. Stores of gasoline in the hands of people interested primarily in profit would constitute a fire and explosive hazard of the first rank. Horseless carriages propelled by gasoline might attain speeds of 14 or even 20 miles per hour. The menace to our people of vehicles of this type hurtling through our streets and along our roads and poisoning the atmosphere would call for prompt legislative action even if the military and economic implications were not so overwhelming... [T]he cost of producing [gasoline] is far beyond the financial capacity of private industry... In addition the development of this new power may displace the use of horses, which would wreck our agriculture.

-U. S. Congressional Record, 1875 (Emphasis mine)

For Better Or Worse...I'm Back

2011-06-21T19:53:00.000-06:00

It's been an eventful two months.

Quit old job. Start new job. Travel to Europe for 2 weeks. No time for blogging.

However, I've been building up some topics to write about so I hope to start up again real soon. Though probably not with the same frequency as before, maybe 2 per week, 3 max.

Anything you want me to comment on that's happened in the interim let me know (bin Laden, presidential candidates, budget battles, etc.)

Fight of the Century: Keynes v Hayek Part II

2011-04-28T19:47:00.000-06:00

Sorry I can't find the embed code for this video but it's pretty amazing.

Would you ever have expected such a nerdy subject to be presented in rap form, and with such amazing production values?

Don't say I didn't warn you about the subject matter.

Also, visit Cafe Hayek often. Always good stuff!

Disturbing Video: My Reaction

2011-04-23T10:40:00.000-06:00

Warning: victim can be seen bleeding and having a seizure.

Questions:

1) Why were the male employees, who were perfectly capable of handling a 14 and 18-year old girl, just standing back and laughing?

2) Would you feel differently about this if the attackers were white and the victim black?

3) Was this a "hate crime"?

4) How does your answer to question #3 change after I tell you that the victim was transgendered?

5) If your answer did change, why do we automatically assume that a person's minority status or differences are the starting point of all conflict?

I'm just asking #5 to figure out why we label things the way we do. I'll admit I felt a lot worse about the situation after hearing fact #4. Is that because we don't care about a "normal" white woman getting beat up or because the fact that a transgendered person being attacked symbolizes a deeper problem with our society?

Not easy questions to answer...

/serious Saturday post