Recently, I bought some new snowboards. The first one (a Burton X8) I bought from an online store that specializes in that sort of thing, but when I rode it a few times and found that it wasn’t quite what I was looking for (mostly because I needed a different size) I turned around and sold it, breaking even on the transactions.  I did not list it on eBay and I did not sell it on craigslist or face to face. I listed it for sale on a snowboarding-oriented forum and had a buyer within a day or so.

He sent me the money via PayPal and I packaged up the board and shipped it out to New York.

Once I had his money, I shopped for a new board, and found a guy selling some Ride snowboards (I got the 2010 Ride Machete) at serious discount like 35% off. Again, not a store, not e-bay, not craigslist or face-to-face. I sent him a few hundred bucks via paypal and 3 days later a brand new snowboard arrived at my office. I vouched for him on the forum and he lined up a few more sales.

Another contact of mine (let’s call him “S”) lives in Montreal area, for some reasons (monopoly reasons, probably) many US retailers are not allowed to ship certain brands outside of the U.S.; this includes all of the big name brands in snowboarding like Burton, Ride, K2, Gnu/Lib Technologies, etc.  But right now, discounts are in full-swing at many US retailers.  So “S” wanted to buy a few new snowboards and some bindings. I offered to proxy, so he’s having them sent to me and I’m going to turn around and ship them UPS or FedEx to Canada.

So he bought one board from the same guy I bought my Ride from, and another from an online store.

If you’re wondering – even if he gets tagged with duty/taxes/etc., he’s still going to come out a winner versus buying the same boards from a Canadian retailer.

Here is a guy who I’ve never met in meatspace, and have only known a short time in the online, who’s shipping probably $700 USD worth of gear to me, on faith that I’m not a total douche who is just going to rip him off for two snowboards. Really, what could he do about it? Probably nothing really.

Fortunately for “S”, I’m not a total douche (partial, maybe) and I’m going to ship them right out tomorrow.

OK, no, this doesn’t totally restore my faith in humanity, but it definitely gives me a glimmer of hope: A few people who don’t know each other and have never met and really have no “legal” recourse against one another, have transacted probably over $1,200 worth of business, completely on our own. I’ve always felt like, when given the opportunity, most people are genuinely decent.

I think the problem is that governments have made those “opportunities” fewer, and further between.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

My friend Brad posted the following on his facebook today:

Bought health insurance today for $80/month. That’s $20 less than my cable/internet bill and $20 less than a cell phone plan with unlimited talk, text, and web. Can somebody please tell me why we need Health Reform when something so important is cheaper then two non-important items?

Brad and I are for the most part on the same page when it comes to politics. Worst-case, we’re at least reading the same chapter of the same book. So I’d be preaching to the proverbial choir if I were to explain to you in detail the many valid cases reform (and by “reform” I really mean “repeal”). Here’s a short list to get you started:

1. National Health Care will raise taxes on the middle class. Nobody likes higher taxes. Therefore, nobody should be in favor of national health care. Truth.
2. Saying that no one should die because they can’t afford health care is the logically brain-dead equivalent of saying “nobody should ever die”. A fundamental, objective fact is that resources are scarce and they need to be allocated in one manner or another. This is basic metaphysics, people.
3. Speaking of rationing vs. allocation…
4. And let’s be honest; the “debate” about health care reform isn’t really a debate at all.

With all that out of the way… When Brad says “reform” in this context, he’s clearly addressing a broader population, many of whom are under the impression that the current market for health care and related industries is a wild-west free-for-all of a marketplace that needs reining in, oversight, regulation, and control by the government in order to achieve some nebulously vague form of equity. Straight-talk, he’s using “reform” the way Pelosi et al are using the word “reform”.

Straw-man comments came in, like: “Some people cannot afford 80 bucks a month!” OK. Is this a means-tested $80 that they can’t afford? Are those people paying for cable TV, beer, a vacation house in Petoskey, waterskis, etc.? Or are they legitimately needy. Let’s cut the crap and call a turd a turd, OK. I want you to always think about how many people “can’t afford” health care (or whatever) and then ask yourself whether they really can’t afford it, or whether they’re choosing not to purchase it in lieu of something else. This is important, it will come up later and it will be on the final exam.

Continuing accusations suggest that the only reason Brad got such favorable premiums is because he’s in very good health (because he does the P90X workout a lot – he’s actually a P90X rockstar!), or that he couldn’t have gotten that rate with a pre-existing condition, etc., culminating in the absolute and total endarkenment of “Too bad for them, I guess they don’t deserve insurance anyways. I guess they will just die.” (cf., point 2, above) Anyone who makes this sort of statement is clearly not interested in discussion (cf., point 4, above).

Let me re-iterate what is probably the single, most important rule of insurance: it’s not “insurance” if you’re buying it after you’re affected. You don’t buy home insurance after your house burns down (or after someone lights it on fire), and if you’re talking about “insurance” in the context of someone who hasn’t taken it upon themselves to get insurance before they get sick or roll off a motorcycle, then you’re talking about welfare. Plain and simple.

Insurance is bought in advance, to protect against the risk that you might eventually fall ill or seriously injure yourself. If you do not buy insurance in advance then you are asking for welfare or charity and you are rolling the dice with your own well-being.

There is simply no justification for making me (or anyone else, for that matter) pay for your gambles.

I’ve talked about solutions to this problem before, but honestly folks, if you refuse to recognize the problem, then I just can’t talk to you any more.

Possibly related posts:

1. Health Care Reform: There Is No Debate
2. “No One Should Die Because They Can’t Afford Health Care”
3. Health Care: Rationing vs. Allocation

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

I bought a new snowboard a few weeks ago and it shipped FedEx (I don’t remember which) from San Diego, 2nd-Day service for about $30. Tracking notifications every few hours while the board was in transit… I sold it to someone out in NY state, shipped yesterday and should arrive tomorrow. I could track it the same way, if I wanted to.

I sold it so I could buy another one. If you’re curious, I’m replacing the X8 with a brand-spaking-new Ride Machete, which should be sized more appropriately for me. Shipped yesterday from Washington state, via USPS. Seller told me that they charged him $30 for shipping standard ground. Tracking number is useless via USPS. No updates at all during the 16 hours the board has been in their possession. I’ve experienced this before with USPS—there won’t be any updates until after I receive the board, which defeats the purpose of tracking updates in the first place.

/Rant

Disclaimer: All monopolies suck. But I’m currently affected by the postal monopoly and it’s pissing me off.

Possibly related posts:

1. LiveNation Ticket Fees Suck!

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

In case you haven’t seen this little masterpiece yet… I believe Russ Roberts of Cafe Hayek contributed.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

I got “de-friended” on facebook yesterday, apparently for disagreeing with someone’s opinions (I will call her “Natalie”). I’ve defriended people before, but to my knowledge, this is the first time it’s happened to me, which probably means that I’m not trying hard enough.

This is how it went down. I noticed first thing in the morning that Natalie’s  status message said something like:

We should all be thankful for the people on wall street because if they weren’t making the big salaries that they are they wouldn’t be paying taxes and they pay pretty much all the taxes dontchaknow and so without them we wouldn’t have welfare or unemployment or roads so be thankful that there are hard-working people on Wall Street and don’t complain about how much money they’re making.

The first thing I said was, “For serious?” just to make sure she didn’t forget to close her <sarcasm> tag (hey, we’ve all done this before!). She was serious. I commented, “I have nothing against people or businesses making money. I have a problem with all the people or businesses who are stealing money. And that includes everyone on Wall Street. No exceptions.”

Another person chimed in after that and said, “I would LOVE to hear your explanation,” so I perused my archives and sent links to three of my previous entries on the matter.

• Bailouts, Bullshit, and Blackmail: How Banks Profit in the 21st Century
• Engineering a Depression: Monetary Policy 101
• In Communist America, Goldman Sachs Forks You!

Natalie responded with expected jackassery, “That’s a blog which is an opinion not a fact and it’s a one-sided blog. Nice”.

Well, Natalie.

Your other pal there asked for an explanation, and here it is. It’s my fucking blog, and it’s my opinion. You didn’t cite any “facts” or “two-sided sources” in your comment, the only reason you’d hold me to such a standard (which you failed to meet!) is to shift the goalposts.

Another acquantaince (who I remember seeing shoved through a window whilst taking the business end of a toilet-plunger to the gut…) chimed in and gave me an “Amen, brother!” and tossed out a few quotes he must’ve found elsewhere which were similarly disagreeable to young Natalie’s naÏve worldview.

Natalie said that “without the banks I wouldn’t be able to get credit” and other nonsense like something retarded about the “great depression”. I asked—in all seriousness—who she thought was responsible for either the great depression of 1929, or this depression. No answer. I tried digging up the conversation this morning, only to find out that Natalie is no longer among my list of friends.

Oh well, she was a friend-of-a-friend facebook-whore to begin with. Good riddance. My only regret is that I would’ve copied (screen capture, preferably) the swill she was peddling.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

On the radio the other day, some of the talk jockeys were complaining about Haiti. They were literally saying things like, “I’m already sick of seeing commercials asking for donations of aid to Haiti” and “Why should we be giving aid to these foreign countries when we can’t take care of our own? There are starving and homeless people in America and people without health care and …” I understand that their job is to stir up controversy so people call-in and listen and they can sell advertising and such, but it was purely nonsensical.

And so on. You get the drift. I agree that it’s very disingenuous for millionaire celebrities to come on TV or radio and starting pimping for donations when they’re not doing a damn thing themselves (some of them are, some of them aren’t) and I’ll be the first person to take the side of complaints raised against the government doling out taxpayer money (isn’t it all taxpayer money?) for foreign aid*. Every time there is some major calamity in the world, like the tsunami in 2004 or the hurricanes in 2005 or earthquakes or whatever, Americans give in spades. And celebrity marketing, give me a freaking break.

Could we give more? Probably. In my estimation, the biggest impediment to charitable giving in the U.S. is the already onerous tax rates, which the government uses ostensibly to provide the citizens with things they would otherwise provide for themselves. Like health care. Insurance. Food. Housing. Education. The list is endless.  If we don’t give “enough” it’s clearly not because we’re greedy and selfish.

I don’t want “my” government donating to the rest of the world. I don’t want “my” government spending money on anything. Truth. But that’s not the argument they were making.

What I really took issue with on this fine radio program was the spirit of their argument. The douche-nozzles were seriously equating a “poor” American (who probably has cable TV and air conditioning and eats fast food, etc.) with third-world Haitians who have lived their entire lives under brutal political regimes and civil war and who have now suffered the wrath of nature, and suggesting that as Americans, we have no business giving money to destitute brown people in third world countries as long as there are Americans who can’t buy luxury items.

No matter how shitty you think life is in America, it’s way f*cking worse for a pretty substantial proportion of the rest of the world.

*The U.S. government probably spends more money on foreign aid already than does the entire rest of the world combined. And on top of all that, Americans pay more than $1 Trillion to charitable organizations every year — more than the US government collects in income taxes.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.