It is really hard for the Federal government to effectively stimulate the economy in times of recession. Yet, politically, it's almost impossible for the Federal government not to try. As a useful educational tool, here is an analysis of the effect of teh 2008 and 2009 stimulus packages upon the US economy. None worked effectively.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/where-did-the-stimulus-go--15610
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Friday, January 21, 2011
Climate Models
I have talked about my questions concerning climate change before, and many of my concerns relate to the use of models - which are not data, but an estimate, based upon the model's developers understandings (and prejudices), of what might happen. Here is a rather good article discussing some of the strengths and weaknesses of climate models. Written by an individual who agrees with the immediate dangers of cimate change, it's somewhat more optimistic about model accuracy than I am, but it raises good issues with climate models.
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/can_we_trust_climate_models_increasingly_the_answer_is_yes/2360/
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/can_we_trust_climate_models_increasingly_the_answer_is_yes/2360/
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Man's best friend
Dogs and humans have been together for a long time, but the relationship wasn't necessarily always good for the dog. http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2011/01/19/science/AP-US-Early-Dog.html?ref=science
Former Gov. Palin
I have never understood the media's attitude towards Sarah Palin. I doubt I'd vote for her for President, but she is obviously a reasonably adept politician, or she would not have been elected Gov. of Alaska. Yet the media - and especially the left wing media - seems to treat her as if she is evil incarnate, and their reasoning escapes me. Here is a good - if somewhat pointed - essay making the point that she is not outside the political mainstream in her positions and statements (http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/the-war-against-palin-goes-on-and-on-and/).
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
States vs. Countries
I have always though comparisons of most other countries to the United States were misleading, simply because of our Federal system, where often the differences between the various States are so great as to make a National average misleading at best. This chart from the Economist (http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/01/comparing_us_states_countries) demonstrates that quite will, I think, at least for the economic comparisons that it makes. I suspect that comparisons for crime and especially education would also show a huge internal US range of results. It's would be helpful if, when comparisons are made between the US and a foreign contry, and the topic is one where the States have significant input (e.g., not defense spending) inlcuding sample States would be more realistic.
Monday, January 17, 2011
California's Excitment
I was born and raised in California, and it was an exciting place, with earthquakes, fires, and the occational "big" winter rain storm. However, this report - http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110117/us_yblog_thelookout/scientists-warn-california-could-be-struck-by-winter-superstorm - mmakes it sound like we ain't seen anything yet when it comes to Californian weather excitment. And notice, the biggest event appears overdue.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Culture
An intersting tongue-in-cheek - and brief - review of western culture is available at http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=80&load=4736
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Free Trade
A nice little editorial from a professor of Economics on free trade.
'Fair Trade'? Free Trade Is Fair Trade
By WALTER WILLIAMS
Posted 12/27/2010 06:03 PM ET
At first blush, the mercantilists' call for "free trade but fair trade" sounds reasonable.
After all, who can be against fairness? Giving the idea just a bit of thought suggests that fairness as a guide for public policy lays the groundwork for tyranny.
You say, "Williams, I've never heard anything so farfetched! Explain yourself."
Think about the First Amendment to our Constitution that reads:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
When Fairness Trumps Freedom
How many of us would prefer that the Founders had written the First Amendment so as to focus on fairness rather than freedom and instead wrote:
"Congress shall make no unfair laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the fair exercise thereof; or abridging the fairness of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble in a fair fashion, and to fairly petition the government for a redress of grievances"?
How supportive would you be to a person who argued that he was for free religion but fair religion, or he was for free speech but fair speech?
Would you be supportive of government efforts to limit unfair religion and unfair speech? How might life look under a regime of fairness of religion, speech and the press?
Suppose a newspaper published a statement like "President Obama might easily end his term alongside Jimmy Carter as one of America's worst presidents."
Some people might consider that fair speech while other people denounce it as unfair speech.
What to do?
A tribunal would have to be formed to decide on the fairness of the statement.
It goes without saying that the political makeup of the tribunal would be a matter of controversy.
Once such a tribunal was set up, how much generalized agreement would there be on what it decreed?
And, if deemed unfair speech, what should the penalties be?
The bottom line is that what's fair is an elusive concept and the same applies to trade.
Last summer, I purchased a 2010 LS 460 Lexus, through a U.S. intermediary, from a Japanese producer for $70,000.
Here's my question to you: Was that a fair trade?
I was free to keep my $70,000 or purchase the car. The Japanese producer was free to keep his Lexus or sell me the car.
As it turned out, I gave up my $70,000 and took possession of the car, and the Japanese producer gave up possession of the car and took possession of my money.
The exchange occurred because I saw myself as being better off and so did the Japanese producer.
I think it was both free and fair trade, and I'd like an American mercantilist to explain to me how it wasn't.
Mercantilists have absolutely no argument when we recognize that trade is mostly between individuals.
Mercantilists pretend that trade occurs between nations, such as the U.S. trading with England or Japan, to appeal to our jingoism.
Individuals Trade
First, does the U.S. actually trade with Japan and England?
In other words, is it members of the U.S. Congress trading with their counterparts in the Japanese Diet or the English Parliament?
That's nonsense. Trade occurs between individuals in one country, through intermediaries, with individuals in another country.
Who might protest that my trade with the Lexus manufacturer was unfair?
If you said an American car manufacturer and their union workers, go to the head of the class.
They would like Congress to restrict foreign trade so they can sell their cars at a pleasing price and their workers earn a pleasing wage.
As a matter of fact, it's never American consumers who complain about cheaper prices.
It's always American producers and their unions who do the complaining. That ought to tell us something.
• Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.
'Fair Trade'? Free Trade Is Fair Trade
By WALTER WILLIAMS
Posted 12/27/2010 06:03 PM ET
At first blush, the mercantilists' call for "free trade but fair trade" sounds reasonable.
After all, who can be against fairness? Giving the idea just a bit of thought suggests that fairness as a guide for public policy lays the groundwork for tyranny.
You say, "Williams, I've never heard anything so farfetched! Explain yourself."
Think about the First Amendment to our Constitution that reads:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
When Fairness Trumps Freedom
How many of us would prefer that the Founders had written the First Amendment so as to focus on fairness rather than freedom and instead wrote:
"Congress shall make no unfair laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the fair exercise thereof; or abridging the fairness of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble in a fair fashion, and to fairly petition the government for a redress of grievances"?
How supportive would you be to a person who argued that he was for free religion but fair religion, or he was for free speech but fair speech?
Would you be supportive of government efforts to limit unfair religion and unfair speech? How might life look under a regime of fairness of religion, speech and the press?
Suppose a newspaper published a statement like "President Obama might easily end his term alongside Jimmy Carter as one of America's worst presidents."
Some people might consider that fair speech while other people denounce it as unfair speech.
What to do?
A tribunal would have to be formed to decide on the fairness of the statement.
It goes without saying that the political makeup of the tribunal would be a matter of controversy.
Once such a tribunal was set up, how much generalized agreement would there be on what it decreed?
And, if deemed unfair speech, what should the penalties be?
The bottom line is that what's fair is an elusive concept and the same applies to trade.
Last summer, I purchased a 2010 LS 460 Lexus, through a U.S. intermediary, from a Japanese producer for $70,000.
Here's my question to you: Was that a fair trade?
I was free to keep my $70,000 or purchase the car. The Japanese producer was free to keep his Lexus or sell me the car.
As it turned out, I gave up my $70,000 and took possession of the car, and the Japanese producer gave up possession of the car and took possession of my money.
The exchange occurred because I saw myself as being better off and so did the Japanese producer.
I think it was both free and fair trade, and I'd like an American mercantilist to explain to me how it wasn't.
Mercantilists have absolutely no argument when we recognize that trade is mostly between individuals.
Mercantilists pretend that trade occurs between nations, such as the U.S. trading with England or Japan, to appeal to our jingoism.
Individuals Trade
First, does the U.S. actually trade with Japan and England?
In other words, is it members of the U.S. Congress trading with their counterparts in the Japanese Diet or the English Parliament?
That's nonsense. Trade occurs between individuals in one country, through intermediaries, with individuals in another country.
Who might protest that my trade with the Lexus manufacturer was unfair?
If you said an American car manufacturer and their union workers, go to the head of the class.
They would like Congress to restrict foreign trade so they can sell their cars at a pleasing price and their workers earn a pleasing wage.
As a matter of fact, it's never American consumers who complain about cheaper prices.
It's always American producers and their unions who do the complaining. That ought to tell us something.
• Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.
Monday, January 3, 2011
Dancing for mates
No, it's not a new reality show (although that idea does have potential), but results of a study of how men can dance to be attractive to women. My searching for a mate days are over, but I still found it interesting!
Go To http://www.economist.com/node/17797036
for the article from the Economist.
Go To http://www.economist.com/node/17797036
for the article from the Economist.
The Return
I has return to this site for the first time in months and will attempt to kept more current in the future.
Just finished a game of Rune Quest (Fantasy role-playing) with an experienced group and managed to kill them all - which was not my goal. This raises an interesting qeustion. As a referee for such a game, should my goal be to make it tough and challenging on the players, or make it fun and fairly easy on the players? I can see arguments for both sides, but have usually taken the "tough and challenging" route.
I would appreciate other opinions.
Just finished a game of Rune Quest (Fantasy role-playing) with an experienced group and managed to kill them all - which was not my goal. This raises an interesting qeustion. As a referee for such a game, should my goal be to make it tough and challenging on the players, or make it fun and fairly easy on the players? I can see arguments for both sides, but have usually taken the "tough and challenging" route.
I would appreciate other opinions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
