life hereafter

random musings from a wannabe economist

Dear President Omaba;

I know you and the Congress are currently struggling with small ways we can reduce the national debt that won’t greatly impact everyone. As I was reviewing my mail this evening I saw a letter from the US Department of Commerce with the words 2010 Census on the envelope. Thinking that this was in-fact the census I opened the envelope to find it contained a letter stating that I would be receiving a letter containing the actual census in one week.

What is this? The Works Progress Administration (WPA) at work here? Did we need to bail out the Postal Service by mailing millions of letters saying “LOOK OUT, a letter is coming!” How many millions did that cost the tax payer?

I realize these are already sunk costs, however I’d like to make an early recommendation for the 2020 Census. Let’s stick to just sending out one letter with the form inside.

Sincerely,
Everyone

P.S. We are also in the 21st century. Perhaps next time we can try conducting the actual census virtually for those of us with Social Security Numbers and drivers licenses?

I came across something during my Sunday shopping routine that really bothered me today. Recently I have been drinking those V8 Splash, vegetable juice hidden in fruit juice, things. I noticed they make a “light” version which has half the calories and sugar content as the regular version. Upon closer inspection I determined that the actual juice content of the “light” version was 42% juice while the regular version was 100% juice. Could this be? V8 is cutting down on the calories and sugar by simply adding more water to the regular product and selling it at the same price? So simple! So genius!

I noticed the same thing with Tropicana Orange Juice. New “light” version where the only decernable difference in the two products is the fact that the light version is only 50% juice!

It is so, companies have found a way to get consumers to self-select even in the juice aisle. For those of you who are price conscious, my recommendation is to simply buy the regular version and add your own water. (It’ll last longer that way!)

This is a tremendous example of well-meaning government creating inefficients and waste. Take a look at the article from across the pond:

Twelve million low-energy light bulbs were posted to households over Christmas by an energy company as part of its legal obligation to cut carbon emissions, despite government advice that many would never be used.

…

A survey in July by the Energy Saving Trust found that the average home had six unused ones lying in drawers and cupboards.

…

In 2008 the Government ordered the big energy companies to invest in measures for improving energy efficiency and cutting fuel poverty.

Companies can choose how to meet their obligations.

…

Companies were allowed to register immediate carbon savings from every bulb issued on the assumption that all recipients instantly installed them in some of their most intensively used light sockets. In reality, many people either stored the bulbs or threw them away, often because they were the wrong fitting or wattage.

The companies can also meet their obligations by paying for homes to be insulated. This guarantees energy savings but is much more expensive.

…

Companies can pass on all the costs of the scheme to their customers. Over three years it is expected to add more than £100 to the average household’s energy bills.

This is a wonderful example of a well intentioned goal, reducing carbon emissions, turning into an inefficient, inexcusable and costly piece of waste. Companies, much like indivduals, respond to positive and negative incentives. When governments create a market distortion (e.g., provide an incentive) two things will happen 1) the distortion will lead to disequilibrium and very likely unintended consequences; and 2) the companies will follow the path of least resistance, which also happens to be the path of least cost. In this situation, resulting in 12m light bulbs sent to everyone in the country creating countless waste, not to mention the environmental impact of the shipping and packaging materials used. Oh, and the fact that the customers will eventually have to pay for these bulbs, you see nothing is really free.

These politicians were moronic to think that the companies would, out of the goodness of their hearts, pay for an expensive home insulation program and eat the full cost.

Original Article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6973577.ece

Fantastic article, as always, by Bruce:

A terrorist attack cannot possibly destroy a country’s way of life; it’s only our reaction to that attack that can do that kind of damage. The more we undermine our own laws, the more we convert our buildings into fortresses, the more we reduce the freedoms and liberties at the foundation of our societies, the more we’re doing the terrorists’ job for them.

Is aviation security mostly for show? CNN.com

Dear Al-Queda,

Congratulations! Look’s like once again you have struck a victory even in the face of what looks like defeat. Don’t get me wrong, your plans were not foiled in any way. The security measures in place absolutely failed to notice anything suspicious. The only thing that went wrong was your man screwed up. So, good job on accomplishing that first victory. Now, your second victory wasn’t even something you had to do in order to irreparably harm the lives of millions. The Dutch government has decided that it will shove millimeter wave scanning on all individuals traveling to the United States. Won’t be long before we have the same scanners installed on domestic flights.

You can thank the reactionary fear-mongering governments of the world for doing what you never could, which is erode the freedoms and personal liberties of the democratic and civilized world.

So once again, congratulations on your two victories. I’m sure your leadership is so proud.

—

Now America, ask yourself: Could we have caught this person using full body scanners? Most likely. Could we have also caught him by profiling individuals from Muslim nations with shady backgrounds and banking transactions? Statistics point to yes. Could the attack have been prevented by following a non-interventionist foreign policy? almost assuredly.

This is surely going to be unpopular. I am in no-way justifying the attempted attack, but think about how our actions around the world drive individuals and organizations to extreme (and seemingly unprovoked) re-actions. There are two options to address this concern; the first is that you hunt down every suspected organization and individual who might pose even the slightest threat to the United States. This option is surely expensive, looks bad to the rest of the world, is very bloody, is only going to further the nanny-state and will ultimately be impossible. The other option is to stop doing the things around the world which drive people mad enough to blow themselves up and kill innocent people. (Like say, overthrowing governments only to have a more oppressive one take it’s place.)  Whichever option is ultimately chosen by the powers that be, just be prepared for the costs, monetary and otherwise.

Continue to give up liberty for a little security, just don’t come crying when you have neither.

Ok… I know I am a bit late to the party with this, but it’s been a busy week. Give me a break and let me get my jabs in…

Article: Facebook and Google Contrasts in Privacy

“If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place. If you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines –including Google –do retain this information for some time and it’s important, for example, that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and it is possible that all that information could be made available to the authorities.”

Supporters of the statement above always point out that if you are doing something that requires privacy, it’s probably something you should not be doing. Numerous commentators have already pointed out the logical fallacy that this statement fails to take into consideration:

The problem with that point of view is that it assumes you can only be concerned about privacy when you are doing something illegal or unethical.

What about when you search for something deeply personal, such as symptoms of certain types of cancer, or the effects of drugs you are currently taking? What if health insurance companies were somehow able to obtain this information. Not because Google decided to give it to them, but because some nefarious organization obtained access to the data and offered to sell it for a premium. Do we honestly think the insurance company is going to do the right thing here, or do you think they are going to do what is best for their bottom line?

Putting aside for a second the sheer unpopularity of the Schmidt statement from end-users and privacy advocates everywhere, this really underscores the hubris of companies that think they just need to keep every last bit of information regarding their customers in the hopes that it will someday become useful. Do they not understand how this puts countless people at risk under the law? Currently if you have the data, and it is subpoenaed you have fork it over. Suddenly a hobbyist looking for materials to fuel his sons toy rocket is an enemy of the state for his potentially threatening searches.  Of course this is an extreme example, but why take the risk?

Why not just tier the data? After an personally identifiable artifact is obtained add that object to an anonymous and sanitized demographic data set and then assign the demographic block to that particular user account. At least with this method you still accomplish some of your targeted advertising goals while still providing a level of privacy for individual users.

Unfortunately, yes anything you do on the Internet is captured and indexed somewhere. And yes, it personally identifies you, and yes if someone really wants to get at that data, they can. It’s time for the world to wake up, realize this and take action. Companies will only do the thing that will make them profitable. If capturing personal information suddenly makes them less profitable than purging it, they’ll stop. You can figure it out from here.

[Note: I don't even want to get into the legally mandated privacy violations we experience every day. That is something that can only be corrected at the ballot booth.]

I just received a post-card in the mail from my employer stating that in January they are launching their “eco-pay” program, whereby paper pay-stubs will no longer be mailed and employees will receive statements online. This is all designed to help the environment. Did anyone stop to think about the huge waste mailing a post card to over 100,000 people creates? I wonder how many trees had to die, and how much electricity went into printing the post-card, not to mention the petroleum used by the post-office to cart the cards all over the country.

I guess it’s okay becuase it’s printed on recycled paper that they ask you to recycle again…