life hereafter

random musings from a wannabe economist

What the hell am I supposed to do about this?

I’m on weather.com earlier today and I see this “Air Quality” warning, so I click it. The warning reads;

THE PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION HAS DECLARED AN AIR QUALITY ACTION DAY FOR THE REGION… IN EFFECT FROM 9 AM TO 10 PM EDT FRIDAY.

AN AIR QUALITY ACTION DAY MEANS THAT AIR QUALITY WITHIN THE REGION MAY APPROACH OR EXCEED UNHEALTHY STANDARDS.

Confused, I head over to NOAA.gov to read about what the heck that means;

“Unhealthy” means that everyone may begin to experience some adverse health effects, and members of the sensitive groups may experience more serious effects.

Well, fantastic. What am I supposed to do about that? Just deal with it? If I stay indoors and seal my windows with duct-tape, will the terrorists win?

As anyone who has ever flown in, once seen, or thought about an airplane, I feel as though it is my patriotic duty to add my inflation adjusted $0.02 into the mix.

In-case you have been hiding under a rock for the past week, Spirit Airlines announced that they will charge up to $45 for passengers bringing carry-on bags onto it’s jets this summer. The announcement has been met with much controversy and has even sparked a new Bill in congress entitled the BAG Act (whose cutesy title makes me gag a little so I won’t repeat it here.)

The great Senator from New York (no, the other one… yes, Schumer… near-sighted protector of consumers everywhere… ok, no? yeah, the CARD Act was short-sighted wasn’t it… ok, that’s a whole other debate, let’s move on…) has received commitment from five domestic airlines that they will not follow suit and also charge for carry-on bags. Unfortunately, the Senator may be on the wrong side of this issue. Closer inspection shows that the argument isn’t so simple.

This is a problem that airlines brought on themselves. Ever since they began charging for checked bags individual consumers decided to outsmart them and bring ever larger bags into the cabin itself. A cabin which was never designed to hold the quantity of cargo it now contains. This causes multiple headaches, it slows down the check-in process, slows down security, slows down boarding and slows down disembarkment. It now takes a solid half hour to board an A-390 as little old women struggle to lift 45-lb suitcases above their heads and into the over-head bins.

Spirit decided to apply a tried-and-true (and effective) economic principle using a (dis)incentive to force people to make a conscious choice about what they are doing. Do I REALLY need my bag with me in the cabin, slowing everyone down, or can it go below?

Of course no one wants to pay any added fees for anything, but perhaps we should all take a good look at what Spirit was trying to accomplish. Maybe folks bringing 40-lb bags into the cabin should pay the fee for the added convenience (for themselves) and inconvenience (for everyone else.)  Then we can all return to sanity and vacationers can check their over-sized and overstuffed bags. While we are at it, airlines should also enforce the rule that your first carry-on goes under your seat. No more putting your coat and purse in the overhead so that your little feets can stretch comfortably. (I’m looking at you.)

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.