I figured since I have a blog now, I might as well use it to state my preference for president. I'm an Obama supporter, and if he wins the nomination, I'll vote for him in the general. As for the Democratic nomination, I think Hillary should drop out. She is behind in pledged delegates, and cannot realistically gain the lead in them by the end of the primaries. Therefore, her only chance of winning would be to have the superdelegates overturn the elected result. Superdelegates, by the way, are ludicrous, and should be abolished after this cycle, but while we still have them, they should realize their ridiculous position, and follow the will of the voting Democrats, and not overturn that result.
As for November, I like Obama, I think he's a good candidate for president, but I won't vote for Hillary Clinton. I don't think she would be a good president, and wouldn't help elect her. Of course, I also don't think McCain would be a good president, and wouldn't vote for him either. I think everyone should vote for the best possible candidate, and not help enforce the two party system. I'd vote for a Green or a Libertarian (not Bob Barr, he's a joke). I'd hope Ron Paul continues his campaign into the general, since I'd definitely vote for him over Hillary and McCain.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Why We Shop
I read a great good over the past few days given to me by a friend of Allison's. It's called Why We Shop. It's a pretty incredible book. It discusses the science of shopping, or rather, the science of stores. The author, Paco Underhill, runs a company that spies on shoppers in stores, watching what the do, what they have trouble with, and what they eventually buy, and then consults stores to tell them how to build, setup, or change their stores to get more people to buy more stuff.
There's a couple of very interesting subtexts to the book, one implicit, the other explicit. The implicit subtext is that we're not rational actor when making purchases. It's kind of scary that free will can be shown to be a hazy, blurry thing in the world of retail. If a product is on a shelf a little higher or lower, if the coloring of the package is a different hue, if the aisles are laid in our in a different configuration, if the line is shorter, if you get more or less contact from store employees. All of things have an effect on your chance of making a purchase. The fact that people seemingly don't have control over their purchasing decisions is quite unnerving.
The explicit point made in the book is that without this impulse shopping, our economy would crash. If you could flip a switch, and people only went to the store when they they intended to buy something, and bought only what they intended to buy, our economy would be turned off, overnight.
These two concepts have an implication that I've felt true for a while: that the economy doesn't reward everyone who deserves reward. If your decision to trade money for goods and services can be swayed on any of the things mentioned above, all empirically shown to have a measurable effect on purchase decision, these show that the invisible hand is more like a blindfolded hand, rewarding things that we don't neccesarily want or need to be rewarding. Tapping into pyschological weakness to encourage people to spend more seems like a dangerous game to play.
There's a couple of very interesting subtexts to the book, one implicit, the other explicit. The implicit subtext is that we're not rational actor when making purchases. It's kind of scary that free will can be shown to be a hazy, blurry thing in the world of retail. If a product is on a shelf a little higher or lower, if the coloring of the package is a different hue, if the aisles are laid in our in a different configuration, if the line is shorter, if you get more or less contact from store employees. All of things have an effect on your chance of making a purchase. The fact that people seemingly don't have control over their purchasing decisions is quite unnerving.
The explicit point made in the book is that without this impulse shopping, our economy would crash. If you could flip a switch, and people only went to the store when they they intended to buy something, and bought only what they intended to buy, our economy would be turned off, overnight.
These two concepts have an implication that I've felt true for a while: that the economy doesn't reward everyone who deserves reward. If your decision to trade money for goods and services can be swayed on any of the things mentioned above, all empirically shown to have a measurable effect on purchase decision, these show that the invisible hand is more like a blindfolded hand, rewarding things that we don't neccesarily want or need to be rewarding. Tapping into pyschological weakness to encourage people to spend more seems like a dangerous game to play.
More on the Gas Tax Holiday
I saw a good alternative to the gas tax holiday yesterday. It essentially goes that, instead of trying to offer a windfall profits tax, which, I agree, I don't want the government dictating the amount of profit a company can make, that the federal government just scrub from the tax code all of the tax breaks that oil and gas companies get. Obviously, if they're making record profits, they don't need any more help from the people of this country. It also falls in line with the thinking that the country shouldn't be dictating profits, therefore, by giving them a bunch of tax breaks, we're doing the same thing, just in the opposite direction of what a windfall tax does.
Also, I watched the video you sent featuring Cato's Jerry Taylor. He does a good job of debunking the benefits of the plans offered by Clinton and McCain. I'm just kind of confused why he's against a federal gas tax that maintains federal roads, when he seem to be just fine with state gas taxes that maintain state roads. It's, in my opinion, a weird conclusion to make, except from the view that the federal government shouldn't really be doing anything. I don't know why state governments collecting money and maintaining roads is better than the federal government doing it.
I do like that he calls the gas tax a "usage fee", because that's exactly what it is, as long as it's being used to build and maintain the roads we drive on, and not appropriated for some other use. I've been doing some basic thinking about the role of government, thinking about taxes as either "usage fees", or used as a form of punishment, to dissuade some activity, where any money collected goes to help reduce some unwanted activity. Like I said, very basic thinking, I might have something greater to discuss in a week or so.
Also, I watched the video you sent featuring Cato's Jerry Taylor. He does a good job of debunking the benefits of the plans offered by Clinton and McCain. I'm just kind of confused why he's against a federal gas tax that maintains federal roads, when he seem to be just fine with state gas taxes that maintain state roads. It's, in my opinion, a weird conclusion to make, except from the view that the federal government shouldn't really be doing anything. I don't know why state governments collecting money and maintaining roads is better than the federal government doing it.
I do like that he calls the gas tax a "usage fee", because that's exactly what it is, as long as it's being used to build and maintain the roads we drive on, and not appropriated for some other use. I've been doing some basic thinking about the role of government, thinking about taxes as either "usage fees", or used as a form of punishment, to dissuade some activity, where any money collected goes to help reduce some unwanted activity. Like I said, very basic thinking, I might have something greater to discuss in a week or so.
Monday, May 5, 2008
Atheists In Foxholes
I came across this article on one Jeremy Hall (via Digby, maybe the best political blogger on the net). Hall is a man being persecuted, literally, for his religious beliefs as a serviceman. He has to get sent home from Iraq early, and even requires a bodyguard, as to not get assaulted, by other servicemen. The article shows how our military has essentially turned into a christian army, which means wars in places like Iraq and Afghanistan are essentially Holy Wars to many in, of not most of, the army. Scary.
Re: Must Watch
You emailed me a link the other day to an interview between Nick Gillespie and and Susan Jacoby. Finally got to watching it last night. (Actually, I only watched the first half an hour. I might get to the rest later.) I saw Jacoby on Colbert the other day, and I wasn't too impressed, and again watching this video, the feeling persists. I imagine she's better in her book, but from both appearances, she seems to wander, although both of her hosts have a tendency to do the same. It was kind of sad and frustrating to see Nick and Jacoby get bogged down discussing the details Iraq instead of trying to stay on topic, discussing her book and the theories within.
Also, I was kind of unimpressed with her assertion that blogging and the internet are inferior mediums to books and newspapers. I think I stand with Gillespie when I say they are perhaps supporting roles, if not new, equally valid mediums in their own right. They not only fill a niche that was once unfillable, they also act as both a check and balance on traditional mediums. The fact that blog entries tend to be shorter is not a damnation of the medium, which is what I feel she was implying. Just as book convey information that blogs can't, I feel the inverse is true. The key, as Gillespie was trying to impress, was a matter of balance. Jacoby briefly addressed this, when she brought up the much maligned fact that something like 80% of the country didn't read a single book last year. I think what she was trying to say was that people should read books instead of reading the internet, when I feel they should probably do both, getting as exposed to as many thoughts and ideas as possible.
As for the thoughts expressed around minute 22, I saw exactly what you meant, even mentioning our project to Allison when they brought up the topic of the level of conversation, soon after realizing we were watching minute 22. It just made me even more assured of the veritable success awaiting our project.
Also, I was kind of unimpressed with her assertion that blogging and the internet are inferior mediums to books and newspapers. I think I stand with Gillespie when I say they are perhaps supporting roles, if not new, equally valid mediums in their own right. They not only fill a niche that was once unfillable, they also act as both a check and balance on traditional mediums. The fact that blog entries tend to be shorter is not a damnation of the medium, which is what I feel she was implying. Just as book convey information that blogs can't, I feel the inverse is true. The key, as Gillespie was trying to impress, was a matter of balance. Jacoby briefly addressed this, when she brought up the much maligned fact that something like 80% of the country didn't read a single book last year. I think what she was trying to say was that people should read books instead of reading the internet, when I feel they should probably do both, getting as exposed to as many thoughts and ideas as possible.
As for the thoughts expressed around minute 22, I saw exactly what you meant, even mentioning our project to Allison when they brought up the topic of the level of conversation, soon after realizing we were watching minute 22. It just made me even more assured of the veritable success awaiting our project.
A quick process note
Rob-O, I'd like to give you a friendly reminder that you are an author, as well as administrator, on this blog. Instead of responding to my posts in the comments section, I'd highly recommend you do so by making a new post of your own. The quickest and easiest way of doing so is just going to blogger.com. It should show you this blog listed, once you log in, and there's a nice big "New Post" link there. It even has a plus sign!
Making your own posts will give your thoughts more visibility, and show that you're participating, versus having to drill down into the comments section to see your wisdom turned into text.
You can also do "backlinks", which essential link blog posts together. It's kind of like replying to a blog post with another blog post. At the bottom of a post, there is a link that says "Links to this post". Click that, and then create a new link. This process indelibly links the two posts together, so readers can follow the train of thoughts.
Also, whenever either of post, the blog is setup to send both of us an email. That will help retain some of the format of our previous conversation method. Just now, instead of replying via the email, you can do a quick log on, and reply FOR THE WORLD TO SEE! Instant Public Brilliance.
That is all for now. I'll be posting a bunch of stuff on Oil, Shopping, and Atheism in a bit.
Making your own posts will give your thoughts more visibility, and show that you're participating, versus having to drill down into the comments section to see your wisdom turned into text.
You can also do "backlinks", which essential link blog posts together. It's kind of like replying to a blog post with another blog post. At the bottom of a post, there is a link that says "Links to this post". Click that, and then create a new link. This process indelibly links the two posts together, so readers can follow the train of thoughts.
Also, whenever either of post, the blog is setup to send both of us an email. That will help retain some of the format of our previous conversation method. Just now, instead of replying via the email, you can do a quick log on, and reply FOR THE WORLD TO SEE! Instant Public Brilliance.
That is all for now. I'll be posting a bunch of stuff on Oil, Shopping, and Atheism in a bit.
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Increase the gas tax?
So, I don't know if you've been hearing about this, but Hillary Clinton and John McCain have both suggested the country take a holiday from the 18.5 cent per gallon tax on gasoline during the summer months to alleviate prices and help consumers who are already struggling from high fuel costs. Barrack Obama has patently refused to endorse such a plan, saying that it wouldn't really help many people much, if at all, and that the plan is just the same political pandering that Washington always takes part in, instead of making real changes with real results.
From what I've heard and read, Obama's position is the one that most economists and experts in the field are espousing. The gas tax holiday wouldn't alleviate prices, and might actually inflate prices. The reasoning is such: the gas companies are already charging what the market can bear. If you remove the tax from the price of a gallon of gas, that money will instead just go to the Exxon Mobils of the world, and not actually reduce the price. If you're willing to pay $3.49 a gallon now, why wouldn't you in a couple months? The argument made that prices may actually rise is this: with a huge media campaign letting people know the government isn't taking it's cut from your gas bill anymore, people might believe that gas is truly cheaper, and perhaps consume more, and certainly not less. Of course, when demand goes up, and supplies stay the same, then price goes up. Therefore, temporarily repealing the tax could potentially inflate prices, having the opposite effect that was intended.
So, this leads to my question, which follows naturally, I feel: should we raise the gas tax? If all of the above is true, why wouldn't the inverse be true? If lowering the tax would just increase what are already seen as unfairly high profits, wouldn't raising the tax then act to lower their massive profits? If the perception of lower prices would increase demand and thusly price per gallon, wouldn't the perception of high prices lower demand and therefore lower prices?
From what I've heard and read, Obama's position is the one that most economists and experts in the field are espousing. The gas tax holiday wouldn't alleviate prices, and might actually inflate prices. The reasoning is such: the gas companies are already charging what the market can bear. If you remove the tax from the price of a gallon of gas, that money will instead just go to the Exxon Mobils of the world, and not actually reduce the price. If you're willing to pay $3.49 a gallon now, why wouldn't you in a couple months? The argument made that prices may actually rise is this: with a huge media campaign letting people know the government isn't taking it's cut from your gas bill anymore, people might believe that gas is truly cheaper, and perhaps consume more, and certainly not less. Of course, when demand goes up, and supplies stay the same, then price goes up. Therefore, temporarily repealing the tax could potentially inflate prices, having the opposite effect that was intended.
So, this leads to my question, which follows naturally, I feel: should we raise the gas tax? If all of the above is true, why wouldn't the inverse be true? If lowering the tax would just increase what are already seen as unfairly high profits, wouldn't raising the tax then act to lower their massive profits? If the perception of lower prices would increase demand and thusly price per gallon, wouldn't the perception of high prices lower demand and therefore lower prices?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)