tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-89546602024-03-08T13:57:32.169-05:00Eshan's Provisional BlogAnother blog about economics, politics, and technology.Eshanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02816800773965945813noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954660.post-1176174826743820952007-04-09T22:35:00.000-04:002007-04-09T23:15:59.586-04:00Back to WorkSo I started work today as a Business Analyst for <a href="http://www.theorchard.com/">The Orchard</a>. In preparation, I've been reading a lot, and as a result, I've been thinking a lot.<br /><br />It occurs to me that for the last six months I've been engaged in largely consumptive behavior. I had all the time in the world, and I never made anything of it. All of a sudden, I have all these ideas I want to explore, but I have to get to bed so I get to work on time.<br /><br />Well, tomorrow is a new day...Eshanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02816800773965945813noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954660.post-1119394468779606112005-06-21T17:58:00.000-04:002005-06-21T18:54:28.803-04:00Sophia's ChoiceSophia is a vegan. She interns at the Humane Society and is very concerned with animal welfare. I eat meat. I offered Sophia a deal: if she ate a steak, I would refrain from eating meat for a month. On balance, meat consumption for that month would decrease, since I eat more than a steak's worth in a month. That would further her goal, even though she would be eating meat. Should Sophia accept this offer? Do vegans love animals enough to eat them?<br /><br />Sophia didn't accept the offer, saying she could no longer eat meat without becoming ill, which is a fine answer, but it sidesteps the matter. Are vegans more concerned with total animal suffering or the suffering they themselves induce? Why would a vegan be reluctant to accept this offer? <br /><br />Incidentally, a few people were appalled I would make this offer at all. I like to offer people choices, what can I say?Eshanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02816800773965945813noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954660.post-1106615747714486432005-01-24T19:54:00.000-05:002005-01-24T20:15:47.716-05:00What's in a name?An <a href="http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=S%27%29%28%20%29P%217%21%20%40%20%3C%0A">Economist article</a> discusses the strange turns the term "liberal" has taken. In the US, it has become an insult against the left. As a result, the left seeks to use the term "progressive." The Economist wants to restore it to its orginal meaning, something akin to "libertarian."
<br />
<br />Meanwhile, a <a href="http://www.reason.com/0501/cr.tp.john.shtml">Reason article</a> describes how some egalitarian types are using that term, calling themselves "left libertarians." The ideas described in the article don't sound very coherent, though.
<br />Eshanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02816800773965945813noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954660.post-1105348514287875372005-01-10T02:52:00.000-05:002005-01-10T04:15:14.286-05:00Amateur Tsunami Warning SystemsRobert X. Cringely has <a href="http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20041230.html">written</a> about the feasibility of decentralized tsunami warning systems. Basically, a personal computer connected to the Internet can continuously monitor relevant seismographs and determine whether its particular location is at risk. Every beach would run its own instance, obviating the need for international coordination. A developer and an earth scientist have started an <a href="http://otasblog.blogspot.com/">Open Tsunami Alerting System</a> to develop the software necessary.
<br />
<br />Meanwhile, world leaders have <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4151297.stm">pledged</a> to develop a centralized early warning system. It will be interesting to see how these parallel efforts progress. Perhaps this will be another battle in the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/12/magazine/12PROFESSIONAL.html?ex=1105506000&en=bafed348b953dac0&ei=5070">"pro-am revolution,"</a> ushering in what David Brin called in <a href="http://www.davidbrin.com/tscontents.html">The Transparent Society</a> the "century of amateurs."
<br />
<br />Of course, for such a decentralized effort to work, the people at the beaches need to be connected to the rest of the world. They need the seismographs from the Internet and the (rather modest) computer hardware to monitor them. They need local expertise to run the system. Unfortunately, judging by the <a href="http://www.techcentralstation.com/010705B.html">graph</a> below, they were completely <span style="font-style: italic;">unconnected</span> to us:
<br />
<br /><img src="http://www.techcentralstation.com/images/010704B1.gif" />
<br />
<br />Much of this tragedy could have been prevented if they were better connected to the rest of the world.
<br />Eshanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02816800773965945813noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954660.post-1105143192535976852005-01-07T16:45:00.000-05:002005-01-08T02:53:17.473-05:00Geneva Conventions and TortureThe nomination of Alberto Gonzales for attorney general has been quite controversial, despite early comments to the contrary. (For example, CNN <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/10/bush.cabinet/">had quoted</a> Democratic Senator Chuck Shumer as saying "It's encouraging that the president has chosen someone less polarizing. We will have to review his record very carefully, but I can tell you already he's a better candidate than John Ashcroft.")
<br />
<br />After the Abu Ghraib scandal, his 2002 memo calling the Geneva Conventions "quaint" and "obsolete" drew fire for creating a permissive environment for torture. The Geneva Conventions were agreed upon in different, perhaps simpler, times. The Third Geneva Convention specifies how lawful combatants must be treated, essentially a reciprocal agreement between warring states. Lawful combatants must be in uniform, bearing arms, under a chain of command, and following the rules of war. There is some debate whether special forces and snipers are lawful combatants. Terrorists are obviously not. The Geneva Conventions aren't quaint or obsolete, but they do not specify how to treat unlawful combatants.
<br />
<br />There are legitimate question as to how to treat terrorists, and whether torture can be justified. <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/03/cnna.Dershowitz/"> Alan Dershowitz</a> thinks torture is necessary in ticking-bomb scenarios, but we should formalize the process with torture warrants. <a href="http://lawofwar.org/atlantic_monthly.htm">Mark Bowden</a> thinks we should officially denounce torture, but our interrogators should use whatever coercive methods work, short of outright torture. Others believe we should avoid torture altogether, for fear of a slippery slope and losing the moral high ground.
<br />
<br />At Abu Ghraib, we certainly did lose moral high ground. However, it doesn't seem like it was the result of the debate over the Geneva Conventions or torture. The current issue of Reason contains a short interview with Seymour Hersh, who wrote <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060195916/103-3421113-0962233?v=glance">Chain of Command</a>, detailing the administration's responsibility for Abu Ghraib. In Reason, he writes:
<br /><blockquote>The idea of using sex, exposing men to shame as part of the breaking down process, photographing them naked in front of women or simulating homosexual acts - it's inconceivable that a bunch of kids from West Virginia knew the most sophisticated way to humiliate Arab men. And the purpose was not really to break down those people - often they had nothing to give - but to photograph them in a compromised position and say: "Go home, find the insurgency, join it, and report back to us or we'll show these to your relatives and people in your village."</blockquote>Such a plan is beyond Gonzales's discussion of the Geneva Conventions. It is unlikely that the administration was waiting to hear whether their plan fell afoul of the Geneva Conventions, anyway. President Bush must bear the brunt of the blame for Abu Ghraib, not Alberto Gonzales.
<br />Eshanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02816800773965945813noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954660.post-1103610229194926432004-12-21T01:51:00.000-05:002004-12-21T01:28:20.760-05:00Proper Emissions Trading MarketsThis week, the high-powered Becker-Posner Blog tackles global warming. <a href="http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2004/12/global_warming.html">Posner writes</a>:
<br /><blockquote>However, subsidies would be necessary for technologies that would have no market, such as technologies for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. There would be no private demand for such technologies because, in contrast to ones that reduce emissions, technologies that remove already emitted carbon dioxide from the atmosphere would not reduce any emitters tax burden.</blockquote>It doesn't have to be this way. As I wrote in a <a href="http://strangeideas.com/Conserving%20Carbon%20Sinks.doc">paper</a> earlier this year, emissions credits should come from actual absorptive capabilities, not created ex nihilo, and awarded to the owners of those capabilities. Some, such as the oceans, have no definite owners; these credits can belong to neutral bodies. Rainforest have owners, who would receive a valuable commodity in return for preserving the rainforests. So would the owners of machines that sequester carbon dioxide. Emitters would have to buy emissions credits from these sources, incentivizing them to be more efficient. The high price of credits would incentivize protection and restoration of rainforest and investments in new technology.
<br />Eshanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02816800773965945813noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954660.post-1103357492017780792004-12-18T02:02:00.000-05:002004-12-18T03:11:32.016-05:00The Folly of Universal ServiceAfter reading the New Yorker article "Green Manhattan," (see <a href="http://satyrnein.blogspot.com/2004/11/manhattan-everywhere.html">my earlier post</a>) I've been wondering why places aren't more like Manhattan already. The article was about environmental factors, which, as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality">externalities</a>, don't cause enough cost pressure. However, even without the externalities, <span style="font-style: italic;">some</span> cost pressure exists. For example, the article mentions how heating apartments is cheaper than heating houses. Now, if the full cost to the environment (the externality) were factored in, heat would be more expensive. This would make the cost difference between heating apartments and houses even greater. (Funny how global warming makes heating more expensive.)
<br />
<br />Even without internalizing the externality, though, there is some cost difference. Heat is just one example; the article listed many things that were more efficiently done in an urban setting. These efficiencies should translate to cost savings, which should act as a huge incentive for moving to cities. The market should lead us to organize our populations in cities, with rich folks having the luxury of owning comparatively expensive country houses to vacation in. Instead, rural areas are often poor.
<br />
<br />The truth is that we've done a lot to insulate people from these cost pressures. Take phone service. If you look at your phone bill, we pay a tax towards Universal Service. This money is collected to wire up rural customers at a great expense. Phone companies wouldn't ordinarily do it, because it is a money losing venture. So all of us who live in an efficient manner pay a penalty to subsidize the (in a way) extravagant lifestyle of our rural cousins. Utilities often employ rate averaging so that customers everywhere pay a "reasonable" price. The urban dwellers don't feel the benefit, and the rural folk don't feel the pressure.
<br />
<br />This is harmful on several levels. In a way, it seems "progressive." The people that can easily afford phone service subsidize those for whom it is more expensive. Really, though, there's nothing progressive about urban poor subsidizing rural rich; it's just the opposite. Cities aren't uniformly rich, and rural areas aren't uniformly poor. If providing cheap rural phone service is important, it should be funded out of general (progressively taxed) revenue, rather than a regressive fee paid by rich and poor alike.
<br />
<br />But perhaps people in rural areas <span style="font-style: italic;">should</span> feel the cost pressure. Cheap phone service is not a universally guaranteed right. They should be encouraged to move to cities where utilities are so much cheaper, after city dwellers are no longer forced to pay subsidies. If cities are the most efficient way of living, let us live that way. In practice, of course, everyone has phone service already. That universal service money just goes to developers who are building new housing developments, to subsidize laying new wire, and <a href="http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0408/robbins.php">to the mob</a>.
<br />
<br />Phone service may not be guaranteed, but certain other services are. Voting booths, for example. With the current welfare state, public schools. But imagine, for a moment, what the country might look like under <a href="http://www.techcentralstation.com/092903A.html">bleeding-heart libertarianism</a>. There is no public school system. There is no post office. There is no universal service. There are people with more money looking to spend it on cost-efficient services. Where will they find them? They will be drawn to cities.
<br />
<br />It is difficult to imagine what the country would be like if it were mostly urban. There is a <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm">correlation</a> between cities and liberals, but causation isn't clear. Some conservatives believe liberals are drawn to cities for the anonymity, where they can follow their perverse proclivities without interruption. Some liberals believe cities <span style="font-style: italic;">turn</span> people liberal, as the diverse range of experiences opens their minds. If the liberals are right, their own beloved welfare state and their distrust of market solutions for pollution may be the obstacle to opening everyone's minds. Of course, if they kept the open mind, but not the welfare state and the distrust of markets, they would no longer be liberals; they would be libertarians.
<br />Eshanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02816800773965945813noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954660.post-1103267459756628002004-12-17T01:52:00.000-05:002004-12-17T21:22:40.840-05:00Missile DefenseAnother missile defense test has ended in complete failure. This time, the missile never even fired. Fred Kaplan, a long time opponent, <a href="http://slate.msn.com/id/2111185/fr/rss/">again insists</a> we abandon the project. Now, while I certainly wouldn't mind a missile defense system protecting us, the money is better spent on probable threats. Still, Kaplan reads too much into the fact the missile didn't launch. It has launched in other tests. We know how launch missiles. The system is in development, even basic portions can fail.
<br />
<br />Why is this so hard? It's like "hitting a bullet with another bullet," I know. Didn't the Patriot missile do just that back in the first Gulf War? Actually, there seems to be some <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_missile">controversy </a>about how well it did.
<br />
<br />If only we could just offer a large reward for hitting our bullet. The application fee would cover our launch cost, and if the trial were successful, the company gets the prize. More than defense from missiles, we need defense against paying for failure.
<br />Eshanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02816800773965945813noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954660.post-1101712481262402262004-11-28T23:47:00.000-05:002004-11-29T02:14:41.263-05:00Is Sustainability Important?Many environmentalists talk about the importance of sustainability. There is an intuitive appeal to the idea of balancing the needs of today with the needs of future generations. We certainly do not want to compromise our children's future.
<br />
<br />What rate of oil consumption, for example, is sustainable? People talk about the need to improve fuel efficiency, because oil is a finite resource. But <span style="font-style: italic;">any</span> rate will eventually deplete a finite resource, so <span style="font-style: italic;">no</span> rate is sustainable.
<br />
<br />That's okay, though. As a former Saudi oil minister <a href="http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2155717">said</a>, "The Stone Age did not end for lack of stone, and the Oil Age will end long before the world runs out of oil." We do not need to sustain any level of oil consumption indefinitely; we will move on to something else. Some scientists are eyeing the <a href="http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/helium3_000630.html">moon's supply of helium-3</a>, potentially a much greater power source than fossil fuels.
<br />
<br />This is not to say than any level of consumption is as good as any other; the oil has to last us until we can move to helium-3 or whatever else. Only continued technological progress can sustain us indefinitely. We should be careful not to block it in the name of sustainability.
<br />Eshanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02816800773965945813noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954660.post-1101261376046187652004-11-23T20:39:00.001-05:002004-11-23T20:56:16.046-05:00Democratic Voters are Just as BadSome Republican voters may not know the difference between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, but judging from some signs I've seen, Democratic voters don't know the difference between Bush and Hitler. Seriously, though, both sides have their myths. The very notion that Republican voters are stupid and ignorant compared to Democratic voters is one of these myths.
<br />
<br />Cathy Young has a couple good articles on this topic, <a href="http://www.reason.com/cy/cy111604.shtml">here</a> and <a href="http://www.reason.com/cy/cy112304.shtml">here</a>.
<br />
<br />The bottom line is that most voters are uninformed. Maybe it's a good thing more people don't vote.
<br />Eshanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02816800773965945813noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954660.post-1101229097119729182004-11-23T10:54:00.000-05:002004-11-23T11:58:17.120-05:00Blue FederalismAfter Bush's victory, some liberals want a greater emphasis on states' rights. This has been covered recently in a New York Times Magazine <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/21/magazine/21WWLN.html?oref=login">article</a>, among other places.
<br />
<br />This strikes me as odd. The intent is clearly to escape the tyranny of the majority, but wouldn't this merely create new, different tyrannies? Perhaps residents of upstate New York would not appreciate the socialist paradise that the urban elite envisions. Forty percent of New York voters chose Bush, so it's not simply that all of New York wants to be more liberal; a large portion would have to be dragged kicking and screaming. The liberals may prefer a liberal tyranny, but they should recognize it for what it is.
<br />
<br />Another thing, one of the motivations that has been cited is that blue states no longer want to subsidize red states. So, if I understand this correctly, liberals don't want to continue subsidizing the poor if they keep making bad decisions? Sounds a lot like welfare reform. States' rights and accountability: is this what Ralph Nader meant by attacking the Republicans from the right?
<br />Eshanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02816800773965945813noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954660.post-1101177067658683342004-11-22T19:56:00.000-05:002004-11-22T21:31:07.656-05:00The Burden on your VoteEach person gets a say in government by voting in elections. If one of the candidates represents your views exactly, you get to express your desires exactly. Much more common, though, is the single-issue voter, who votes for the candidate with whom he agrees on the most important issue.
<br />
<br />The single-issue voter doesn't get to voice his concerns on other issues; in fact, he ends up implicitly supporting policies he doesn't agree with. This is the "collateral damage" of voting. Libertarians might like Bush's tax cuts, but not the Patriot Act. Liberal hawks might like the War on Terror, but not the social conservatism. Paleocons might be the opposite.
<br />
<br />As the federal government expands, the number of issues goes up. Therefore, the ability for the voters to effectively control the government goes down. Each vote cannot possibly convey opinions on defense, education, trade, healthcare, and every other issue while choosing from only two realistic candidates. There are three solutions: increasing the number of votes, decreasing the number of issues, and increasing the number of candidates.
<br />
<br />The first solution, increasing the number of votes, is part of direct democracy. Through initiative, referendum, and recall, the voters can vote more often in an effort to control the government more effectively. In practice, however, this can lead to inconsistent policies, as politicians and voters fight it out in the same legislative space.
<br />
<br />The second solution, reducing the number of issues, can be achieved in two different ways. The first is for the government to leave more to the private sector. For example, if education were privatized, voters wouldn't have to hear about how every candidate values education. They could vote on other issues, and send their children to a private school of their choice (assuming vouchers for the poor). The second way to reduce the number of issues is move more of the issues down to the state or local level. Of course, this may just be moving the problem.
<br />
<br />The third solution, increasing the number of realistic candidates, can only be accomplished with electoral reform. Our current system ensure we only have two choices. With more choices, under a system such as instant runoff voting, voters may find a better match for their own preferences.
<br />
<br />The federal government has gotten larger and larger. Our ability to control it has gotten smaller and smaller. Unfortunately, it won't change unless it becomes everyone's single-issue.
<br />Eshanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02816800773965945813noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954660.post-1100145215181787762004-11-10T22:18:00.000-05:002004-11-10T22:53:35.180-05:00Who's to blame for high drug costs?The New Yorker has another great <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/critics/atlarge/?041025crat_atlarge">article</a>, this time on prescription drug prices. Here's an excerpt:
<br /><blockquote>The problem with the way we think about prescription drugs begins with a basic misunderstanding about drug prices. The editorial board of the <span class="italic">Times</span> has pronounced them much too high; Marcia Angell calls them intolerable. The perception that the drug industry is profiteering at the expense of the American consumer has given pharmaceutical firms a reputation on a par with that of cigarette manufacturers.</blockquote>I certainly have had complaints with the <span style="font-style: italic;">Times</span>. Marcia Angell is a former editor-in-chief of <span class="italic"><span style="font-style: italic;">The New England Journal of Medicine</span>, and she gets a fair amount of criticism in this article.
<br />
<br />The author contends that high prices are not exclusively the fault of the drug companies; some blame rests on doctors and medical journals, too. Sometime drug companies put out new drugs that are barely different than old drugs, but it's the job of doctors and medical journals to see through that. They should prescribe generics whenever possible, but often they prescribe expensive new drugs as a matter of course. Some people believe that doctors have an altogether too cozy relationship with drug companies, who fly them out to conferences and give them various perks. Op-eds written by doctors usually blame the drug companies for everything, though.
<br />
<br />Luckily, doctors don't necessarily need to take on the responsibility of cost control. That responsibility rests with the insurance companies. If we can divorce health insurance from employers so that people can make decision on which company to use, each insurance company will have powerful incentive to use generics wherever possible as an easy way to cut costs while still providing the same level of service. We need to introduce real competition into the market.
<br /></span>Eshanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02816800773965945813noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954660.post-1100137816440396552004-11-10T19:39:00.000-05:002004-11-10T20:51:01.930-05:00Manhattan EverywhereI recently read a fantastic article in The New Yorker called "Green Manhattan." Unfortunately, it's not freely available online, but it's in LexisNexis. The article makes the counterintuitive case than Manhattan is good for the environment, when you consider our pollution rates <span style="font-style: italic;">per capita</span>. The author goes on to suggest that other places be made like Manhattan, with wider sidewalks, narrower streets, little parking, small apartments, etc.
<br />
<br />In the interest of disclosure, I live in Manhattan, I love Manhattan, and I would love if other places were like Manhattan, if only to make the real Manhattan a little cheaper. I love that Manhattan is more "green" than I thought. My apartment isn't just small, it's saving the Earth!
<br />
<br />However, I don't think this is solid environment policy. It's good to know that Manhattan is an energy efficient design; maybe other places will tend towards this design. We shouldn't let our love for Manhattan and the environment blind us to other possibilities, though.
<br />
<br />Let's assume that environmental protection is our goal and greenhouse gases are the problem. Well, forcing other cities to be unfriendly to cars may help by forcing people to take mass transit. Unfriendliness to cars is not necessarily the best policy, though. What if someone invents a very efficient solar-powered car? Suddenly, aversion to cars isn't the best policy; it's actually harmful.
<br />
<br />Consider raising taxes on fossil fuels instead. What would happen? It would be more expensive to drive into the city, so people would naturally start taking mass transit more. It would be much cheaper to heat an apartment than a house in the suburbs, so people might start to prefer apartments. Maybe everywhere will end up like Manhattan. However, this plan is not hostile to change. If the solar-powered car comes along, it would be cheaper to drive than a regular car, so people might start driving again instead of using mass transit. Maybe they'll put these efficient solar panels on their houses and live in suburbs again. It's difficult to know what will happen, but it's safe to assume that things will change. Forcing places to be like Manhattan assumes that the Manhattan model will remain the best solution. Using the market lets everyone decide.
<br />
<br />Even taxing fossil fuels is imperfect. If the problem is that we don't want greenhouse gases in the air, it may be possible to filter them out in other ways. Some people have suggested farms of algae floating on the ocean, or machines that sequester the carbon. In that case, fossil fuel burners would have to pay the farmers and machine operators, and you wouldn't need to tax fossil fuels at all. A natural market equilibrium would keep the environment healthy.
<br />
<br />Sometimes, unfortunate approximations are necessary. Forcing the Manhattan model on people would be a mistake, though; we have other options.
<br />Eshanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02816800773965945813noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954660.post-1100133528707735852004-11-10T18:06:00.000-05:002004-11-10T19:38:48.706-05:00Flu Shots vs. ViagraI'm beginning to think I could write a whole blog just contesting op-eds in the Times about healthcare. Today's subject is an <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/24/opinion/24barlettsteele.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5090&en=d019c9453e630663&ex=1256356800&partner=rssuserland">op-ed</a> by Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele called, unsurprisingly, "The Health of Nations." (The name has been used over and over, including by the Times' own Paul Krugman earlier this year.)
<br />
<br />The authors attempt to illustrate the evils of the market system when it comes to prescription drugs. Their example is the shortage of flu shots and the proliferation of impotence drugs:
<br /><blockquote>The reason for the shortage is this: Preventing a flu epidemic that could kill thousands is not nearly as profitable as making pills for something like erectile dysfunction, a decidedly non-fatal condition. Viagra, for example, brings in more than $1 billion a year for its maker, Pfizer. The profits to be made from selling flu vaccine are measly in comparison.</blockquote>Their solution is a single-payer system. Is this a reasonable response? First, consider Viagra. There clearly is a demand for it, given its strong sales. People want it. Would it be produced in a single-payer system? Or would experts such as these decide it was not important? The market responds better to what people actually want.
<br />
<br />Isn't the shortage of flu shots proof that it doesn't? Actually, no. There isn't a proper market for flu shots, but a monopsony situation, where the government is the only buyer. The government pays a low fixed price and distributes the vaccine. As a result, most vaccine suppliers dropped out of the market. This is pretty similar to a single-payer situation. Price controls often lead to shortages.
<br />
<br />So what's the lesson here? Certainly not that markets are bad and goverment control is good. In fact, it seems the opposite.
<br />Eshanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02816800773965945813noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954660.post-1100125279446099202004-11-10T15:48:00.000-05:002004-11-11T01:21:01.076-05:00No Logo?James Surowiecki has an <a href="http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.11/brands.html">article</a> in Wired suggesting that the power of brands is diminishing. This makes perfect sense. A brand's power lies in the information it carries; for example, Sony is known for making good TVs. Nowadays, there are many other sources for information about a product. When I bought my last TV, I scoured reviews online and found that Samsung had a put out a particular model that had all the features of the high end Sony, but at a much lower price. When you buy a Sony, you're paying a premium for the assurance that comes with the brand. I got my assurance from a website I trusted, and it was free. The days of walking into a store and picking out a Sony are over.
<br />
<br />Of course, we still need assurance from somewhere. Review sites are developing into "meta-brands." <a href="http://anandtech.com/">Anandtech</a>, a site that review computer components, used to be one guy, Anand, whose opinion I felt I could trust. Now Anandtech has expanded, and I don't know anything about the individual writers. Still, I trust the Anandtech brand to tell me what brand to purchase of computer components to purchase.
<br />
<br />Meta-brands are still brands; they still have to cultivate a reputation, and mistakes can hurt that reputation. A more radical departure from the current situation would be reliance on aggregate information from anonymous users. For example, even without reputations to protect, anonymous users have produced good results consistently on <a href="http://wikipedia.org/">Wikipedia</a>. But unless such a dramatic shift occurs, I would hesitate to say branding is dead.
<br />Eshanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02816800773965945813noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954660.post-1099952225467514402004-11-08T16:37:00.000-05:002004-11-08T17:17:05.466-05:00IQ by stateThere's a <a href="http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm">chart</a> going around with IQ figures by state, and which candidate the state voted for. The punchline seems to be that stupid people vote for Bush.
<br />
<br />Now, I can't find any authoritative source for IQ averages by state. There are some studies based on SAT/ACT scores or National Assessment of Educational Progress, but the differences between states are minor. Moreover, neither candidate monopolizes the "smarter" voters.
<br />
<br />However, this particular chart appears to have been made from a correlation between income and IQ. So if a state's average income is low, its average IQ is assumed to be low. Very unscientific, but a lot of people are ready to believe it.
<br />
<br />Amusingly, this means the contempt some liberals are feeling for red states based on this chart is actually illiberal contempt for the poor; the pride they are feeling is pride in being rich.
<br />Eshanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02816800773965945813noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954660.post-1099680328957812882004-11-05T13:17:00.000-05:002004-11-05T13:46:45.236-05:00Some MapsThere are some interesting maps out there. This <a href="http://letsriot.com/stuff/new_map.jpg">one</a> is pretty funny. This <a href="http://www.boingboing.net/images/Purple-USA.jpg">one</a> illustrates that differences between red states and blue states are less severe than one might imagine. However, there is a major divide, but it's not between the coastal states and the interior. It's between urban and rural areas. Take a look at <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm">this</a> map, showing which way each county voted.
<br />
<br />Interestingly, this means that the people most at risk for a terrorist attack voted overwhelmingly against Bush and his prosecution of the War on Terror.
<br />Eshanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02816800773965945813noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954660.post-1099430357096770022004-11-02T13:02:00.000-05:002004-11-03T18:52:46.353-05:00Called OutI suppose I approached the war in Iraq as a "liberal hawk." Perhaps my biggest influence was the book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393057755/002-6192791-8943231?v=glance">Terror and Liberalism</a> by Paul Berman, who has been <a href="http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040223&c=4&s=lind">called</a> the <span style="font-size:100%;">"maître penseur of the liberal hawks." My endorsement followed the same model that his <a href="http://slate.msn.com/id/2108714/">endorsement</a> and others' did, saying Bush had the right idea, but he was too inept to finish the job.
<br />
<br />Well, the <a href="http://slate.msn.com/id/2093620/entry/2093641/">"I-Can't-Believe-I'm-A-Hawk Club"</a> has just been called out by Tim Cavanaugh in <a href="http://www.reason.com/cavanaugh/110104.shtml">Reason</a>. It's a little too easy to support the war, blame Bush for any problems that arise, and claim to be on the right side of history if it goes well.
<br />
<br />So the question is really, did Bush screw this up worse than I could have realized? Should I have followed </span>the <a href="http://d-squareddigest.blogspot.com/2004_05_23_d-squareddigest_archive.html#108573518762776451">D-Squared Digest One Minute MBA - Avoiding Projects Pursued By Morons</a>?<span style="font-size:100%;">
<br />
<br />More later.
<br />
<br />UPDATE:
<br />I decided that I can't really be accused of deserting Bush. Supporting a particular policy of his doesn't mean that I owe him my support in the next election if I think the challenger can do better, which I did. Bush won, of course, even without my support.
<br /></span>Eshanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02816800773965945813noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954660.post-1099357550222975112004-11-01T18:37:00.000-05:002004-11-01T20:05:50.223-05:00Last Moment EndorsementOk, my blog is up and running (well, 2 posts) just in time for an endorsement. Vote Kerry.
<br />
<br />Thus far, I think I've kept all my friends, but the explanation is much more scandalous. The single-issue is the "War on Terrorism." Here, I think Bush has the right idea. Our long term strategy has to include a liberal, democratic Middle East. So my problem is not with imperialism, use of force, blood for oil, or any of those sorts of reasons. My problem is with incompetence.
<br />
<br />Thankfully, Kerry doesn't want to cut and run, which would immediately disqualify him, in my opinion. We started on the correct path; we need to press on. Kerry will benefit from simply not being Bush; he will start with a clean slate. If he can convince our allies to pitch in, fantastic. Hopefully, Kerry can capitalize on some of the potential that Bush has missed out on due to his gross mismanagement.
<br />
<br />On other issues, both have their problems, but that is secondary. If Bush had come through on his promises for Iraq, I would support him, despite his fiscal policy and right-wing social agenda. A second term with a democratic Iraq and Afghanistan in place would have put him in the perfect position to work on Israel and Palestine. Unfortunately, those dreams have mostly evaporated. I don't hold out great hopes for what Kerry can accomplish; I just want him to mitigate the damage.
<br />Eshanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02816800773965945813noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954660.post-1099275278428944042004-10-31T21:14:00.000-05:002004-10-31T21:14:38.426-05:00Importing Drugs from Canada is StupidI just read an <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/30/opinion/30rost.html?ex=1256875200&en=fc59c045b3e70e87&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland">op-ed</a> in the Times by a Peter Rost, doctor and Pfizer marketing executive. I'm not sure if he will remain a Pfizer marketing executive, though, after using his position to court controversy and publicly denounce his employer. I don't doubt he is doing what he thinks is right, but I don't think his analysis is right. He argues that importing drugs from Canada should be legal, and that those drugs are perfectly safe. I'm sure they <span style="font-style: italic;">are</span> safe; that argument by the drug companies was purely a red herring. Unfortunately, the real debate goes unconsidered in his article.
<br />
<br />In a literal sense, I think importing drugs from Canada <span style="font-style: italic;">should</span> be legalized. It should be the drug companies' responsibility to convince Canada to make <span style="font-style: italic;">exporting </span>drugs illegal. They are the ones benefitting from the price discrimination; they should be the ones working to protect it.
<br />
<br />What we're really talking about, though, is whether we like price discrimination. Drugs have high fixed costs (R&D) and low marginal costs (producing pills). Who should pick up the tab for the R&D costs? When the choice is between US consumers and third world poor, most people agree: US consumers. So our drugs are priced higher, so the drug companies can recoup their fixed costs, and third world drugs are priced just above marginal cost. Where does Canada fit in? Canada is a rich country, it could afford to share some of our burden. Instead, Canada is threatening to ignore the foreign patents of the drug companies unless they agree to certain price levels. Faced with a choice between recouping some of their cost and none of it, the drug companies agree to the terms. (This is where the drug companies should ask Canada to at least ban exports.)
<br />
<br />At this point, price discrimination looks less like progressive taxation to help the needy and more like it's plain unfair. There are two approaches to fixing this: get Canada to pay its fair share or refuse to pay our fare share. The first approach is being tried in TRIPs, an agreement on Trade Related aspects of Intellectual Property rights. Basically, if Canada signs it, they will have to honor foreign patents and lose their leverage. Drug prices in Canada would rise and they would have to carry their share of the fixed cost burden.
<br />
<br />Or, we could refuse to pay our fair share, too. The stupid and roundabout way to do this is to import drugs from Canada. The more direct way is to institute price controls ourselves. This is a dangerous course of action, since we will be drastically reducing the incentive for the drug companies to develop new drugs if they have less assurance they can recover their fixed costs.
<br />
<br />These are the real issues behind the debate about importing drugs from Canada. Meanwhile, Dr. Rost says in the Times "Drugs won't help save millions of lives if people can't afford to take them. I know that some people do not agree with me." No, Doctor, that isn't it at all.<span style="text-decoration: underline;"></span>
<br />Eshanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02816800773965945813noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954660.post-1099264848834302032004-10-31T17:06:00.000-05:002004-11-01T20:17:52.053-05:00Universal doesn't imply nationalizedLast night, at Kaitlen and Matt's Halloween party, some of us were debating the merits of libertarianism as opposed to the welfare state. Take the argument "Everyone should have healthcare and education, so the state should provide it." Sounds like a reasonable argument. When you list out all the unspoken parts, the argument looks more like this:
<br /><ol> <li>Everyone deserves access to healthcare and education.</li> <li>Only the state can guarantee that everyone has access to healthcare and education.</li> <li>The best way the state can guarantee that everyone has access to healthcare and education is by nationalizing healthcare and education.</li> <li>Therefore, the state should nationalize healthcare and education.
<br /></li> </ol> I wholeheartedly agree with Point 1. I will accept Point 2, since I don't know of any alternatives. The unspoken Point 3, however, is much more difficult to agree with. Nationalizing healthcare and education is certainly not the <span style="font-style: italic;">only</span> way to guarantee access for everyone. Another way would be to give vouchers to people who couldn't normally afford private healthcare and education. There are still other ways it could be done.
<br />
<br />Which one of these methods is best is a long discussion. My more immediate point here is that one can agree with Points 1 and 2 but not reach Point 4. Universal healthcare and education doesn't necessarily mean nationalized healthcare and education.
<br />
<br />Correction: I originally attributed the above argument in quotes to Damon. His actual opinion is more complicated. Alcohol kills nuance.
<br />Eshanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02816800773965945813noreply@blogger.com0