Happy Pumpkin Day!

Emptying the Bottle: October '08 Links List

1) Go here if you're tired of talking to a machine.

2) In Chess Boxing you need brain and brawn.

3) Why the financial crisis is like the game Monopoly or an Antarctic expedition.

4) A college scholarship for blogging!

5) Commit yourself to voting, or anything for that matter.

6) You know the economy is in trouble when this blog is created.

7) Thanks for the shout out James.

8) Countries in order of freest or states in order of freest.

9) Cheaters Dating Service, is there a worse place to meet people online?

10) Ken Jennings, who more money than anyone in TV history on Jeopardy, has a blog.

*As always, you can see what I find interesting on a daily basis*

Hard Questions About Abortion

Inspired by a great post by Steve, I'm reminded that this issue is still relevant. But I also remember how controversial and sensitive it can be. Instead of giving you my two cents, I'd just like to pose a couple of tough questions:

1) If it is made illegal, will we really make these women criminals? If so, what will be their punishment?

2) Should the punishment fall only on the doctors, when the women are clearly instrumental?

3) Is it in the Republicans interest to legalize abortion? To put it more bluntly, would they benefit more from keeping it controversial or by succeeding in banning it?

4) Would the Democrats be better or worse if they turned this debate into a states' rights issue? Give the power to the states (I believe it would probably fall about 30 allow and 20 ban) and lure many pro-lifers to the party.

5) At its core this is an issue about rights. A woman's right vs. a child's right. All would agree that a woman's right to have a child or not does not extend indefinitely. So at what point after conception does the right of the child supersede the right of the woman? Conception? 1 month after? 6 months after? Birth? 6 hours after birth?

Is Piracy Stealing?

This is a question I have wrestled with for a long time. Citizen Economists, a recent add to my blogroll, has a great post in defense of it:

First of all, the word “taken,” as it was originally used, was meant to imply that what you take is no longer there with the owner. In fact, the root of the word piracy itself betrays what it is supposed to mean. Pirates stormed ships forcibly, looted the occupants (not to mention murdered and God knows what else), and took away things that left the original owners without them.

This clearly doesn’t apply to piracy of music CD’s and software. If I download a song from a server, then the original copy is intact and nothing has been lost. To put a different spin on it, if I light a candle, and you (without my consent) light another candle from my flame and run away, can I charge you with having stolen my light? Is that piracy? I don’t think so.

not sure if I agree with this:

The overwhelming majority of people who illegally download software would never have bought it if they were unable to get if for free. So this argument falls flat.

and finally my favorite point:

It is never easy to download something illegally. You have to find a source, try and crack it, are in constant fear that updates will change something and render the software useless, etc. This is the reason why people pay money for software. They do it to avoid hassles. The very fact that people choose to buy software instead of trying to get it for free demonstrates this. The end result is this: People who would never have bought the software anyway are the ones who usually try and download music and software illegally. The others buy it to avoid the hassles of using non-genuine software.

The fact that people are still buying music and paying for software illustrates this principle. They pay for software even though they can get it for free. As long as companies make it as difficult as possible for their software to be copied illegally (it doesn’t have to be impossible), they will not lose sales since those to whom the software is worth the price will purchase it.

This Day in History

1861: The first transcontinental telegraph message was sent from California to President Abraham Lincoln.

1901: Daredevil Anna Edson Taylor became the first person to go over Niagara Falls in a wooden barrel. She was 63 years old.

1929: In the U.S., investors dumped more than 13 million shares on the stock market. The day is known as "Black Thursday."

1945: The United Nations' charter officially took effect.

1992: The Toronto Blue Jays defeated the Atlanta Braves in Game 6 and became the first team outside the United States to win a World Series.

2008: James Harrison Brookie gets a full time job teaching history at Bunn High School.

Politically Incorrect Guide to Politics by John Stossel

Sometimes there is nothing more to add other than a strong encouragement to take some time this week and watch this special. Here is Part 1 about politicians and their promises:



Part 2: The Financial Crisis
Part 3: Rebuilding New Orleans
Part 4: Campaign Finance
Part 5: Farm Subsidies
Part 6: Conclusion

What is your most controversial belief?

Mine is that I don't support many seemingly innocent charitable causes. I'll give you three examples: cancer research, post-hurricane rebuilding, and faith based initiatives.

By asking for donations for cancer research, we are claiming that the price system is not sufficient. There are surely huge financial incentives to cure cancer (which I am told is a broad word for several different kinds of diseases). Even curing one kind of cancer would be extremely profitable. The market should be able to predict exactly how profitable, and put that much money into research every year. But remember, profit isn't the extra money greedy CEO's use to torture kittens. But they are an exact value that consumers place on a product. If you put more money into research than would come out in value, then you have done a disservice. That money could have been better spend elsewhere. Is there a valid reason to think that the market is undervaluing a cancer cure?

Another example is the large amount of resources being donated to help rebuild areas like New Orleans after huge hurricanes like Katrina. When money is given to these area, we are only subsidizing people to live dangerously below sea level. Why not do the same for houses near volcanoes or earthquakes (wait, we do that second one). That money would be better spent subsidizing their move to other, safer, parts of the country.

Barack Obama has stated that he favors these faith based initiatives. Here are his statements: "but they can also participate in federal programs as long as those are done in a way that is not encroaching on a separation of church and state, is open to the public and is not involved in proselytizing." I don't trust the government to produce many things, especially my religion. I strongly support the separation of church of state, for the benefit of the state and the church. A Christian charity that does not also preach the gospel of grace is hardly a Christian charity at all.

Now that I've confessed, what is your most controversial belief?

Clemson Econ Blog Talks Clemson Football

What better place to get an economist's opinion on Coach Bowden's buyout than from the head of Clemson's Economics department. On his blog The Sports Economist Skip Sauer makes an interesting point:

The fundamental point is that buyouts are not the key economic issue. The key issue is that coaches salaries, particularly in Tommy Bowden's case, are proxies for player talent. Bowden was paid $1.8 million per year in part because of his ability to stock the Tiger dressing room with loads of (largely uncompensated) talent.

The $3.5 million buyout is being paid out of a "rainy day" fund that has been built up specifically for this, or some similar purpose. The contract states that it will be paid out over six years, or about $600,000 per year. This is the right context: buyouts are a form of insurance in a high stakes game; tragedy triggers the "lump sum" buyout, but it is effectively an annual cost, part of the cost of doing business in major college football. Moreover, $600,000 is not a ton of money in today's college football world. And in the context of Bowden's salary and ten year's of coaching at Clemson, it's a decent reward for a pretty good job.

Missionary Dating (Not what you think)

In honor of Blog Action Day 2008 I'd like to give you some thoughts on this years topic, poverty. There is undoubtedly an increasing gap between rich and poor in America. According to The Economist, "the gap in America is bigger than in any other advanced country." That's not to say the poor are poorer, but the rich are getting richer faster. The Economist goes on to say that "thanks to a jump in productivity growth after 1995, America's economy has outpaced other rich countries' for a decade. Its workers now produce over 30% more each hour they work than ten years ago." But inequality is still a major political issue. So what is something that average Americans can do to help the situation? I propose Missionary Dating (no, not that kind of missionary dating).

One of the main causes of income inequality in America, is a direct result of "assortative mating." This New York Times article explains that Americans are increasingly pairing off by education and income level. They report that "the odds of a high-school graduate marrying someone with a college degree declined by 43 percent between 1940 and the late 1970s." The cause of this is increased college attendance and mobility. It is simply easier to find someone like you. In fact, Arnold Kling seems to think the main purpose of higher education is not training or signaling, but is a place to meet a qualified spouse. Greg Mankiw humorously claims "that Harvard is the world's most elite dating agency."

A 2003 study by a Brookings Institution economist showed that "a rising correlation of husband-and-wife earnings accounted for 13 percent of the considerable growth in economic inequality between 1979 and 1996." He is less confident that assortative marriage is on the rise. He thinks that men have always married similar women, it's just that these women now have the opportunity to get high paying jobs like their husbands. Nonetheless, the rich marrying the rich is on the rise.

This is one solution to solving economic inequality, that is if you think it's a problem. Let's not forget about the Tradeoff of Socialism and Capitalism. Maybe we should all marry someone poorer or less educated. But our effect doesn't have to be through a marriage contract. Traci and I have seen the many perks that come with having a middle class community (almost everything we own was given to us: furniture, cars, dishes, kitchen table, computer, bed, etc). One way we can close the divide is to engage ourselves and our families geographically and relationally in the lives of those less fortunate.

Best of the First 100

This being my 100th post, I'll celebrate by listing my favorite posts so far:

• Graduation Speeches - What graduation speeches should say.
• In Honor of Wal-mart - How Wal-mart helps us live better.
• If you are reading this you are rich - Really really rich.
• Really Thinking About Real Estate - Why buying may not be so great.
• Stop Supply Gouging Me! - Discussion of price gouging laws.
  

If you feel like I'm missing any of your favorites, put a link in the comments.