Emptying the Bottle: Early-July '10 Links

Here is a list of the worthwhile sites I've Bookmarked recently:

• Marriage doesn't always make you happier.
• Low self esteem is more likely associated with interest in celebrities (earlier).
• Victory for user created content sharing online.
• North Korea's World Cup fans were really volunteers from China.
• Israel bans subtly airbrushing models.
• Overworking, terrible for your health (earlier).
• Invest, not donate, to the already growing Africa.
• A psychological case for lighter textbooks and more comfortable desks.
• The economic data on prostitution.
• The real problem with Wal-mart is it's selling food too cheap (earlier).
• Fed blames layman economics bloggers. Tyler comes to the rescue.
• Worried immigrants might take taxpayer safety nets, charge them (earlier).

To follow live and to see comments, subscribe via Google Reader.

Emptying the Bottle: Early-June '10 Links

Here is a list of the worthwhile sites I've Bookmarked recently:

• The idea that America spends a lot less on social safety nets than the Nordic countries is not true.
• Before he was president, JFK was a war hero.
• Unmade beds may keep us healthy.
• Internet nerds rescue a damsel in distress.
• Low intelligence, cohabitation, and sexual preference all predict divorce.
• A sensible discussion on the Civil Right Act, on Fox News no less [video].
• Sixteen items only sold at Chinese Wal-marts [photos].
• Chinese will probably not overtake English.
• The Pac-Man game Google put on its home page cost about $120 million in lost productivity.
• Best way to discredit a dictator? Make a fake sex tape.
• The government can't even make a short brownie recipe (earlier).
• Coastlines are counterintuitively hard to measure.

To follow live and to see comments, subscribe via Google Reader.

Blogging and the Golden Age of Journalism

This weekend marked the two year anniversary of the creation of this blog. Early in January 2008 I started with goal of entertaining others "with my thoughts and ideas of the world" and "when those original ideas are sparse" to "post others thoughts and ideas". Since then I have attempted to accomplish that simple goal by posting 3.63 posts a week. At first I wasn't quite sure if I would even make it 30 days, since 80% of blogs don't. But blogging has become a part of daily life for me and millions of others worldwide. For that reason alone, it's important to ask what the benefits are. The following is my collection of the benefits of writing and reading blogs.

Benefits to me and other blog writers:

1) Useful as a log of interesting thoughts. It is short for web log after all. Not only is it helpful for me to work through ideas, but I can look back (and link back) to those old ideas. Linking to old posts within my new ones allows me to create a story of interconnected ideas which connects seemingly random thoughts into a web of consciousness (which is important for learning). This isn't just true for me, but also for academics in the research field.

2) Because there is a log of old ideas, there is no reason to rehash. I will never have to reexplain why Wal-mart is good or Blockbuster is bad. These post will always exist, I don't need to write another.

3) Receive immediate feedback. Some bloggers don't allow comments because they get unruly, but to do so is to miss out on an essential part of posting online. The back and forth of a lively post, like practicing a game of chess, sharpens your skills as a writer and holds you accountable as a publisher. It also allows you post ideas you are uncertain of (like my most controversial post) and learn from your loyal readers.

4) Because feedback exists, a blogging community is created. Whether it's keeping touch with old friends or meeting new ones, I am able to rely on my readers to encourage and challenge me.

5) Makes you think of things outside your daily life. This of course depends on the type of blog you have, but when they are idea based, it forces thoughtful engagement in the world around you.

6) Make you apply things inside your daily life. Blogging forces writers to apply personal experiences into something a stranger would want to read. We can't fully understand ourselves until we understand how people view us.

7) It gives my loved ones a break from hearing me talk. My wife especially appreciates the opportunity to decide whether or not she hears my rant on immigration. Before this blog, she would had to hear it first hand.

8) Blogs are the new homepage. HarrisonBrookie.com is a static, unchanging list of places I am located online. My blog however, is where you would go if you really wanted to know who I am. Some might go as far as saying blogs are good for career, but probably only if you boss is Generation Y.

9) Writing is the best way to learn. This is why I have learned more about history in two years of teaching than in four years of college. Writing up my own lecture notes, although painstaking, has greatly increased my mastery of the subject. This is why I have my students write for homework.

10) It is good for your health:

Self-medication may be the reason the blogosphere has taken off. Scientists (and writers) have long known about the therapeutic benefits of writing about personal experiences, thoughts and feelings. But besides serving as a stress-coping mechanism, expressive writing produces many physiological benefits. Research shows that it improves memory and sleep, boosts immune cell activity and reduces viral load in AIDS patients, and even speeds healing after surgery. A study in the February issue of the Oncologist reports that cancer patients who engaged in expressive writing just before treatment felt markedly better, mentally and physically, as compared with patients who did not.

11) Help people know what they want to do for a living. Whether it's history, economics or improv, blogging is a daily reminder that I love teaching.

12) Unlike the TV, radio and print, blogging is not a zero-sum game. When the New York Times gets readers, it's usually bad for the Washington Post. I write this post trying to convince you to write and read more blogs without a fear of losing readers. With rss feeds or delivery via email, the cost of following this blog is close to zero.

13) The only competition is for a reader's time and because of this, blogs are inherently democratic. Written by the people for the people. The best (and most concise) posts rise to the top and the worse remain lost in the sea of online information. The printing press revolutionized how much the average person could read, but the internet revolutionized how much the average person could write. This is perfectly explain by Clay Shirky in this short video.

14) Because the writers are average people, there is no requirement to publish. No one ever claims someone to be unqualified to be a blogger. This frees us from pressure to meet deadlines, sell advertising, or even double check our grammar.

15) Blogging is for you dammit (but you also have readers). You write about what you want, how often you want. As long as you don't get obsessed with readers, it will continue to be what it was when you started, a place for you. The benefit of readers is that they encourage you to keep writing. Each new subscriber is one more reason to write more and learn more. This is why I write a blog, not a Word document.

Benefits to you and other blog readers:

1) The search for information can gives you a buzz. Like animals in captivity, we would rather search for our food (information) ourselves. But like animals in the wild, we don't want to have to search too hard. Feed aggregators give us the control and convenience we desire.

2) Information without costs. No need to flip through a newspaper or be bumbarded by magazine ads, with rss feeds, blog posts literally come to you.

3) Piecing together the snippets of information you get from reading multiple blogs is in and of itself an intellectual journey. To consume the same variety of radio, TV and print would be extemely time consuming. The more you consume, the more you think, and thinking makes you happy.

4) With blogging you read people, not organizations. Unlike regular news organizations which give you a specific type of news or slant, most blogs are a collection of a variety of items from one respected source. I'm not only interested in the financial crisis, but I'm specifically interested in what Tyler Cowen and Mark Perry think of the financial crisis.

5) You can quickly become a blogger yourself. I cannot tell you how much I enjoy reading what other people find on the web. Google Reader Sharing is simple and fast. Let me know if you ever join.

There are also potential costs of blogging:

1) It does make you self absorbed. When you are regularly posting things in expectation that others will find them interesting, it inherently makes you more narcissistic.

2) Hurts long in depth reading. I read blogs everyday, but I only read about three books a year. I don't start reading real news online unless I've cleaned out my blog reader.

3) It could hurt your career. As much as I hate to admit it, I do have to edit myself. I intentionally do not mention my blog to my high school students. I know some will find it, but it's on their own. At least until the world is more forgiving for ideas put online, it's important to remember everything you write could be read by your next job interviewer.

4) I once heard a blogger say he was in too deep to quit. We must always allow ourselves the freedom to take a break or quit altogether, no matter how much we would miss it.

5) Time costs for the writer and the reader. I try not to spend more time writing a post than I believe my readers will collectively spend reading it. This post is a good example of how I don't always follow that rule.

That said, this is "the golden age of journalism":

I spend about 2 hours a day reading and writing. This is more time than ever, even in my hardest semester in college. But don't worry, blogging won't replace investigative reporting anymore than improv would replace live theater. If CNN, NPR, and the NYT report news, blogs disperse it. We are reading more than ever, and in part that is due to the power the internet gives to the individual. It's helpful to put fear of change in perspective. 2500 years before people declared the death of the printed word, Socrates was fearing the death of the spoken word:

The practice of writing, Socrates is certain, will introduce forgetfulness, for men will no longer rely on remembrance from within themselves, but will put trust in (mere external) marks. Such writing will provide the appearance of wisdom, not its reality, so that those who make use of writings will hear many things but not actually learn them, yet will imagine they know much, knowing in fact nothing.

Things are changing, but they are changing for the better. I'll close with a quote from popular blogger Andrew Sullivan:

Its truths are provisional, and its ethos collective and messy. Yet the interaction it enables between writer and reader is unprecedented, visceral, and sometimes brutal. And make no mistake: it heralds a golden era for journalism.

I could have never predicted two years ago that blogging would be such an important part of my daily life. In some ways I find myself right where I started, wanting to learn more, but afraid that I may not be up to the task. For many blogging is a chance to discuss what they already know a good bit about: economics, politics, improv. etc, but it is also useful to write on topics we want to know more about and hope the commenter's keep us honest.

It is for that reason I've decided to continue this blog, but also start another one. As a Christian I believe it is important to understand the world we live in. The Bottlenecked Blog has helped me to do that, but in a very secular way. I have claimed to believe that the Bible is useful for understanding this world, but I rarely read it myself. That is why starting today I will also post regularly to Wanting Wisdom, a blog with the purpose of reading and applying scripture. The challenge is daunting, but the benefits are many.

Thinking About Thinking About Zombies

I have given my response to a zombie attack quite a bit a thought. Through the years I've realized I'm not the only one. I'm one of over 70,000 members of the Facebook group "The Hardest Part of a Zombie Apocalypse Will be Pretending I'm Not Excited" (one of only a few groups I grace my presence with). So you might ask: why would people think so much about something so unlikely? Well first, the possible costs are high. If you are caught unprepared, you'll be another unnamed screaming victim in the background one of many zombie movies. However, if you have given it proper consideration, you may survive. That, I believe, is why people give zombies more thought than other horror creatures. If you are attacked by vampires, werewolves, poltergeists, aliens, or any other supernatural beast, the best you can do is try to follow the "rules" of surviving scary movies. Zombies, on the other hand, are beat by good planning, a good wall, and a good blow to the brain. As strange as this post admittedly is, it's not like I wrote a Mathematical Modeling of an Outbreak of Zombie Infection:

Zombies are a popular figure in pop culture/entertainment and they are usually portrayed as being brought about through an outbreak or epidemic. Consequently, we model a zombie attack, using biological assumptions based on popular zombie movies. We introduce a basic model for zombie infection, determine equilibria and their stability, and illustrate the outcome with numerical solutions. We then refine the model to introduce a latent period of zombification, whereby humans are infected, but not infectious, before becoming undead. We then modify the model to include the effects of possible quarantine or a cure. Finally, we examine the impact of regular, impulsive reductions in the number of zombies and derive conditions under which eradication can occur. We show that only quick, aggressive attacks can stave off the doomsday scenario: the collapse of society as zombies overtake us all.

So to summarize: an outbreak will be disastrous, unless there is a quick, well planned attack. So keep your shotgun close and I'll see you in the designated safe zone (mine is the nearest Super Walmart).

Thoughts on Health Care Reform

Everyone wants health care reform, the debate lies in what kind. Since there is currently no exact plan proposed and because this issue is fairly complex, I'll leave it to a collection of 20 ideas I’ve been considering that I think you should too:

1) First, we need to understand the purpose of insurance. Whether it's health insurance, car insurance, or life insurance, the purpose of these are to pool risk as a safety net to pay for catastrophic events. The hope is that you never need to use them, but if you do, your family isn't bankrupted by a single event. Health insurance does not exist so I can get a $100 discount on eye glasses. It exists to so I can get a $100,000 cancer treatment. This seems to work in the car insurance industry. Sure they don't give me a discount on oil changes, but they do repair my car if someone damages it. One reason health insurance isn't like car insurance is the over 2,000 government mandates that add between 20-50$ to the cost of premiums. If consumers bore the full burden of non-catastrophic care, they would be less susceptible to the moral hazards of health care (another example with some teeth).

2) Although I do want changes to the current system, I want it done slowly and with transparency. That is hard to do when activists portray our current system as hopeless. America's health care system isn't the best, but it's far from the worst. Some things that are not taken into account is how we live. I, and my fellow Americans, eat meaty, salty, fatty and delicious food with very little exercise (many walk less than an hour a week). Another reason why our care seems worse than it actually is, is measurement. If you simply measure life expectancy from birth to death America looks bad. However, the US does well for cancer, heart attacks, and strokes. In fact, life expectancy when you're older is than in those in Europe.

3) One of the most common problems discussed is the long waits for care (people wait more than 18 weeks for treatment in the U.K.). Don't get me wrong, waiting over 4 months for treatment is not ideal, but it is necessary with heavily subsidized care. As the price moves closer to zero, people will demand more care. Everyone cannot get all the care they want (unlimited wants > limited resources), so it must be rationed. One way is to get people to wait in line, thereby increasing the opportunity cost. You have to ration care, whether it's with lines or by denying services. I think the best way is the way we ration everything from food, furniture and cell phones, with price.

4) Rationing with price does not mean we keep things the way they are now, because we do not have a free market health care system. The government already covers a third of Americans through Medicare (elderly) and Medicaid (children/poor). That's not even counting paying for the uninsured through subsidized emergency care. The government is also in charge of medical licensing and it restricts out of state insurance purchases (limiting competition). In some ways these increasing costs are good, it's why we are living longer, healthier lives then ever before. However, rationing with price has become harder in the last couple decades as costs have increased.

5) So then the question must be asked, why are costs going up? Costs in health care are increasing because we are buying more care and better care. Much like the market for animal health care, increases in quality and income have increased costs. America's cost is increasing right along with the industrialized nations of Europe. When trying to bring down health care costs, government must be sure it isn't also bringing down quality.

6) Here are some simple examples of free market health care bringing costs down:

• Wal-Mart’s $4 prescriptions
• cheap, fast, retail clinics (check wait times online)
• everyday things that reduce health care spending: better toothpaste, preventative education, better shoes, etc

7) One of the main questions that needs to be answered is what makes the market for health care different than the market for shoes? The only answer I could think of is a gap between producer knowledge and consumer knowledge. Buyers of health care aren't experts and have to take their doctors advice. However, other complex products like houses, colleges, are designer clothes don't seem broken. Maybe that's why we have realtors, guidance couselors, and wives. Good thing for us, there are now private businesses that assist as health care advocates.

8) However, advocates are rare, and not all complicated products are profitable enough to support an assistant. This is where good old fashioned reputations become important. Take my mechanic for example. When I first moved to NC I asked around in search of a good car repair shop. I know close to nothing about cars, and need to be able to trust that I'm not getting ripped off. I was given a couple of names, read reviews online, and tried out some myself. I now have a great mechanic that I trust to do what they can for a competitive price. There is no reason to believe competition won't work in this same way for health care and insurance. Admittedly there are still huge gaps in information, which explains why Arby's still exists, but for the most part bad doctors fail and good doctors flourish, thereby encouraging all doctors to be good.

9) Competition, in theory, will force businesses to provide the best product they can at the best price. Then why, in practice, does the medical industry seem to fall short? The market failure we see is really government failure (see my comments on this blog post). Most of the complaints about our current health care system can be dealt with by improving our legal system. Flagrant law suits can be reigned in by tort reform. Bad doctors can be replaced by not limiting the number of doctors, and rescission (unmaking of a contract between parties) can be eliminated by better enforcement of agreements. There is one major reform that deserves its own number.

10) Even though it's how a majority of Americans get health insurance, it does not need to be connected to their job. The only reason they are tied together is a fluke of history. During WWII the government put a wage ceiling on how much people could get paid, so businesses began to offer employer-paid health care as a way entice workers. Now, we only pay 14% of health care costs directly, so we rarely know what the real price is. How can businesses ration on price when consumers don't even know what they are? Also, if you lose your job, you lose your health insurance. Remove the tax exemption for businesses to buy health insurance and give it to individuals.

11) The main losers in our current system are the uninsured. Whether they are unemployed, self-employed, or employed without insurance, these 45.7 million people that are at most risk. But who are the uninsured? Here are some stats:

• 26% of the uninsured are eligible for some public coverage
• 21% of the uninsured are immigrants
• 20% of the uninsured have family incomes greater than $75,000 (more than me)
• 40% of the uninsured are young

Although I don't think it's totally fair, this cartoon helps put this crisis in perspective. It's also worth noting that the uninsured are only slightly less healthy than the insured, which means they are still insurable.

12) Unintended consequences are also important, here are a couple of examples:

• more regulation would increase costs and lead to less people with insurance
• to it's going to be very expensive and we don't have a lot of extra government funds
• the amazing, but currently unknown improvements in health care that would be developed for profit (most medical advances come from America's "broken" system)

13) Unlucky number so we won't put one here (actually my html messed up and somehow deleted parts of my post and I can't remember what this one was).

14) You cannot pass laws that ignore pre-existing conditions. It's a cost and businesses have to know what their costs are. Imagine trying to buy a warranty for a broken TV. These evil profit mongering businesses aren't evil (well I guess that's up to you) or really that profitable (health insurance industry ranks 86th in profit margin).

15) Speaking of evil, opponents need to stop demonizing health care reformers. It's just distracting from real complaints. Sadly, the debate over this issue has only increased my desire for more politcal apathy among the masses.

16) Profit is still the best motivator for giving consumers what they want. Denying services promised is an issue, but one that should be dealt with tort reform. However, refusal of treatment isn't always a bad thing. It is possible that the cost of treatment is too high when compared to the likelihood of help it would do. If not I'd get screened for skin cancer weekly. Again, we have to ration health care somehow and transparency is key.

17) Central to this debate is the something I mentioned last month, who do you fear: government intervention or unchecked businesses? The information is so massive, it's helpful to think generally about which will deliver better options.

18) Another argument I've heard in favor of more government intervention is from the documentary Sicko. Michael Moore takes a group of Americans over to Cuba for cheaper care. Yes, drugs may be cheaper overseas, but that's just price discrimination, something that happens at the movie theater all the time.

19) And now a personal complaint. If, in you opinion, you think everyone deserves health insurance from their government, then know you are forcing fellow citizens (with the threat of jail time) to support it as well. If you don't want to live in a world where Americans don't have health insurance, this is the only way to do it.

20) When I started this post (I wasn't expecting it to be so long either), it seemed Obama's plan would be pass. On July 26th Intrade, an online prediction market (earlier), gave the public plan over a 45% chance of passing. Today it's below 15%. However this is not a victory for anyone. Like I said in the beginning, everyone wants some kind of health care reform.

Conclusion: I want a consumer driven market just like I do for all markets. I want citizens to save and buy the health care they can afford, and in extreme situations have health insurance.

Baptists, Bootleggers, and Wal-Mart

In case you haven't heard, Wal-Mart has come out in support of Obama's plan to force employers to provide health insurance to workers. What you haven't heard, is why:

I find it hard to believe that none of the liberal commentators breathlessly celebrating Wal-Mart's "capitulation" on national health care have even entertained the most parsimonious explanation: that Wal-Mart is in favor of this because it raises the barriers to entry in the retail market, and hammers Wal-Mart's competition.

Politics makes strange bedfellows. Here is another example from Clemson University economics professor (and all around nice guy) Bruce Yandle's famous paper: Bootleggers and Baptists: The Education of a Regulatory Economist.

Different Equilibrium

One of the major problems with government action is the replacement of choice with force. Rational people, given the same information and options will sometimes make different choices. And maybe most importantly, both choices are best. Whether its ordering from a menu, buying health insurance, taking out a high interest loan, selling an organ, buying medical marijuana, shopping at Wal-mart, or getting a speeding ticket; everyone might not make the same decision that politicians want them to.

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.

In Honor of Wal-Mart

In honor of Wal-Mart’s new logo, I’d like to take a minute and discuss the controversy over the retail giant. There are many claims that Wal-mart is bad for Americans (low wages for workers, bad for small business, etc) and bad for foreign laborers (low pay, poor working conditions, etc), but just how accurate are those claims?

The former director of economic policy for John Kerry stated that Wal-Mart alone increased the welfare of American shoppers by at least $50 billion a year. In fact, most of these savings went to low and middle-class citizens because of their frequent use of the company. The poor also spend a disproportionate amount of money on groceries, which makes them the main beneficiary of lower food prices. In that same article they claim that the presence of Wal-Mart’s is responsible for a 10-20% decrease in prices. Furman even claimed that the retailer was a “progressive success story.” Now that’s not the big scary Wal-Mart you hear about.

So the customers are satisfied, but what about the workers? When Chicago got their first Wal-Mart, sadly because of politicians this was only 2 years ago, 15,000 people applied for 400 jobs. Surely these workers aren’t in a rush to get abused and underpaid. They may not all get health insurance, but they can buy it for as low as $11 a month. I bet the local shops can’t beat that.

But it must be bad for the community as a whole, right? No, in fact, employment growth is better in areas that have a Wal-Mart. A study at the University of Missouri even found that a new Wal-Mart kills 50 retail jobs, but creates 100 and without decreasing wages.

But if customers are better off, workers are better off, and even local communities are helped, surely the foreign workers must be hurt. Except that the facts say otherwise. From 1990-2002, Wal-Mart is credited with lifting 5,520,000 Chinese people out of poverty. Making knickknacks for wealthy Americans may not be your dream job, but it is for many. There have been roughly 100 million rural Chinese moving to the cities to earn more than twice what made farming.

I'm not saying that the corporation of Wal-Mart is philanthropic, or even nice. What I am trying to show is how when corporations seek profit, we all profit. I'll leave you with a quote from Michael Strong, a man who suggests Wal-Mart may deserve a Nobel Peace Prize. “Act locally, think globally: Shop Wal-Mart.”

The Mindset List

The Beloit College Mindset List is an effort to identify the worldview of incoming freshman in a given year. For example, I'm the class of 2007, that would be those generally born in late 1984 or early 1985.

Granted there is surely going to be some generalizations, it's still a neat idea to try and identify the unique experiences, or non-experiences, that shape who we are. Here are some highlights from my class and the newest freshman class:

Class of 2007
"Ctrl + Alt + Del" is as basic as "ABC."
Paul Newman has always made salad dressing.
Pete Rose has always been a gambler.
Gas has always been unleaded.
They would never leave their calling card on someone’s desk.
They have never been able to find the "return" key.
Rock and Roll has always been a force for social good.
They can still sing the rap chorus to the Fresh Prince of Bel-Air and the theme song from Duck Tales.

Class of 2011
Food packaging has always included nutritional labeling.
They’re always texting 1 n other.
The space program has never really caught their attention except in disasters.
They learned about JFK from Oliver Stone and Malcolm X from Spike Lee.
Wal-Mart has always been a larger retailer than Sears and has always employed more workers than GM.
Religious leaders have always been telling politicians what to do, or else!
They have grown up with bottled water.
They never “rolled down” a car window.
Humvees, minus the artillery, have always been available to the public.